Where can network managers find common shared messaging about the importance of networks for social impact to help us make the case for support of our work?

June 16, 2021

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. 

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: shared messaging, social impact

If our network is just sharing information and learning from one another but not undertaking coordinated collective action, are we still a network?

June 9, 2021

The short answer is yes. Collective Mind’s definition of a network is an organizing model comprised of individuals and/or organizations with common interests who work together to achieve shared goals. Referring to our network diagnostic framework, we believe that, at their core, networks must have two foundational network capacities of a) a shared purpose and b) a membership. Any network must have these two core capacities to be a network. (You can learn more about our network diagnostic framework by joining our open Networks 101.)

A network’s shared purpose is the visionary goal shared by everyone involved in the network. Networks do different types of activities – what we call network functions – to try to achieve their shared purpose. Some network functions are more common across networks than others, such as information sharing and community building. Others are more complicated to undertake together, such as advocacy and policy influence or thought leadership and field-building. And some of the network functions -- such as learning and capacity building -- might be necessary to be able to undertake those more complicated functions. For example, we may need to learn together in order to come to shared positions for advocacy. Any network will undertake its own configuration of network functions based on its shared purpose and membership.

What we always come back to is why we’re working within a network as opposed to a traditional organization. We work in networks because we not only have common interests but also have shared goals and want to work towards them together. We recognize that we cannot achieve those goals without working together across the membership. The specific activities will vary but should always be directed towards achieving the shared purpose through the collaboration of the network’s members.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: network, shared purpose, network functions

What are the most critical skills of an effective facilitator?

June 2, 2021

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 in order 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 in order to clarify and affirm our synthesis, checking with those whose ideas we seek to synthesize in order to make sure we’ve adequately and appropriately represented those views. We additionally ask questions in order 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.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: facilitation, network management

What does “collective action” mean for a network?

MAY 19, 2021

When we think about collective action within networks we can think about both the “what” and the “how.” To start, let’s clarify the definition of “network”. Our Collective Mind definition is that networks are organizing models that integrate participants who have common interests and work together to achieve shared goals. There is a built-in condition that common interests are necessary but not sufficient: a network must also a) have shared goals and b) be working towards achieving them together. Collective action in a network is then action within and across the network to achieve the shared goals. In other words, it is the work that members do together towards achieving the network’s shared purpose.

Collective action within a network can take many forms. These forms are the network functions, or types of activities, that any network may undertake in order to work towards its shared purpose. Network functions include activities like information sharing, knowledge management, learning and capacity building, and community building as well as advocacy and policy influence and thought leadership and field-building. A network will undertake the network functions, or configuration therein, that are most appropriate for its shared purpose and relevant to its membership – which means that collective action will look differently for different networks.

Each network function seeks to capture the combined value that lies within the network and, ideally, create value that is more than the sum of those combined parts. This is key to the “how”: that members are doing the work and working together. This is what’s different about a network – members are enabled and supported to define the goals and work together to achieve them together.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: network, collective action, network functions, shared purpose

What’s the difference between a member association and a network?

MAY 12, 2021

Member associations and networks exist along a continuum of member-based organizing models. In both member associations and networks, members who have common interests come together. Both member associations and networks may have a shared purpose, or a visionary goal that they seek to achieve through the organization. The core difference between a member association and a network is about where and how work gets done – i.e. how value gets created – and by whom.

Member associations are member-serving while networks are member-enabling. Member associations typically serve their members with benefits and offerings. The work of creating those benefits and offerings is done by a staff, the mission of which is to serve the members. These services will likely be created in response to member needs, but it is primarily the job of the staff to develop them and make them available to members. A network enables members to work together. Any benefits or offerings are devised by the members collectively through their collaborative efforts to set and achieve shared goals. Any staff (or volunteer) network managers are there not to deliver services but to facilitate, coordinate, and administer the members as they collaborate.

In a network, value is created by members, not for members. The types of activities of a member association or of a network – such as knowledge sharing or learning and capacity building – may be the same. What is different is that in a network, these activities are undertaken by the members themselves. The expectations within a member association will also likely be structured differently. For example, members will likely pay a fee to join a member association, for which they expect to receive benefits and services. In a network, members join in order to create value together. Members may pay fees (as they do in some networks) but members contribute also and primarily through their participation in helping to define and undertake activities, big and small.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: network, member association, shared purpose

What technology do you use for members to register for events and track attendance?

