Duncan vs. The Influentials

Much has been written about how the influential few [an elite 10%] tells the rest of us what to buy, how to vote, etc. There is a book on the topic naturally named The Influentials. A tiny cadre of highly connected elites influencing the rest of us was a key theme in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point.

Most people would look at the social graph below and say Diane is the influential in this sub-group [all of this group's connections and contacts are not shown]. She has local reach, but her message gets nowhere without the help of her network. Influence needs many connected people to spread -- not just the highly connected. Heather, Fernando or Garth all need to be in a cooperative mood for Diane's message to travel.

In social network analysis, a boundary spanner is someone who "crosses the chasm" between groups/clusters. They are not often highly connected. In the above network Fernando, Garth and Heather are all boundary spanners. They may not be influential, but they need to be ready to accept the message/trend/idea if it is going to make the jump out of their local domain and travel further. Otherwise the innovation/idea bounces around and dies in a cul de sac.

Duncan Watts, at Columbia and Yahoo! Research, has been slowly dismantling "The Influentials" theory. This Fast Company article is a good overview of his argument. He basically says that it is not the elite few that matter but the connected many and they have to be ready to be influenced. I'm with Duncan.

Originally published February 10, 2008