4-5+Convening+--+Digging+Deeper+A2

**//(June Holley. Engage Warren Cook and Roberto Cremonini)//**
 * //How to build network weaving capacity? What are the different models?//**

Handout:

//Discussion on the handout://

“If I showed this framework (from the handout) to our weavers they would probably giggle. But as a funder it helps me think about what they need.”
 * //Is it really the funder’s and/or weaver’s role to tell the network what it needs?//
 * One funder identified two communities that were working on the same issue, but from two different angles; she introduced them and gave them a facilitator. She essentially provided the network with what she thought it needed.
 * You need expertise to make this decision; perhaps the issue is how it’s positioned (e.g., actually using the word “expert” may be detrimental).
 * It’s not about funders funding a weaving role, but rather, funding people to share their skills with others and to spread the idea!
 * These are roles, not jobs (e.g., at the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, they blended Connector Catalyst with Network Guardian). It helps to have a number of people working in these roles, and with necessary support to share their learning.
 * In one project, the funder tapped people who had high and low content knowledge and asked them to lead networks. What they found was that outcomes were not so different from instances in which people had deep content knowledge.
 * High content knowledge (e.g., knowledge of sports) isn’t the same as having previous experience / existing relationships with members of the network (e.g., after-school sports programs).
 * There is a balance between weavers who are involved in the network vs. involved in doing the work of the network.
 * Weavers should act as catalysts and facilitators; the moment they do most of the work, you’re not weaving anymore. It’s like doing general operating support.
 * //What’s the value of placing these roles at a foundation first vs. out in the field? Does it just depend on the circumstances?//
 * In Barr’s case, the weaver was initially housed at the foundation. That was counter productive, because people regarded him as a walking dollar figure.

**Discussion of June’s Model for Different Network Roles (see handout)**

**1. Connector Catalyst**
 * Helping people think more strategically about their relations.
 * Helping people recognize the networks they already have.

**2. Network Facilitator**
 * Unlike the other roles, which need to be played by someone who’s part of the system, network facilitators can usually be hired.
 * The facilitator shouldn’t dominate the conversation or be the expert.
 * If your facilitator comes in and says: “You’re at A today, by the end of the exercise you’ll be at B, and it’ll take you one year to get there,” that’s a red flag. If they think that it’s a linear process, they won’t be good for the job.
 * Networks members who want to be really innovative and exploratory on a particular topic can, on one end of the spectrum, structure themselves as if they were an organization, or on the other end of the spectrum they can create zero structure. The facilitator can help determine how much / how little structure to develop..
 * A facilitator who understands network practice can be really helpful. In Maine, $5,000 for a whole year’s facilitation really moved the network along.
 * //Is network facilitating similar to community organizing?//
 * When a network is ready to actually do work, additional governance structures may be needed
 * Community organizing is about creating organization, whereas with a network you want to keep it fluid all the time.
 * Resource: Bill Traynor ’s article, “Community Building in Place: Limitations and Promise.”

**Network Guardian**
 * Funders often play this role, although they can recruit intermediaries to do it.
 * Network Guardians are attuned to opportunities; they are systems thinkers who keep in mind how people are communicating. They support network weavers.

**Self-Organized Project Coordinator** //Supporting network weaving://
 * People aren’t very good at working across projects when there’s no boss. Part of the Project Coordinator role is keeping people on task and on schedule.
 * Funders need to think about how to help these people.
 * Web-based project management tools are helpful for this role.
 * There needs to be a clear timeframe for delivering results.
 * In the case of the Mystic River advocates, nothing happened until the Exxon spill; the sudden time-bound opportunity catalyzed the network. They to self-organized to great effect, without a dedicated weaver.
 * The coordinator thinks about how to create the capacity for dozens of people to set up projects; they help work through accountability issues that come up when project members are not part of the same organization; keep track of what the next step should be.
 * The coordinator reminds them that they can initiate action, and supports them when they do (e.g., by helping find the right people to work with).
 * There are some natural network weavers, but it’s basically a culture; everyone can be inculcated into it. There are a few ways to influence a change in culture for an organization:
 * Look around the organization or the network, give them June’s “Network Weaver Checklist ,” and get the natural weavers to self-identify. Then your weavers are already embedded in the structure;
 * Help natural weavers recognize their role as weavers, and provide them with the language to describe their activities;
 * Connect these weavers to one another, so they can share experiences and sharpen their skills. You’ll eventually hit a tipping point, after which you’ll see the culture change;
 * Then, you need to help weavers become more aware of their responsibility (as weavers) to identify / train others to be weavers.
 * Funders can support the weavers to be in a CoP, and then provide innovation funds that are easily available to the CoP.
 * In the RE-AMP network, there’s a prioritization process in which network members get together to figure the priorities for the network, and submit these to the funding committee.

