Jun 11 • Richard G. Brady CPsychol AFBPsS

Out of Sight, Out of the Network: The Hidden Risk of Peripheral Contributors

Empty space, drag to resize

Tareq was not failing. He was delivering. That was precisely why his isolation was so easy to miss.

In a major international project with a nuclear energy company, Tareq was a critical technical contributor. He was experienced, capable, and relied upon for specialist input. His work mattered. His judgment mattered. His knowledge mattered. From the perspective of senior leadership, there was no obvious problem. He was listed on the project structure, he was completing tasks, and he was assumed to be engaged, informed, and consulted.

However, when we looked at the people network, a different picture emerged. Tareq sat almost entirely outside the core flow of advice, trust, and information. He had only one meaningful connection into the project network, through Priya. He was not visible as someone people regularly approached for advice. He was not strongly embedded in the day-to-day communication flows. There was little evidence that he had access to informal psychosocial support. In network terms, he was a peripheral contributor.

That mattered. Not because Tareq lacked capability, but because the organization was not fully accessing, supporting, or integrating the capability he already had.

Peripheral does not mean unimportant

 A peripheral contributor is someone who sits at the edge of a people network. They may have few incoming or outgoing connections. They may not be regularly consulted. They may not be included in important information flows. They may have limited access to trusted colleagues, informal support, or the conversations where real decisions are shaped. This can happen for many reasons. The person may be remote, newly appointed, technically specialized, field-based, contracted, expatriate, or working across complex functional and organizational boundaries. They may be highly capable, but not socially visible.

The mistake is to assume that peripheral means low value. In some projects, the most peripheral person may hold knowledge that is critical to safety, quality, continuity, or delivery. This is especially important in high-consequence environments. In sectors such as energy, engineering, aviation, infrastructure, health care, and nuclear, the risks of weak connection are not simply interpersonal. They may become operational, psychosocial, and safety risks. 

What the organization chart does not show

 Formal organization charts are useful, but they do not show how work actually flows. They do not show who people go to for advice. They do not show who is trusted. They do not show whether important information is reaching the right people. They do not show who is quietly excluded from the conversations that shape decisions. This is why social network analysis is so valuable. It helps leaders see the informal architecture of work: the patterns of advice, trust, communication, access, and influence that sit behind formal structures.

Krackhardt and Hanson’s classic work on informal networks made this distinction clear. Organizations have formal structures, but they also have informal advice networks, trust networks, and communication networks. These hidden networks often explain how work really gets done, how people solve problems, and whose voice is heard. Burt’s work on structural holes and brokerage also reminds us that a person’s influence is shaped not only by their formal role or title, but by their position in the network. Some people act as bridges between groups. Others become bottlenecks. Some are trusted hubs. Others are isolated at the edge.

In Tareq’s case, the issue was not his competence. The issue was his position in the network. He was critical, but isolated. 

Figure 1. Mentis SONAR network view: Tareq as a critical but isolated peripheral contributor.

A critical contributor with only one pathway into the network

The network map tells a simple but important story. The core team is connected through advice, trust, and information flows. People exchange updates, seek input, consult each other, and remain visible to one another. Tareq, however, sits outside the core network. His only visible connection is with Priya. This matters because one connection is fragile. If Priya is unavailable, overloaded, excluded from a meeting, or not fully aware of a technical concern, Tareq’s voice may not reach the wider system. His insight may not be surfaced. His warning signals may not be heard. His need for support may remain invisible.

The danger is not always obvious. Tareq may still appear professional. He may still meet deadlines. He may still produce good work. He may not complain. He may even believe that isolation is simply part of the job. But the network data tells leaders something important: a person can be delivering work and still be disconnected from the relationships needed to support safe, informed, and effective contribution. 

The leadership assumption

 One of the most common assumptions in organizations is that if the work is being delivered, the person must be engaged. That assumption is understandable, but it is not always safe. A person may be performing while feeling isolated. They may be completing tasks while lacking voice. They may be attending meetings without being truly consulted. They may be technically responsible while remaining socially disconnected.

In high-pressure project environments, people often adapt. They keep going. They find workarounds. They avoid appearing difficult. They may not escalate concerns until much later, especially if they do not feel psychologically safe or well connected. This creates an illusion of inclusion. The person appears engaged because outputs continue. But output is not the same as connection. Attendance is not the same as voice. A reporting line is not the same as support. Being copied into an email is not the same as being included in the advice, trust, and information flows that shape real decisions. 

Figure 2. What is at risk when a critical contributor is isolated from the people network.

What is at risk?

 The risks of peripheral contribution can be understood in three connected areas: safety risks, psychosocial risks, and organizational risks.

First, there are safety risks. In high-consequence environments, isolation can become a safety issue. Critical information may not reach the person who needs it. Ground-level concerns may not be escalated quickly enough. Technical blind spots may remain unchallenged. Decisions may be made without the benefit of specialist knowledge. If Tareq is outside the advice and information network, the project may not know what he knows. This can be dangerous. It means that weak signals may be missed, early warnings may not be heard, and risks may be recognized too late. In lower-risk settings, this may create frustration or inefficiency. In high-risk settings, it can become a systems risk.

