The next two questions I want to address concern informal networks and close relationships. And one of the questions was informal networks grapevine, how can the company’s management monitor the informal networks inside the company? Can the management actually control these informal internal networks while the members may be unaware of this approach. This was Adrianna's question. You know, ever since 1939 and before people like Chester Barnard wrote Functions of the Executive and there's this great book called Management and the Worker by Roethlisberger and Dixon. They all studied firms and they wanted to know, can you engineer the informal organization, can we guide it, because it seemed like, the kinds of informal groups that people formed affected work productivity, right. So it's always been kind of an interest, and Chester Barnard thought that if we could just find a way to kind of guide that emergent set of relations so that it was productive for work or heighten work norms and productivity norms, that would be great. So I think that's the kind of spirit that's continued on today. And I think there are lots of ways to study informal networks, ethical ways. I also think there's quite a few ways to try to alter them without being kind of cruel. I think it's just something that you can do to kind of encourage and facilitate. So let me describe some of those. There's lots of ways you can study it. So one is surveys. You can ask people who they go to for advice. I don't think there is much harm in that, knowing how the network is structured and who feels kind of like they're advice-deficient or struggling with work. You can alter the network form by seeding and things like that, to place people that are advice-deficient or in need of it next to people who have more of it or who give more or more of a prominent actor in that kind of network. Other ways you can do it is just to observe who eats with whom. I mean, eating, if you want to know close relationships, eating is considered one of those activities where we do with people we like, and it's personal, right? So you can also look at other activities people do. Observe and record, and you can quickly develop a network diagram of your company and how people associate. You may not get everything but you will go quite a ways. At universities we do human subjects committees where we make sure we do not harm people, because one of the things that is actually really important but we don't study enough is negative ties or people we dislike, that we avoid, or try not to be like. And there are ethical issues there about asking people who they don't like that could potentially harm them. So that's why we often study positive kind of affect relations because we keep them confidential, but still it's kind of less of a concern if it got out. In terms of other kinds of means of studying networks in firms. I know quite a few companies own the emails you do. And it sounds kind of scary a little bit but they can map those emails without your permission and quickly see kind of patterns of interactions. Now that might be feasible for say, firms where an intelligence group or a military kind of group, but that's feasible, that's the kind of thing that might be amenable to that organization. Others, it may be kind of an affront so you need to be careful there. Facebook, the use of Facebook and LinkedIn may also help, but you need permissions. That's not owned by you, it's owned by Facebook and LinkedIn, that kind of information, but you also have to keep in mind that those kinds of mappings of say, what you can do on LinkedIn now, showing your own map of network of your relationships, that some of those relations may not even be real people, they may be fan sites, they can be headhunters on LinkedIn, or they can even be deceased. So there is certain kinds of problems with those networks that are being kind of agglomerated on these sites that it's not always clear they really are a friendship or a real relationship. That's why surveys are nice because we have some kind of consistency, at least in terms of what they report as an advice relation. So there are things to think about there, but I think there are feasible ways to study it, even with children like kindergarteners. I've seen studies where they put two baskets in a pile of photos in front of the children, and they say, can you put your friends that you like to play with in this one basket on the left? And then, the kids sort through the photos and they put them there, and that's how you learn about their networks, and that can be useful too. So, there are a variety of ways to do it. You know, records, to company records. I use company records at Stanford, and, hopefully, all the things we use, actually, are quite you know they are not a problem in anybody's personal affairs, they are public information. So compiling that too can show quite a bit of activity. One of the things to ask though, is the informal an or a problem, and it can kind of switch between the two. So in a lot of workplaces, families and friends coming to work and being involved in work or contacts, elsewhere could be a problem if they invade work or create problems for it. But on the other hand, external relations can be a source of information, so it's feasible that that's a good thing. Same thing internally, the internal informal relationships can facilitate communication and create communities, right? But not if those relationships have nothing to do with work, and not if it's about bullying or what have you, right? So, it depends, and the same thing with networks in terms of information, they can be great for collecting information, but on the other hand, they can also be terrible for disseminating information that you don't want leaked, so they work in multiple ways. I think the bottomline is that you'd like to co-opt or at least help facilitate the informal network, and there's a variety of things and I talked about a bunch in the lecture. So, I think you have a set that you can work with, you know, altering teams, roles, and where people are situated is the most common and the most feasible. And just thinking about what you would like to optimize and the kind of information, the kinds of subject matter you want them to focus on in those relationships, that they build relationships around certain contents about work. That would be ideal. So that's the kind of thing I would try to prescribe. The second question, or I think I'm up to the fifth question actually, was by Eugenia. And she asked, close relationships or family ties between colleagues, are they bad? Do close relationships distract and make you less efficient, or do they help? So I think most of your comments on the forum are right. I mean, some say it was a problem, others say it affords trust and intimacy. So there is kind of a distinction here. I think there's a collision though between distinct relational norms and obligations. We all know that there's been a long history of how entrepreneurs have refunctioned one type of tie to another. So back in the Renaissance, marriage was used for business purposes, right? So clearly back then, you know, one type of tie, close relationships of family were used for business without concern. But personal relationships are following norms of particularism. That means that you favor those individuals. You like them, you support them and often unconditionally. Now, in the workplace, work relationships are frequently based upon a norm of universalism, right? Or meritocracy. Hence the two, when the combine, can become a point of disputes. And a good example is this General Petraeus right now. But I think it can extend to other relations besides romance. It can be about family ties or friends. Anything that kind of favors a partner, brings favoritism into the workplace, and can be perceived as such, could be conflicts. On the other hand, I also see what people are saying in terms of there is this opposite ideal. I mean, where else do you meet your future partners if it’s not at work. Most people do, actually. So it’s about a little bit of a concern there that that's often a place where we spend most of our time. So it's feasible that, you know, we're human, these things happen. And we form bonds, and we form romantic bonds. So that's feasible, and I think there's also this ideal that wouldn't it be neat kind of thing that, I always think like an academic, what's the ideal relationship, well it's two intellectuals or soulmates and coworkers, right, kind of like Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, right? [COUGH] But it sounds great to share such a deep bond with someone else that includes the intellectual, the work, and your personal life. But I think unfortunately, you know we're people and problems arise in the workplace. And these worlds and norms can collide. So for example, in one department in some campus I heard about the story of where faculty married their students. And then eventually they hired those students as faculty. And then they divorce their students, and then those individuals remarried again and brought them on the faculty, and then you have this dysfunctional environment where nobody gets along. And, in fact, in that case, the case I'm thinking or recalling, they had to get an external department chair to run that case or that department because nobody like each other or would listen to each other. So, there's a clear potential for dysfunction. So ultimately, I think maintaining clear separations about these relationships and their norms. I mean, the idea is that, can I convince you not to use your wife as an informant on a project, and explain to you how might be unfair to others and break the company code of conduct. I mean is that something that can be done, well then fine, and then it's feasible too that you can keep people on separate buildings or separate branches, so that this kind of conflicts of interest don't arise, or conflicts of different norms of relating don't arise.