Informal networks in companies are the communication and trust relationships that arise in parallel to formal structures and cannot be planned. They decide who turns to whom in uncertain situations and whether an organization can adapt quickly. In product development and software testing in particular, they enable cross-departmental collaboration that no process document can enforce.
Key Takeaways
- Informal networks develop in parallel to formal structures and decide who someone really turns to when a problem arises, not to every colleague, but to confidants.
- Trust cannot be enforced through processes: Companies can establish formal communication channels, but whether people really trust each other and act on them is beyond any instruction.
- Organizations with established informal networks adapt more quickly to changing requirements because trust makes the necessary risk for new paths possible in the first place.
- Cross-functional product discovery, in which people with technical and product backgrounds jointly evaluate user feedback, also strengthens informal connections between departments.
- Introverted people do not need a set number of relationships, but rather open spaces such as hackathons where they can network without pressure.
What are informal networks in the company?
Informal networks are the communication channels that arise parallel to the formal organizational structure. They don’t appear in any organization chart, but they determine who you turn to when something happens.
Yuliia Pieskova describes the mechanism with a simple observation: who you work with because you have chosen to do so feels different from who you have to work with. This difference is not a character flaw, but part of our intrinsic motivation. Better framework conditions for communication increase the likelihood that work will succeed.
If you have a genuine question, you rarely go through official channels. They ask the person they trust. And this is often not the next team colleague on the organization chart, but someone from a completely different area.
Why trust is the basis of every collaboration
Trust is the prerequisite for informal networks to function at all. Without trust, no one talks openly about uncertainty and no one takes risks.
Formal structures lack precisely this trust. If something goes wrong and you don’t know what to do, you need someone you can talk to without having to justify yourself. You need even more trust to take action, try something new and take the risk.
Trust cannot be imposed by process. Some organizations believe they can mandate it. In practice, you can say “of course we trust each other”, but you have no direct influence on that. Trust comes from working together, not from an announcement.
This point is particularly relevant for testers. Anyone who reports bugs is dependent on a relationship in which reporting is not read as an attacker. The culture in which a tester is seen as the bearer of bad news just by passing by blocks exactly the kind of cooperation that quality needs.
Informal networks determine adaptability
Informal networks are the best tester of an organization’s resilience. The faster a company can adapt to new requirements, the more it relies on these channels rather than the organizational chart.
Formal networks have two limitations here. Firstly, they can hardly be defined in advance because nobody knows what will happen next. Secondly, they lack the trust needed to act in an unclear situation.
Those who have people at their side whom they trust are more capable of acting. This also means less stress for the organization. Otherwise, the game begins in which the organization chart is constantly being redrawn because two departments that should be talking to each other are not.
Working from home uncovers existing problems, it doesn’t create them
Remote and hybrid working have made problems visible that were already there. Teams with a functioning culture of trust were able to adapt more easily because the foundations were already in place.
An example: If you trust a developer and they say they don’t feel like turning on the camera today, it’s not a problem. If there is a lack of trust, the same camera that is switched off immediately becomes a burden. The behavior is the same, the interpretation depends on trust.
Distributed working also brings real advantages. Silos between locations can be broken down more easily because it doesn’t matter whether someone from Munich, Berlin or another country joins the call. Spontaneous encounters at the coffee machine may be missing, but there is a need for consciously designed opportunities to replace these unplanned contacts.
Forced coffee calls are not the solution. Anyone who is asked to have a mandatory chat after eight hours in front of the screen will find it an additional burden. What is needed are formats in which people voluntarily find something interesting.
Product development benefits from mixed teams
Modern product discovery thrives on people from different backgrounds working together to evaluate user behavior. In the past, this was the sole task of a product manager who spoke to customers and looked through analysis data.
Today, people from different areas are involved. This does not mean that the entire development team travels to the customer. It means going through key figures together, watching usage videos or interacting directly with users as part of a product evaluation.
User feedback doesn’t just mean what they say in an interview, but how they actually interact with the product. This observation combines technical knowledge with a view of the product.
When these people return to their teams, they carry a clear, shared picture with them. They are on the same page as the others, and the relationships that develop continue to have an effect. An abstract department becomes a person you’ve worked with before and can call on.
Newcomers have an underestimated value here. They don’t know the history of the product and ask unbiased questions precisely because they don’t know any better. This openness can be put to good use.
How to engage introverts without forcing them
You give introverts space and trust them to build relationships in their own way. They often have fewer contacts at work, but deeper ones.
It makes no sense to impose the same quota on everyone. Nobody needs “four relationships with this department and four with that department” as an annual goal. Every person is different.
It makes more sense to create an environment where collaboration is rewarded and then let people go. You ask how someone is doing and what you can do to help. You invite people to a hackathon or a casual meeting. If you feel comfortable, you make the contacts yourself.
The attitude behind it: Create spaces, invite, trust. Don’t force yourself into a structure.
Alignment is the concrete first step
Alignment means talking openly about collaboration early on, before the work begins. What does good teamwork mean to you? What communication works for you, and what do you find difficult?
With technical people, this suggestion is often met with resistance because it sounds like soft stuff that doesn’t seem very tangible. That’s why real examples help instead of abstract appeals.
Yuliia uses her own as an example: she comes from a very direct culture in which a request in a commanding tone is completely normal. In her work with people from the UK, this has repeatedly led to misunderstandings because direct feedback was seen as impolite. Conversely, their feedback seemed too vague to her, wrapped up in lots of friendly words, so that it remained unclear whether it was praise or criticism.
If it doesn’t make sense to you, then we’re just wasting our time here. Yuliia Pieskova
Naming such differences in advance takes the edge off them. If both sides know that a reaction can be direct or vague, they can talk about it instead of being offended. Then it’s time to take action and there’s less need to talk.
Alignment is feasible at team level. Organizational structure is difficult to influence, but the type of cooperation within your own team is not.
Addressing the pink elephant
Anyone who joins a new team should say what everyone is thinking but no one is saying. Often a team does not want change, and the person who is supposed to bring it about knows this.
An elaborate workshop with a lot of glitz looks out of place in this situation. The team would perceive someone like that as unrealistic. Openly stating that you see the skepticism is the first step towards trust.
It is helpful to involve someone with a good reputation in the team who speaks the group’s language. That way, you won’t be preparing something on your own that doesn’t reflect the team’s culture.
Yuliia counters this with a broader observation: The working world is still dominated by a ‘me’ culture. Doing things together is rarely taken for granted. If it were more normal for new people to first learn how to work together instead of just learning the task, it would be easier for everyone to get started.