MAY 5, 2021

Tool and platform selection is a common topic within our community of network practitioners, and even within Collective Mind. We, like many others, always seek to balance the number of platforms we use with their ease of use and maintenance, alongside their potential cost and their short- and long-term value as we grow. But we often recommend the same starting point whether you’re looking for a tool for communication and member engagement, selecting a technology for event registration and attendance tracking, or selecting a suite of platforms for business growth - to intentionally reflect on your specific needs before deciding on a technology. First, what are your event goals and priorities and how do they fit within your functional network goals, both in the near and long term? If a main goal is to save time for you/the network’s staff and reduce the need for manual attendance tracking, then a priority should be to find an event platform with robust attendance tracking and reporting built into the core features of the platform. If your goal is to understand the value of your events to your network members, it's helpful to look for a platform that can enable you to create participant profiles, track and report on the frequency and consistency with which members attend your network events, paired with survey capability to assess their qualitative experiences.

Your goals may also be influenced by the type of events you plan to hold. Large events - like multi-day virtual trainings or network-wide general assemblies - may require a higher level of tracking needs and metrics versus smaller virtual gatherings. One event type may require automated, integrated and seamless tracking and reporting and the other may call for the attendance tracking to be more manual by design to maintain an informal, low-pressure environment.

If a complementary goal is for your event platform to seamlessly integrate with your network’s other platforms, you can narrow your search to only focus on those that readily provide those integrations. Or you can explore services like Zapier that link your technology platforms and automate the workflows between them. Workflow is key when one of your goals is to “string” your platforms together. Once you select your range of technologies, a well-defined and documented workflow, whether automated or manual, will help streamline your processes.

Answering these questions can help you narrow the field of options and guide you towards the right mix of technology to meet your goals. And as is always true with networks, you may need to modify or refresh your technology choices as your network evolves and your goals change alongside it.

Author: Seema Patel
Keywords: technology, tools, event management

How can we activate the 90% of members within our network who are dormant?

April 28, 2021

First, it’s important to keep in mind that participation in a network is usually in a volunteer capacity and almost always self-directed. There’s no way to force participation. Additionally, there will always be an ebb and flow in participation that is normal and natural. It’s not necessarily a reflection on whether you're doing your job or not, or how valuable the network necessarily is to the members. It can result from any number of other things, personal or organizational, going on for your members.

That said, there are a couple of fundamental reasons why members might not participate: they don’t find value in the activities of the network and/or they don’t have meaningful ways to participate in those activities. We have to recall our network’s shared purpose and the reason that members are coming to the network in the first place -- because they want to achieve value for themselves and to create value together. Any member will need to feel that they’re achieving a return on the investment of their time, attention, energy, etc. If they don’t, they’ll opt out.

Members will do the same if they don’t feel they have ways to participate meaningfully. Meaningful participation is not just about the ends -- i.e. about the value they can create -- but also about the means: that the ways in which they participate feel good to them. As network leaders and managers, our job is to create the channels and mechanisms through which diverse members with differing interests and needs can participate. This can be as simple as practical considerations like rotating phone calls for people on different time zones so the timing is more equitable or providing people opportunities to share their views through one of a range of multiple channels that feel safe and appropriate to them. Our responsibility is to create multiple ways for people to participate in any given activity if they find value in it.

This is how we can understand member engagement. A network leader’s or manager's responsibility is not to force people to participate but to help them to find ways to engage that are meaningful to them based on the value that they can achieve for themselves separately and together.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: members, member engagement, participation

For the organizational functions of a network, what's your experience of whether it's best to have those functions fulfilled by staff or whether they work well decentralized across the network?

April 21, 2021

Organizational functions are one of the three components of Collective Mind’s network diagnostic framework, along with network capacities and network functions. Organizational functions are defined as the core operational activities that underpin network functions, structures, and processes. They include communications, IT, human resources, finance, and administration, among others.

