Conversation+with+Network+Weavers+Mary+Tiseo+and+Chris+Lynch

=14 January 2011 CoP Convening: Conversation with Network Weavers=

**Overview:** We spoke with two network weavers supported by the Barr Foundation – Mary Tiseo, ED of South Africa Partners, who engaged her organization in weaving World Cup Boston 2010, and Chris Lynch, an individual who received a grant to weave an afterschool sports programs in Boston (see " [|Building the Field of Dreams] ” article for more details).


 * Conversation Highlighs:**

// World Cup Boston 2010: South Africa Partners as an Organizational Network Weaver //
 * South Africa Partners (SA Partners) is a Boston-based non-profit organization dedicated to the development of long-term, mutually beneficial partnerships between the U.S. and South Africa in the areas of health, education, and economic development. Growing out of the anti-apartheid movement, SA Partners seeks to support efforts that promote South Africa's equitable and sustainable development, while building bridges between our two countries ([|Website]).
 * World Cup Boston 2010 grew out of informal conversations with [|Barr Fellows]. The Fellows saw an opportunity in the World Cup to strengthen community in Boston. There was an opportunity to bring Boston communities together around youth and sports programs, and to build connections with immigrant communities in Boston that play a lot of soccer. SA Partners also saw World Cub Boston 2010 as a way to built connections with South Africa and to change perceptions of South Africa within Boston, by engaging a range of city agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the local community Boston in activities that made them feel more connected to each other, to the City of Boston, and to South Africa. **World Cup Boston was an opportunity to build connections between people who do not normally interact – and in ways that are visible in common city spaces**.
 * World Cup Boston 2010 came at a time that the SA Partners was looking to move in different directions, since they were in the process of helping their partners in South Africa become more independent. They wanted to build on the work they had done as program managers in South Africa; as such, World Cup Boston was a great introduction to Boston and the leaders of Boston. They are now looking at this network to asses where they can add value to the community.
 * SA Partners obtained a Planning Grant from the Barr Foundation. While SA Partners were not well versed in network approaches, the grant allowed them to hire a consultant who understood concepts of network weaving. SA Partners then secured funding from Barr for implementation/weaving.
 * South Africa Partners role was to convene people with different interests (e.g., youth sports, neighborhoods, soccer, and South Africa)—a natural fit since convening is core to their regular work.
 * SA Partners met with a Steering Committee on a monthly basis to discuss the various activities they might initiate, like a program at the Boston public libraries and soccer tournaments. The initial committee consisted of less than 10 people with very different affiliations, e.g., the Red Sox and Boston Public Library. Over the course of 18 months, World Cup Boston grew from 3 to 25 contributors (with substantial in-kind contributions), 23 events, 297 volunteers, and over 10000 participants.
 * The Steering Committee was not only a sounding board for SA Partners, but also a champion for World Cup Boston within the community. The Board expanded pro-actively, as more and more individuals asked to join. They joined for their own self-interest-- because the initiative would help them enhance their work / expand their networks. There was no other reason for people to get involved because for the most part SA Partners was not offering any money. Each new Board member – indeed, each new participant – had to convince his or her organization that “This is going to be great for us.”
 * As a small, under-sourced organization, SA Partners needed to stretch every dollar. They recruited Adidas as a merchandise partner, and gathered tremendous media support, which in turn helped them access more resources
 * SA Partners had a website, but it did not have the kind of flexibility that would be required to do social marketing online. Future weaver organizations should definitely invest in a flexible, user-friendly website.
 * In the future, the hope is to replicate World Cup Boston 2010, handing the model from organization to organization as the location of the World Cup changes. The next World Cup is in Brazil, and Massachusetts has a population of an estimated 1 million Portuguese speakers! As a past World Cup Boston weaver, moreover, SA Partner can become a partner of / mentor for the next weaver.