//Peer vs. expert learning model//
 * Maine Network Partners were concerned that as more network-centric initiatives sprang up in Maine (over 30 were in development), inequity would develop between these networks as a result of an imbalance in their skill level. They decided to invest in capacity building for weavers.
 * The expert model they initially pursued failed. Conversation with thought leaders went over everyone’s head.
 * So, Maine Network Partners is experimenting with a peer learning model. Peers develop the training model, the syllabus and the agenda, while facilitator helps them through the process.
 * In this context, your peers are the “experts,” even if they don’t wear that hat all day.
 * The best way for people to learn is to share their experiences with one another (“adult action learning research”)
 * It’s different from the “center of excellence.” It’s a CoP where excellence is partly defined and partly emergent.
 * C-P Squared is an online CoP on CoPs. There is some material there on how to examine your practice in front of your peers. There’s also a book titled //Researching your own practice//, which covers the discipline of noticing your own work.
 * //When there’s a complete peer-sharing structure, how to think about where they’re going to find the shared language and new ideas? How to engage/grow the periphery?//

//The time & place for governance//
 * //How necessary is it to be explicit about what the network needs at the moment?//
 * It depends on where the network is in the lifecycle. We find that weaving/facilitating is different at the beginning vs. the end.
 * While our inclination is to want to know what the network needs at the moment, a good weaver is continuously helping to strengthen the network. Does the weaver need to wake up every day with the implicit thought of how they should justify their existence as a weaver?
 * //Does governance need to take a back seat to building relationships?//
 * What / how much governance is needed depends on where you are on the spectrum of intentionality vs. emergence.
 * When there’s a specific problem that needs to be solved, there’s a need for some governance, as well as a facilitator who can help the group define the purpose and value of the network.
 * If / when the network is set up, you don’t need a lot of governance or structure; you just need to manage the tensions.
 * Once the network decides on a practical goal (e.g., a learning network), there’s a need for some governance structure again. At that point, the facilitator’s role shifts into that of the self-organized project coordinator. __The closer you move to getting work done, the more governance and structure you need__.
 * If funding runs out, the pendulum is likely to swing back and the network will likely need facilitation again.

//Other comments:// //Reflections & Key Takeaways://
 * A network is like a **gene pool**. It is stronger when there’s greater diversity, especially when it comes to backgrounds and skills.
 * “If everyone in your network likes one another, it’s not a network. It’s a club.”
 * In network terms, weavers are the boundary-spanners.
 * There’s a lot to be learned from engaging with / supporting people who are naturally effective weavers.
 * Peer learning is helped by having different levels of experience in the room.
 * //How to self-organize collective reflection?//
 * //What happens when there’s intentionality on the part of the weaver that is not aligned with group intentionality?//
 * The roles of a network weaver do not all have to be played by the same person. //How do we talk about this in a way that gets greater buy-in beyond the people here?//
 * It’s important for the foundation staff to appreciate the different weaver roles. The funder can even be a weaver – but not the only weaver.
 * It’s important to be intentional about whether there’s going to be a heavier hand from the foundation, vs. where a partner in the sector who can do the work, vs. where a partner can be a neutral convener. It’s important to know what you want.
 * You also have to stay open. Imagine a situation when someone is pulling together a network and gets a job to weave it. And then a big foundation from out of town comes in and says that they want to put a lot of money on the table but for services rather than network-weaving. Are you going to say no to that check? What do you do?
 * The more responsibility a network takes for its own learning and direction, the stronger it becomes; it’s far better than someone from the outside dictating the path.
 * Organizational development has grown as a field over the past 20 years. We need something like that for network weaving. The organizational default is so strong that a lot of support will be required to move people into a different mode.
 * There are a whole lot of organizational development consultants who want to be able to support networks, but they don’t know enough yet. It’s better to cultivate the capacity internally.
 * I’m surprised that there’s not more interest.
 * In a world where jobs are scarce, people are more reticent to work together.

Go back to April 5-6 Convening Notes.