Any given network will both have different organization functions it needs to fulfill and different ways of doing so. What your network’s organizational functions are will be determined by lots of variables. A couple of common variables would be whether or not your network is its own registered legal entity and whether you have staff or not. Being a registered legal entity and/or having staff likely bring greater needs for fulfilling more organizational functions, such as human resources and IT to support staff or finance and administration systems to comply with legal requirements and regulations.

Let’s look at two real-life examples. The first example is a network that is not a registered legal entity but has 10 staff who are hired by four different member organizations on behalf of the network. Each of these hiring organizations will fulfill some organizational functions on behalf of the network, e.g. human resources in the hiring and payment of those staff. But some organizational functions might need to be cross-cutting, for example, where you need to track and manage finances across all of those staff and hiring organizations. You might then need a specific person, in-house to your network or outsourced, to be able to do this cross-network financial management and perhaps donor reporting.

Another example is a network that is a registered legal entity but doesn’t have any staff. That network is required by law to fulfill certain organizational functions, such as finance and administration, based on its legal status as an organization. In order to comply with regulations, it has set up a voluntary council with a one-year term and different task-focused committees to fulfill the organizational functions of the network.

These examples are to demonstrate that there are lots of potential configurations for how organizational functions will be fulfilled based on what a network needs. Your goal in whatever scenario you have is to minimize the complications. It's not an inherently bad thing, for example, to have the organizational functions spread across multiple entities or members. You just have to find clarity, transparency, and coherence in whatever your arrangements are.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: organizational functions

What are the distinctions between an NGO and a network that can help me think about this new way of working together?

APRIL 14, 2021

There are a number of key distinctions we can highlight between an NGO and a network. They relate to both the practice of being a network and the rationale for one in the first place.

First and foremost is the rationale for working through a network, which is premised on what we’re trying to achieve. The reason we work in a network is that we have a shared purpose that is something that nobody can achieve by themselves. If one organization -- whether an NGO or a corporate firm, for that matter -- could achieve that shared purpose, they would just do so. But the types of shared purpose that networks are typically organized around are more complex. And the more complex they are, the more they necessitate -- absolutely require -- collaboration.

The complexity of the shared purpose requires that the network embody that complexity through the diversity of its members who come at the shared purpose from different perspectives with different ideas and resources to contribute to it. Anything that happens is collaborative and based on the inputs, work, and support from the members. We need the members to achieve the shared purpose: the potential and value in a network sit within the membership.

Once we understand the rationale for working through a network, the practice of being a network is about fostering the participation and contributions of the members. Doing that has implications for roles and responsibilities across the network -- such as how the members engage in the network, how any dedicated staff support that engagement, and how outputs and outcomes are achieved. Our ways of working must adapt to a horizontal organizing model that creates value through the participation of dispersed, decentralized members who are in fact the heart of the network.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: definition of network, NGO, collaboration

Could you expand more on the idea of thought leadership in networks?

March 31, 2021

For Collective Mind, thought leadership, together with field-building, is a network function, i.e. an activity through which a network seeks to achieve its Shared Purpose. In many cases, a network is working in a specific topical space and is bringing together different actors who work in that space, or field as we could call it. In order to work towards the network’s Shared Purpose, the network must spearhead technical and policy progress in that field, bringing attention and legitimacy to it by establishing good practice or promoting new ideas. Thought leadership and building the field can mean undertaking or synthesizing research, curating existing knowledge or fostering the development of further evidence, establishing foundational ideas and principles, or reevaluating and disproving commonly-held beliefs. In practice this could mean, for example, holding an annual conference that supports the production and dissemination of cutting edge research for that field, building new conceptual frameworks to improve understanding and practice, or developing a set of best-practice standards for how practitioners and organizations working in that field should operate. Often these types of thought leadership and field-building activities also overlap with advocacy and policy influence activities.

What’s particularly important about how thought leadership and field-building is undertaken by a network is that these activities involve the network membership. New research or ideas developed and promoted by a multi-stakeholder network that represents different types of actors and organizations in that field can be more powerful than that developed by one individual or organization. Activities to build the field are more coherent, comprehensive, and impactful when you include and integrate the views and ideas of the range of key actors in that field. This is where the power of networks lies.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: thought leadership, network functions

We’re searching for online platforms and tools that we can use for communications and engagement with our members. Do you have any advice or recommendations?

