How to Manage Networks: Managing Yourself

Some useful framings to help think about how to “sell” the value of networks can be found in resources like Investing Strategically in Social Impact Networks and Catalyzing Networks for Social Change. Ultimately, messaging about the importance of networks for social impact must articulate why and how networks can create that impact -- including why we work through a network instead of a traditional organization like a nonprofit or NGO. We must be clear on the value added of networks in order to communicate with potential members, funders, and others who can support our work.

As we think about the “why” of networks, we understand that networks are the necessary and fit-for-purpose organizing model for solving complex problems and creating systems change. We can talk about complex problems (sometimes referred to as hard or wicked problems) based on a problem typology, such as the Cynefin framework, that delineates simple, complicated, and complex problems. We understand that complex problems are nonlinear, don’t demonstrate clear cause-and-effect, and can’t be solved using singular, technical solutions. As such, complex problems are often system-level problems that require us to think and operate in different ways focused on interconnectedness, relationships, and emergence.

The most critical rationale for networks is that they are necessary because the other ways of working won’t create the impact we seek in the face of the problems we must address. We cannot solve complex, system-level problems with simple solutions. Actions taken by individuals or organizations on their own will have limited impact at best when facing these types of problems. We must work in networks because they are the models that allow us to mirror and engage with the complexity of the problems we seek to address. In our messaging, we must articulate these realities as applied directly to the context of our given network and the problem it seeks to address or the change it wants to make.

Three skills are most critical for effective facilitation: listening, synthesizing, and asking questions. These are critical separately but also in combination. Facilitation is about group processes and each of these skills help to move a group process along qualitatively.

Listening: We so often hear in order to respond. True listening seeks to deeply and accurately understand what the other person is expressing. This expression includes what they say, what they don’t say, the words they choose, facial expressions, body language, and more. Listening is the foundational skill - if we’re not listening, then we’re not actually facilitating.

Synthesizing: Synthesizing is about hearing and combining the ideas of many or all group members. We synthesize to identify both the convergence and divergence within what we’re hearing. We synthesize to move the process forward by identifying points and ideas that represent the combined views of the group. We highlight both the convergence and divergence of those views to articulate where the group may agree as well as where they disagree and could discuss further to build consensus or have diverse perspectives that could/should be taken into account.

Asking questions: We ask questions to clarify, correct, deepen, and affirm our understanding of what others have said without necessarily applying our own interpretations to that. We listen and then we ask questions to ensure that we have heard things correctly. We likewise ask questions to clarify and affirm our synthesis, checking with those whose ideas we seek to synthesize to make sure we’ve adequately and appropriately represented those views. We additionally ask questions to help the group collectively analyze points of divergence and consider whether there is a consensus view that could be arrived at.

Again, these skills work in concert. We must integrate all three into our facilitation practice in order to be an effective facilitator.

There's not one specific path that all networks take, of course, but there may be a generalized path that is more common. A lot of networks start with members volunteering to take on network tasks. As the momentum and interest build, and as activities are developed and undertaken, it often becomes more and more clear that the members themselves, as volunteers, can't necessarily undertake or manage all of the tasks. Some sort of dedicated capacity - one or more network managers to coordinate, facilitate, and administer the network - often becomes necessary.

Questions about dedicated staff versus volunteers should not be viewed just from a capacity perspective: there is also a question of who should be doing what and why for and on behalf of the network. I remember speaking to a network about a year ago that was still in an early, very informal stage as a group of professionals gathered together via a Slack channel around the specific issue of increasing equity and inclusion in the tech industry. They were discussing how to formalize roles and responsibilities within their network because as the network had grown, a few volunteers had taken on more tasks. By default through their volunteering - and the lack of volunteers from a larger subset of members - this small group had taken on most management and decision-making for the network. They were now concerned about their own roles managing the network and the fact that didn’t have an official mandate from the members to do so. They wanted to formalize roles within the network in order to ensure clarity and transparency.

In this case, then, it was an issue of capacity that also had other implications for decision-making, participation, resources, etc. To that point, it's often important to have dedicated capacity - but it's particularly important to have clarity of roles and responsibilities. Whether you’re able to gather the resources to hire staff (which entails a whole other range of challenges and implications), finding clarity on roles and responsibilities - who is coordinating, who is making decisions, how the people doing those tasks are chosen, what the parameters and boundaries of their roles and responsibilities are - is perhaps even more important than deciding whether you need to bring on dedicated staff.