Second, there are psychosocial risks. Isolation is not only a communication problem. It is also a human risk. People need more than tasks. They need connection, belonging, recognition, support, and voice. When a contributor is ignored or marginalized, the impact can be significant. They may experience stress, anxiety, frustration, or emotional strain. They may lose confidence that their contribution matters. They may feel invisible. They may stop speaking up. They may become disengaged, not because they lack commitment, but because the system has not created the conditions for meaningful contribution.

ISO 45003 highlights the importance of managing psychosocial risks at work, including factors related to work organization, social support, role clarity, involvement, consultation, and exposure to harmful working conditions. A peripheral contributor with low visibility, limited support, and little involvement in relevant decisions may therefore represent more than a network pattern. They may represent an avoidable psychosocial risk.

Third, there are organizational risks. Critical expertise may be underused. Leaders may make decisions without the full picture. Quality issues may remain hidden. Rework, delay, and cost may increase. Trust may weaken across the project. Talent may be lost because people do not feel recognized or included. Peripheral contribution can also create succession and continuity risks. If a critical contributor is isolated, the organization may not understand what that person knows, how they contribute, or what would be lost if they disengaged or left.

In Tareq’s case, the central concern was simple. The organization assumed he was engaged and consulted. The network evidence suggested he was isolated and ignored. That gap between assumption and reality is where risk lives. 

What good looks like

 The goal is not to make everyone central - that leads to over-communication and potentially burnout. Not every person needs to be a hub. Not every person needs to be involved in every conversation. Not every specialist wants or needs high levels of social connection. The goal is more practical. Critical contributors should be visible enough, connected enough, and supported enough for their expertise to be used safely and effectively.

This means leaders need to ask better questions. Who holds critical knowledge but sits at the edge of the network? Who is relied upon but rarely consulted? Who is remote, specialist, or cross-boundary and therefore easy to overlook? Who has only one connection into the wider team? Who may be performing well but lacking psychosocial support? Where are we assuming inclusion without evidence? These questions are especially important in complex projects where formal structures do not fully reflect the way work gets done.

There are practical steps leaders can take. They can map advice, trust, and information flows to understand whether critical contributors are genuinely connected or merely listed on the organization chart. They can identify people who are both important and peripheral. This is one of the most important combinations to notice. Low connection may not matter much for some roles, but it matters greatly when the person holds critical technical, operational, or relational knowledge.

Leaders can also create more than one route into the network. A single connection, even a strong one, can create dependency. Critical contributors need more than one trusted pathway for advice, escalation, and support. Leaders can build intentional inclusion into project routines through structured consultation, technical reviews, peer check-ins, mentoring links, decision forums, and explicit escalation channels. Most importantly, they can treat network isolation as a leadership signal, not a personal failing. The question is not, “Why is this person not more connected?” The better question is, “What have we designed, rewarded, or overlooked that allows critical people to remain outside the flow of work?” 

What Mentis SONAR helps reveal

 Mentis SONAR helps organizations explore this informal architecture of work. It examines how people connect through advice, trust, communication, access, linkage, and receptivity. It helps identify hidden leaders, advice hubs, boundary spanners, trusted colleagues, bottlenecks, and peripheral contributors. Used carefully, this kind of insight can support safer collaboration, better project visibility, stronger psychosocial risk awareness, improved inclusion, more effective leadership development, better use of specialist expertise, and earlier identification of hidden risks.

This is not about replacing leadership judgment. It is about improving it. Leaders often care deeply about inclusion, engagement, safety, and wellbeing. But without network insight, they may only see what is formally visible. Mentis SONAR helps leaders see what organization charts, meeting lists, and assumptions may miss. 

The wider lesson

 Tareq’s story is not unusual. Many organizations have people like him: capable, committed, and critical, but not sufficiently connected. Sometimes they are remote specialists. Sometimes they are technical experts. Sometimes they are new joiners. Sometimes they are people from underrepresented groups who have not been fully included in informal networks. Sometimes they are experienced professionals who are assumed to be fine because they do not ask for help.

The people who are least visible are not always the least important. Sometimes they are the people carrying knowledge, judgment, and risk that the organization cannot afford to overlook. Quite often they are the introverts in the network.

In high-consequence environments, isolation is not only a people issue. It can become a safety issue, a psychosocial risk, and an organizational performance risk. That is why leaders need to look beyond the chart. They need to understand the network. And they need to ask one simple question: “Who are we depending on, but not really connecting with?” 

References

 Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166121

International Organization for Standardization. (2021). Occupational health and safety management — Psychological health and safety at work — Guidelines for managing psychosocial risks (ISO Standard No. 45003:2021).

Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104–111. 
Empty space, drag to resize
Stay Updated on Talent Innovation, Events & Product Launches
By providing this information, you agree that we may process your personal data in accordance with our Privacy Statement.

  • Resources

  • Insights
  • Partners
  • Success Stories