March 24, 2021

We often hear from network managers and leaders who are searching for technology tools to help them communicate with and engage members. Some networks use familiar platforms like Microsoft Teams, Facebook groups, LinkedIn, Slack, and WhatsApp, as well as email and newsletters, for group communications, engagement, and information or knowledge sharing. Some utilize other tools to achieve specific tasks like Miro (for collaboration), MemberClicks (for member databases), Loomio (for decision-making), or ImpactMapper (for tracking and measuring outcomes and impacts).

While there seem to be lots of tools available with different capacities, from what we hear, no one tool seems to exist that really meets all the combined needs of networks. So, determining what tools or platforms are right for you and your network requires some deeper thinking about why you need the tool, what you want it to do for you, and what using it will mean for your members. There are a number of challenges to member uptake. We hear, for example, that networks struggle to bring in software that requires members to learn how to use new tools they’re not already familiar with or to login to another platform (in addition to the many they’re already using for their work and personal lives).

It’s clear that we need better tools that can do more for networks. But, ultimately, I’m not sure that any technology can exist that will do everything we want it to. No technology can ensure consistent, meaningful member engagement. No tool can create the serendipitous connections that face-to-face meetings do. And members won’t necessarily engage on an online platform any more than they will offline or in-person. Technology is a tool to help us but we still have to do the hard work to engage, facilitate, and coordinate members.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: technology, tools, communications, member engagement

What’s the difference between a network and a community?

March 17, 2021

Determining the difference between a network and a community first requires understanding what we mean by each term. For Collective Mind, we define “network” as an organizing model that integrates participants who have common interests and work together to achieve shared goals. All three parts of this definition are important to us: a) the existence of common interests, b) the existence of shared goals, and c) collective action to achieve those goals. Comparatively, we might define “community” - such as a community within a neighborhood or a community of professionals - as people who have common interests (a) but don’t necessarily have shared goals (b) that they’re together working to achieve (c).

It is less about what the collective is called and more about what it does. A network doesn’t have to use the label “network” - it might be called “community” - but it does matter that it integrates all of the three elements (a, b, and c) of the definition. The rationale for determining the difference between a network and a community is not to get caught up in semantics but that in clarifying what organizing model we’re working with, we can better understand how to make our network or community better towards whatever ends it is trying to achieve.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: definition of network, community

What do you mean by network leadership? Is it the leadership team of a network that you're referring to or the network itself taking a leadership role in its field?

March 10, 2021

As per your question, these are two different things. We refer to the network itself taking a leadership role in its field as thought leadership and field-building. In Collective Mind’s diagnostic framework for understanding networks, this falls under the component of network functions, or the activities that a network undertakes to achieve its Shared Purpose. Thought leadership is about spearheading technical or policy progress in service of addressing the problem or issue that is central to the network’s vision and mission.

Network leadership is leadership for the network itself. It is about guiding, directing, and facilitating the network and its members. Network leadership is first about the types of leadership that exist within the network in terms of roles and responsibilities. Leadership in a network will range from formal to informal, from people in specific roles tasked with certain responsibilities - such as a governing body or the most senior person on a network’s staff - to members themselves informally taking on leadership by, for example, connecting members or bringing new members in, mobilizing resources on behalf of the network, taking the initiative to come up with new ideas and organize members to take them on and develop them further.

Network leadership is also about the style and approaches of leadership that are most appropriate within a network and support its effectiveness and impact. Leadership within a network is radically different from the leadership styles and approaches we see in traditional organizations. Leadership in a network does not control and command; it convenes, facilitates, and coordinates. It is about fostering interactions, connections, and relationships in order to define and solve problems collaboratively and collectively. There is no “leader as hero” in a network - there is only the “we” that does the hard work of collaborating.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: leadership

I’ve been reading about network mindset. How do you define it and what does it mean in practice?

