Better Networking

Dani Koleva and George Bogdanov

Inspired by Richard Bennett in March 2010

30 April 2014, Sofia, Bulgaria

1

NETWORKS

• Why?• When?• What?

but mainly…

• How?

2

WHY NETWORKS?

3

WHY NETWORKS?

• Learning from/with each other: becoming excellent at what we do

• Influencing collectively: much more powerful

• Economies of scale: collective buying– Training – Skilled people– Even office supplies…

4

THE CLASSIC PROCESS

Identifying common learning needs orpotential to learn from each other

Identifying commonadvocacy needs

About ourselves& operating environment

About the issues we’repassionate

about

Learning & training:Learning from each other;

Training from outsiders

Collective advocacy

Information service:Issues, operating

environment, good practice

Lots of individual

relationships

Creating networking

spaces

5

NETWORKS WHEN?

Any time, but especially…

• Uncertainty – New situations– Changing environment– Threats to our effectiveness or values– when the Big Red Fish is biggest

• Big influencing opportunities– when we most need Little Blue Fishes Together

The world is changing faster – it’s happening more oftenNetworks are more important today than ever before

6

Organizational stability

Birth

Yearly years

Youth

Maturity

Decline

Aging

Death

Growth

Try to get and

stay here

Org

aniz

atio

nal

dev

elo

pm

ent

7

A NETWORK LOOKS LIKE…

8

‘THE MESSY POWER OF COMPLEXITY’

• Lots of threads, lots of knots: complex, can feel unfocused

• Work together makes the most of members’– Contributions – Commitment – Skills

• Members contribute because they…– want to – are excited – have something to offer

• They stop if they feel they don’t/aren’t

• Benefit – purpose – energy – collective empowerment – inspiration

• Which delivers BIG results, when it works

9

Network dynamics: a virtuous circle

Work closer

together Establish basis of unity

Develop clear transparent

decision making

Share information

Build trust, get beyond competitive instincts

Increase in ad hoc 1:1 relations

between members

Increase common understanding of

issues/environment

Deepen common strategy

Deepen common agenda

Effectiveness & impact

10

RUNNING A NETWORK• Few networks survive if control is too heavy

• We’re used to command and control– Hierarchy– Authority at the top

• Networks seem loose, uncontrollable

• 3-D, messy, not pyramid, flexible, can change• Power, authority is spread, hard to see/fix

• Not used to working like this, it can be scary• …and that’s ok…• Because it can also be hugely powerful

11

4 BASIC PRINCIPLES• Diversity

– Participants are different, retain their own identity

• Dynamism – Frees participants to be dynamic, propose activities, get involved –

so need light structure, facilitative, enabling, supportive

• Democracy – Open, non-hierarchical, dependent on trust– Decision making seen to be fair, inclusive, effective, widespread– Leaders consult and report back

• Decentralisation – Shared leadership– Depends on shared vision, values, effective communication– Decisions made where they matter, where the action is

12

ROLE OF SECRETARIATS

‘Servant leadership’

• Facilitating & enabling– Creating spaces for members to share…

• Information; Learning; Development of influencing positions– Facilitating productive use of spaces– Administration to make it happen

• Ensuring inclusion, preventing isolation• Encouraging/supporting new members• Balancing power and influence• Linking the whole network with others

13

ARE SECRETARIATS SPECIALISTS?

Specialists in • Facilitation • Strengthening threads, tightening knots• Promoting collaboration, not competition• Enabling communications

Become specialists in• Understanding members’ dimensions, needs, environment

In PURE networks, other specialisms are usually a bad idea• They discourage member activism and leadership• But…

14

WHEN SECRETARIATS DO MORE THAN FACILITATE

• A completely new issue arises• The sector needs only one specialist• Collective purchasing is best for everyone…could mean we need an issue specialist

But dangers…• Lose facilitation focus • Undermine member leadership & activism• Create institution with its own dynamics

So use with caution, and plan for Secretariat’s exit from this type of work

15

Communications: which type?

16

MINI CHECKLIST (1)

• Have a clear purpose– Broad consensus– The most we can realistically strive for

• Have clear values & principles– Members accountable to them

• Keep central rules to a minimum– Don’t strangle creativity

• Encourage everyone to lead something– Creates capacity & ownership

17

MINI CHECKLIST (2)

• See joint activities as more than outputs– They bring people together, lead to trust & mutual

support

• Make dynamism & diversity goals in themselves– They bring creativity to the work

• View input and participation as central objectives– More engagement = more for everyone

18

AND WHEN WE GET IT RIGHT…

19