4-5+Convening+--+Digging+Deeper+A-3

**// ( //****// Led by Marie Sauter from Gates, engaging Marnie Webb about TechSoup Global's experience with governance across a large, global distributed network) //**
 * // Governance & managing across differences in power and capacity among network members //**

// Characteristics of formal vs. informal membership //
 * Formal members of TechSoup (nonprofits that receive grants and / or IT donations under contract) join because there are tangible results. They continue to stay in touch because they get money per transaction (vs. one large sum). They also stand to learn a lot about what works or doesn’t from TechSoup.
 * Slowly, over time, formal members have pro-actively stepped up and helped fellow members. Ideally, TechSoup members will start presenting programs to the network, for others to adopt or to help scale. They’d also begin soliciting companies for resources directly, for their own use as well as for TechSoup’s membership as a whole. Up until now, they’ve expected things from TechSoup; they’re just now starting to expect things of each other.
 * TechSoup has raised enough revenue to give network members an additional 15% of the revenue. This extra revenue will bring with it an expectation that formal members will begin acting on their responsibilities to the TechSoup network, as are outlined in the grants they receive / contracts they sign. They have to accept this condition because they are part of / benefit from this network.
 * Informal members of NetSquared join to learn more about the use of IT for social change purposes. They run the show and make decisions.
 * TechSoup does not vet this group as it does its formal members.
 * While there was initially no governance structure for this group, TechSoup has developed one over time, based on the group’s experiences.
 * Over time, the governance of the informal group (with a small g) and the Governance of the formal group (with a capital G) began converging.
 * There’s a difference between networks whose members choose to be there and networks in which the membership is mandated by a third party (e.g., government).
 * A network is only meaningful so long as people want to be there; there are many difficulties associated with trying to force collaboration and having participants agree on a set of shared values to measure themselves against.
 * It’s much more productive to identify who network members should be based on relationships that are already working.

// Flexible Interpretation of Governance //
 * Different governance models will be needed for different types of networks, e.g., RE-AMP (an alignment network of funders and nonprofits) will have different governance needs than BALLE (a network of networks).
 * Contracts (MOUs, contracts, grants) can become part of the governance structure for the network; they could also be used to promote network interactions.
 * Expectations for the behavior of network members can be encoded contractually.
 * // At what point do these interactions transcend what’s mandated by the contract? Does it really take a different environment to get to a place where the network is healthy and self-regulated? //
 * In the case of TechSoup, the organization initially paid for all its members to attend a yearly gathering; after six years, however, members started paying for themselves as well as for other members that couldn’t afford to do so.
 * Contracts allow for an accountability mechanism by which the nonprofit or funder can have oversight and, if need be, de-fund noncompliant members.
 * There’s the question of how much flexibility to build into contracts that define formal relationships and/or governance models.
 * There is benefit in allowing flexible interpretation of governance to fit the local context, i.e., governance as a guiding principle. There’s been great success for individual networks where there’s a leader / weaver that understands the loopholes and is able to cater governance to their particular context.
 * For example, in one network of networks that targets childhood obesity there are cross-sector representatives at the state level as well as at the local level. The constituency is most active / the program is most effective in those localities where there is a looser interpretation of the governance structure.

// Governance & Timing //
 * It may be beneficial to introduce the guiding principles for the relationship early on, even at a very emergent stage. This includes discussion around how to work together, how to make decisions (e.g., consensus, voting, or majority rule), etc.
 * It takes time to build trust and to agree on a governance structure.
 * Funders can make it easier for people to get together by paying for someone to facilitate and coordinate the group. They can even mandate that “x% be used for food and alcohol” in their grants.
 * According to some, networks don’t work if the work is just done online, and that at some point there’s a need to bring people together to build personal connections and trust — particularly at the early stages of the initiative.
 * A set of loosely-defined ground rules may be all that’s needed early in the game.
 * Experimenting with networks is a side subject for many people and can become a burden when it’s formalized (e.g., in the form of MOUs). We should avoid the term “governance” in initial discussions of guiding principles, because it carries unnecessary weight / formality.
 * // As a funder of networks, how can I discourage grantees from formalizing governance structures early on. //
 * One funder mentioned that the “sweet spot” is starting by under-structuring initiatives, seeing what they evolve into, and only then assessing whether there’s a need to institutionalize a governance structure.

// Setting up & implementing a governance structure //
 * // What’s the governance for deciding a new governance structure? //
 * In some cases, the governance structure is determined through trial-and-error, as members of the network realize what works and what doesn’t.
 * It’s important to recognize the power of having a protocol for dealing with issues of (in)equity in the governing process, and to implement this protocol in a way that’s open and transparent. Often, there’s questioning about what’s behind the closed doors (vs. actually wanting to be behind those closed doors).
 * Networks more often involve just one part or competency of an institution (e.g., how well nonprofits can get products out to their constituencies or host meetings). There’s a danger in that.

// National vs. International Networks //
 * In the U.S., TechSoup spends a significant amount of energy and resources vetting organizations up front. Internationally, the organization partners with capacity building organizations that have relationships to local nonprofits. As TechSoup expands, it’s important for its membership to organize more like a network of networks — otherwise, its model will be in danger of slipping into “franchise mode.”
 * The national and international contexts are different. Formal structures in cross-national networks (e.g., secretariats) help to equalize the power differential by informing people where they sit and how to act. If we temper rigidity with transparency, we could make the network seem even more permeable.
 * // What’s the role of the weaver in managing equity issues, or when working cross-culturally? //
 * Weavers, who have one-on-one conversations with network members and can come to understand their position on an issue / topic, can give those members “the softball that lets them shine” — and overcome their language hesitancies.

// Other comments //
 * Younger generations may have different cultural norms around decision making that influence more formal power dynamics in the network.
 * It’s important to have “glue” in between meetings, and a more creative communications strategy to help network members learn from each other.

Go back to April 5-6 Convening Notes.