March 3, 2021

Network mindset is encompassed in Collective Mind’s network diagnostic framework within the capacity of Culture - it is part of the shared values, norms, attitudes, and practices of a network that maintain its Shared Purpose and foster ongoing collaboration. In many ways, network mindset is at the heart of what we try to do through networks. It reminds us of why we organize via networks instead of more traditional organizations and how we have to operate differently in a network environment. Networks work horizontally instead of vertically. Instead of the top-down, directive approach of setting and achieving goals that we find in traditional organizations, networks operate through connections and relationships, without explicit lines of control and accountability. Activities to achieve outputs and outcomes in networks are facilitated and coordinated, and members’ participation in them is self-directed based on their interest in the network’s Shared Purpose and a desire to achieve that Shared Purpose through collective action.

Network mindset is about prioritizing and fostering the relationships between members through which everything in a network gets done. This means both prioritizing trust-building and facilitating and coordinating productive collaboration that reinforces the premise that goals can be set and achieved collectively. Network mindset is then both a belief and a practice. It is a belief that collective action that is collaborative as opposed to controlled can achieve shared goals. And it is the practice of facilitating and coordinating that collective action through inclusive, equitable participation. It’s about how things are done, and network leaders and managers, in particular, have a major responsibility in ensuring that network mindset is embedded into everything the network does and how it does it.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: network mindset, culture

We’re getting ready to relaunch our network with the small group of people that have kept it going. We’ve spent time clarifying our purpose, vision, mission, and values, and have a new strategic plan. We’re thinking about doing a large kickoff event. Do you feel like that's an effective way to bring in members to the network versus more one-on-one outreach?

February 24, 2021

I would think about taking a hybrid approach based on what you’re trying to achieve, which is bringing members into the network. You can look at bringing members into the network from a couple of different perspectives based on the types of connections you want to foster with and between members. First is the connection that members have to the network -- they believe in the Shared Purpose and want to contribute as well as achieve value for themselves through their participation. You want to foster this connection so that members feel attached to the network and are motivated to participate. Second, you also want to connect members to each other. By weaving connections between members, they build relationships with one another and become further invested in the network.

To bring members in, you want to create connections between the members and the network and you also want to connect members to each other. Different approaches are more or less effective at achieving these two types of connections. You thereby want to both a) integrate multiple approaches into your kickoff event itself and b) complement that event with engagement outside of it.

The kickoff event itself might include a large group session to share information with everyone and inspire (potential) members. You can also integrate opportunities into your event for smaller groups or even pairs to talk about different topics and network so that they get to know each other. That's particularly true in this environment of being all online because we have to be much more intentional about how we make these connections given that we don't have the possibility of the serendipitous “meet somebody at the coffee break” connection-building.

You can also hold one-on-one calls in advance of or after the event. Especially if you are the network manager, you are the face of the network and can help foster connection to the network through you via one-on-one conversations. These conversations are also really helpful in helping you understand why the individual members come to the network and what they hope to achieve for themselves and together -- critical information for fostering their participation going forward.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: events, connections, member engagement

I've seen the value in defining the most important role in a network which is that of “member”. How do you define the roles and expectations for membership and when does that happen?

February 17, 2021

Every network is unique and there is a wide range of what it means to be a member within networks. Defining the roles and expectations for members requires, first of all, thinking about who is needed within your membership based on your Shared Purpose and the types of stakeholders you need to achieve that Shared Purpose. You have to determine first who would be interested and who you should bring in and involve based on how the Shared Purpose resonates with them and their potential contributions to achieving it.

The second step is then to determine what their roles and responsibilities are. Some network’s work towards very specific, explicit membership models in which you define “this is what a member is, this is how a member becomes a member, this is what a member does, this is what a member contributes, this is what a member receives from the network,”. We’ve seen very formal, structured membership models wherein, for example, a global network of country-based members has only one organization per country that can be the network’s member. We’ve also seen very loose, informal networks wherein, for example, individuals become members simply by signing up for the network’s newsletter. There are not right or wrong ways to set membership -- it should simply be first and foremost defined by the Shared Purpose you seek to achieve together. It likewise may or may not be necessary for any given network to explicitly define all the details of its membership model. However, it's often helpful to at least think through some of those elements so as to have a better understanding of your network, your members, and how they work together, whether or not you're creating a formal document or process about it.

