Social software encourages the formation of networks, not hierarchies. With networks, the more effort an individual puts in, the more the individual is rewarded if s/he is adding value. This subverts hierarchical filtering of information and gives more influence to the contributors adding the most value. In healthy, well-functioning organizations, this will be seen as a great thing because it speeds the flow of information, discovery, and expert identification – and increases the productivity of the organization as a whole. This also allows for a evolution in resource allocation in that as individuals display passion and expertise for certain topics, they will increasingly be assigned to projects that need that expertise – in effect letting individuals determine more of the work that they take on versus being assigned.

The transparency and recognition that comes as part of social technologies also allows managers to have a better understanding of who their most valuable contributors are rather than having to rely in part on bluster… with information silos where it is hard to judge the effort and value of information being generated by people, managers often have to rely on their own subjective impressions and those can be swayed greatly by individuals’ abilities to self-promote and be squeaky wheels. I’ve been on both sides of that equation – I’ve benefited as someone who puts things out there and I’ve managed people who are personally assertive. Sometimes it is backed up with output and sometimes not… but it can be hard to distinguish and even harder to quantify. Social software does still reward the ’social’ but it is also easy to see if the chatter is backed up with good content or if it is just chatter.

Social software also rewards more than one type of contributor. Certainly content creators get recognized but so to do those that filter good content and contribute liquidity to the network – people who actively recognize and promote others. That type of persona is often the one least recognized and explicitly valued by information hierarchies although anyone ‘in the know’ typically knows who those people are and uses them extensively to find out what’s going on within an organization. They are often people lowest on the hierarchy and often fairly quiet themselves but they listen, observe, and share with anyone who is interested.

So why does all this matter so much to me? I think the transparency forces honest assessment – for both individuals and organizations – that ultimately improves them. I think it allows hard work and quality to be rewarded faster. I think it makes people happier because their skills and interests become better aligned with the work they do. I think it allows for people who may not have political skills but are excellent contributors to be more justly rewarded. I think it vastly increases the productivity of organizations. I believe information and relationships are society’s most important assets… and I think social software has the ability to make us more humane again. It’s a win-win-win-win-win… and who doesn’t like that?