FAQ

The 4 principles are very complementary to FSG’s CI approach. In fact, I (Jane Wei-Skillern) have done a guest blog, describing how these principles can help to enable CI efforts to succeed. I think that they are doing good work raising awareness and helping to implement more collaborative approaches. We focus on different aspects, they more on structure, systems, driven by funders. I focus more on organic networks that emerged primarily from the bottom up, more as a mutually beneficial solution to a problem rather than driven by a funder, and put more emphasis on what I have seen to be the most critical success factors, not systems and structures, but rather trust based relationships and shared values. The 4 principles are an attempt to capture the values and norms that characterize high performing networks. I believe that the systems and structures that CI emphasizes may be helpful, but without the right values and culture, they will not likely foster a thriving network/collaboration/partnership (I am not particular about terminology either). In contrast, I believe if a collaborative/network/partnership has the right values, culture and trust that stems from that alignment, they can overcome any number of obstacles, even if they didn’t have all the of formal systems and structure in place at the outset.

All of the network leaders that I (Jane Wei-Skillern) have studied have demonstrated the four network leadership principles in their decisions and behaviors throughout their work for decisions big and small. These principles were distilled from looking at a range of successful networks and identifying what they had in common. I have found that network leaders are visionary, always keeping their eye on the prize, and resist being sidetracked by the many day to day demands and perverse incentives in the philanthropic field that in fact hinder effective and authentic collaborations. They are integrative thinkers and communicators. While some leaders have a difficult time communicating in ways that draw people to a positive way of approaching challenges, they are listeners who can see the big picture in a room and remove themselves from the fray while demonstrating presence and use the art of reflecting with honesty the varying perspectives and drawing people into a deeper exploration. At the same time, they are adept at playing by the rules and meeting the immediate demands of their boards, funders, and other constituents. They have had to be very entrepreneurial to find space to practice network leadership, sometimes under the radar, while at the same time meeting traditional short term expectations and metrics. While they may be highly accomplished, they are often exceedingly humble, open to new ideas and learning new ways to deliver on the mission. At the same time, the work is never about making their own role more important, but rather helping others in their network develop so that capacity is built and distributed throughout the field rather than dependent upon their leadership/organization.

In this vein, they often seek to actively engage others because they know that even under the best of circumstances, they cannot achieve their mission impact by going it alone. Finally, they are very good ‘people’ people. They engage authentically and openly with people, and behave with honesty, integrity and respect. They are not afraid of the vulnerability that allow partners to go below the surface and find out about mutual values, beliefs and assumptions in order to find out what the potential of a truly reciprocal relationship might do for the greater good. In turn, living by these values enables them to establish deep trust with peers and partners for the long term and establishes norms of behavior within the network that help the network sustain itself even if the network entrepreneur leaves/retires.

Going back to the days when we were in school and had the pleasure of experiencing our first collaborative learning projects we began to understand that there are varying levels of participation and delivery. Network participation can ebb and flow for a wide variety of reasons, some we might each consider more legitimate than others. To set the stage where shared accountability can succeed in limiting the need for leaders to intervene in potentially destructive ways early expectation setting is critical. This comes from sharing of feedback by members to one another and learning that assuming positive intent is possible in spite of many varying communication styles. The leader uses process interventions to help draw members to these understandings.

Conversely, another behavior we often learn in our early socialization is to talk with everyone but the challenging partner with some false sense of hope that this tactic will create a force that will somehow resolve the issue….only in the end further breaching any hope for trust. Good network leaders avoid the creation of environments where critical relationship work happens away from the network table and in unhealthy ways.

Question: How do you keep reluctant network members engaged long enough to understand the true value of network participation?

Answer: Insightful, given that we have created a society that has come to a place of expecting instant gratification. Leaders take on the key role of helping participating members visualize the possible by coming to ways to express the common interest as a higher calling, one that is truly a stretch and one that cannot be reached through technical fixes to what is currently being done. Embraced as an adaptive challenge in Heifetz and Linsky terms, participants are drawn into a space of discovery and innovation and hopefully long term commitment to a true value proposition.

Network leaders also leverage short term “wins” and share credit generously as opportunities to provide encouragement and incremental infusions of hope.

There is not necessarily a predefined number of staff or a particular structure that is required to exercise network leadership at a central office/HQ and it will certainly vary by organization. Rather, network leadership requires a shift in approach from the central office as being at the center, controlling and managing activities in the field from the top down to supporting the work on the ground from the bottom up. Instead of relying upon vertical chains of command a valuable role that the central office can play is to foster lateral relationships between units as well as relationships with outside organizations. The role of the central office then shifts to focus on supporting field offices to do their work more efficiently, effectively, and sustainably. As field units build trust with their peers, their ability to formulate joint solutions, share best practices, and hold each other accountable for results increases.

Additionally, as the field offices view the central office as a helpful resource, rather than a monitoring agency, the dynamics of the relationship become less adversarial and more open and fluid, enabling greater learning and adaptation vertically and in both directions. Rather than trying to be the hub at the center of a large multisite operation, the role of the central office declines as it becomes more of an enabler, resource mobilizer, and supporter of work in the field. The central office fills the gaps that the local field offices cannot address as readily on their own but at the same time the central office routinely delegates and defers to the field when local knowledge and expertise is most valuable, allowing for emergent, local solutions to develop. In many ways, network leadership can enhance the central and field offices’ ability to generate impact by refocusing attention to the work being done on the ground rather than expanding the central office for its own sake.

Good practice when meeting face to face includes opportunities to learn about each other as people, not just in professional roles, open celebrations of successes and authentic communication on challenges. Meetings are facilitated to encourage participation, flow and a sense of accomplishment. There are really few technology tools that help to enhance the competencies mentioned above. There are some things that we know don’t work:

• Reliance on e-mail for critical communication. Virtual communication cannot replace the need for non-verbal connection and can often lead to countless follow ups and apologies.
• Infrequent, scattered and poorly timed communication via any tool.

Many times as leaders in the nonprofit sector, when we think of networks we consider them in terms of a constellation of other nonprofits. Catalyzing an impact network across sectors with public entity partners and or with businesses are certainly a potential scenarios, and in fact often critical to achieving a social mission.

I (Marty Kooistra) would try to leave potential presuppositions about participants away from the network learning environment. For example, we know the common implications of a bureaucratic frame of reference and their potential to create boundaries that may need to be surpassed. Conversely, we also know that many public servants chose their professions to really be a servant and help others and may have the same or more passion than anyone else in the potential network.

It’s important to realize that it is common for almost all potential network partners to be somewhat entrenched and used to operating from their self-interest. The bottom line is that a trust building process will clarify all true non negotiables early in the network process and allow for necessary navigation of those areas that threaten the four key principles.