It’s important to note that these determinations -- of who your membership should include and how they can participate -- may evolve and change over time as your network evolves. In the early stages especially, these things can be very fluid; it isn’t always clear who the members are or who they should be, who is needed as part of the network. Over time, as the network’s goals, structures, and activities develop, members’ roles and responsibilities and ways of engaging may become clearer. This might result in a more nuanced membership model with different tiers and levels to involve different types of stakeholders. It might be helpful or even necessary to review your membership model (formal or informal) at regular intervals to ensure it is fit-for-purpose for your network and what you want to achieve. Ultimately, your approach to membership should always focus on who joins the network to what ends and how they can be effectively engaged towards the Shared Purpose.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: member roles, membership

What are the initial phases of setting up a network? In particular, how do you start building your membership at the outset when you want to launch a network? It seems to me that you need a strong individual making a lot of personal invitations to get a network started because you can't have group processes until you have the group.

February 10, 2021

How to set up a network with initial members does seem like a chicken-or-egg challenge. You of course can’t have a network with one person. If it’s you with the initial idea, you must share that idea with other people who might be interested and start building that idea together. You have to engage other people at the outset and it has to be a group endeavor with shared ownership. That also means that there can’t be a hierarchy within the group. Just because you had the idea, doesn’t mean you own or direct the network; as soon as other people are involved, it is a group endeavor and you are one of the players. There must be a shared sense of buy-in to the network and, once you have a group of like-minded people, how to organize yourselves.

That's the big step: moving from an informal group of like-minded folks to organizing yourselves to actually set some shared goals and start working towards them, taking some action together. This step might be more difficult and complicated than finding your initial members with shared interests. Going from “we have a shared interest” to “we have shared goals and a plan to work towards them” -- that’s the defining marker between just being a set of like-minded colleagues and doing something together as a network. An example of this is a network of colleagues working in tech and concerned with increasing equity in the tech space. At first, they were just a collection of colleagues with a shared interest communicating via a Slack channel. At some point, it became clear that they wanted to -- and had in fact started -- to take collective actions to achieve their goal. Their shared interest had transitioned to a shared purpose around which to organize themselves.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: members, shared purpose

Who designs the network’s shared purpose? Is it the members or is it the umbrella organization or is it another scenario?

February 3, 2021

In principle, the members should always design the network’s shared purpose. If we think about what defines a network, a network is a network because it has a shared purpose and a membership, the two core network capacities as defined by Collective Mind’s network diagnostic framework. These are also what make a network different from a traditional organization, whether an NGO or a corporate firm. It is the members -- the organizations and/or individuals who have shared interests -- coming together to achieve a common goal (i.e. a shared purpose) in ways that ensure those members’ participation in achieving that goal. 

In practice, designing a shared purpose is about collectively setting the network’s vision and mission as well as the strategies and specific activities that embody that shared purpose. The strategies and activities define how work towards achieving the shared purpose will happen, what the priorities will be, and how efforts will be harmonized and aligned across the network. 

How network members determine the shared purpose is the hard part. There must be clear and transparent ways and means for the members to do all of this together. Final decisions may be taken by a smaller group, such as the network’s governing body, but there should be participatory, engaging, and inclusive ways in which ideas and views are gathered and incorporated from the broad membership. 

Again, your network exists because you have a shared purpose and members, so if it's just one organization making the decisions or setting the path, that's not really working in the spirit of what it means to be a network. It's complicated to design and manage group processes that allow people to share their ideas, build consensus, and make collective decisions on the ways forward. Nothing about that is easy. But in a network setting, you can raise a host of other issues by having one organization or one person set the path alone because that's not why members came to the network or what they signed up for. The openness, transparency, accountability -- and the inherent conflict resolution -- of these group processes is really important to your network’s health and success.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: shared purpose, members

What’s the reality of how much capacity it takes to keep a network going? Is it necessary for a network to invest in significant staff capacity in order to hold and sustain the network or is it possible for networks to rely on volunteers?

January 27, 2021

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 builds, 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.

Author: Kerstin Tebbe
Keywords: staff, members, decision making, network management