// Boston Afterschool Sports Program: Chris Lynch as an Individual Network Weaver //
 * The Barr Foundation hired and funded Chris Lynch as a network weaver in youth sports whose role would be to build connectivity among providers and other resources within their sectors as well as stronger ties to players and resources outside the boundaries of their sectors. The Foundation also provided additional funding, which weavers were able to use to support specific network initiatives, while encouraging weavers to emphasize their facilitator role and not fall into the trap of acting as program funders.
 * General Reflections on Weaving
 * In the first couple of years Chris simply connected people. Eventually Chris was a position where, as the weaver, he was in many meetings and conversations and he developed an opinion on what the network needs (e.g., support intermediaries). So his role wasn’t just about passively making connections. He was leading from behind.
 * A weaver can become a significant resource for funders. Chris did not have to fundraise to cover his salary and partly as a result, he transitioned from grantee to partner status. Funders now regard Chris and weavers like him as a resource; they often ask him, //Who do you know? How can you help us get to our goal?// When nonprofits call Chris and ask for money, he has a list of funders to whom he could direct them
 * ===** The Weaver & Phases of Weaving ** (see Slide 6 in Roberto Cromenini’s presentation) ===
 * __ TAXIING __ : As someone who had been involved with the afterschool sports field for eight years Chris knew a lot of the people. This helped his credibility in the network.
 * Chris spent the first three months going to people’s programs, asking questions, reading their documents, asking them what keeps them up at night, etc. in order to figure out what the gaps were.
 * Chris tried to take an egoless approach. He didn’t enter meetings with a ready made agenda. Instead, he ready to listen and build an understanding of what was going on.
 * He also did things for people (e.g., give them donated sports equipment), gaining their trust by illustrating that he is interested in helping their organization succeed.
 * __ TAKEOFF __ : Next, Chris and his colleagues at Barr had to figure out what to invest in
 * They initially decided to only fund projects in which organizations collaborated.
 * Then, after speaking to a number of different organizations, they realized that there was a problem surrounding outcomes measures. So they brought in a consultant to work through logic models for these organizations. They added this to things they would fund because it was something that would benefit the entire network beyond just collaborative efforts.
 * Another activity that would benefit the entire network was increasing communication. People didn’tknow what was going on because there was very little communication. Getting information—newsletters etc. – would benefit the network
 * Chris also started convening network members. As time went on, network members were interested in convening for the sake of convening; no agenda was necessarily. Just a free lunch, 10-min agendas, and plenty of time to network—and everybody stayed the entire time! **Communication** and **convening** are important in the takeoff phase.
 * It was also important to identify and work with network people who were eager to collaborate. Those who wanted to work with the network were usually smaller because they knew they had something to gain from the network. People do not help out for the good of the network, but rather in self-interest, and it is the job of the weaver to make meaningful connections for them.
 * __ CRUISING __ : 12 months into the 18-month grant, it was time for Chris to think about making the network more self-sustaining.
 * How could the network be less dependent on Chris when no single organization would undertake weaving the network the way Chris had been? The weaver may have intimate information about the network, for example, the weaver may know a funder interested in supporting a sports team, and a football coach who needs a sponsor to purchase new equipment. Without the weaver, who would know that information?
 * The weaver’s responsibilities can be taken on by multiple organizations, each one taking on functions that are best aligned with their regular work .For example, one organization may have a part-time person whose job it is to convene members, and this person could then organize a convening for the network
 * In this phase, Chris also tried to try to get funders involved.
 * ===** Challenges **===
 * It is difficult not to pick winners and losers. Particularly if the weaver is working a lot with certain groups, it is easy to create the impression that the weaver is interested in their work and not others’.
 * Chris had a huge map of the network in his head. Social Network Maps – which are a perpetual work in progress – helped show where there might be wins for the program, network, etc. The real challenge was figuring out,” So what? How can I have an impact?”
 * Articulating who owns the work is difficult. Chris made connections, helped the two parties takeoff together, and then he’d leave them be.
 * Determining how much of the weavers’ job is to weave vs. to engage in program development is also challenging.
 * When Chris first took this position it was very difficult to explain his role to people and to answer simple questions like, “Who are you? What are you doing?”
 * To avoid this problem, Chris did not use the word “weaver.” Instead, he used more commonly understood terms like coordinator.
 * He used a lot of examples and his own experience in the field to explain that he tried to make people better connected so that they could do their job better, emphasizing that it was “nothing fancy” (read: complicated, new, time-consuming). He also used very simple visuals (i.e., dots on a paper, connected by lines to represent nodes and links) to explain what he did.
 * He also told them he was essentially a grantee of Barr, not part of it. Once it became clear that Chris was not part of Barr, people stopped treating him as a funder, and weaving became much easier.
 * In order to help people understand what he did, Chris gave his work a name and a logo -- the Boston Youth Sports Initiative. Having an identity (i.e., belonging to an organization, initiative, etc.) can help weavers maneuver through the network. The people who do all the great work are the program providers, and this can help them understand / accept the weaver’s role.
 * The location of the weaver has significant implications. A weaver who is housed at the foundation may be regarded as a walking dollar sign.
 * Chris was in a very different position from Mary, a weaver with SA Partners, because her role had specific early parameters (that nonetheless changed as the project progressed).
 * The person who takes on the weaver position needs to be very comfortable with **ambiguity**.
 * For Barr to effectively support the work of network weaving, they needed support for this approach from the leadership, long-term commitment, and faith that the approach would eventually deliver positive outcomes.
 * ===** Q&A Session **===
 * // Can outcomes be articulated before the cruising phase? Does the weaver have to live through the squishy phase earlier in the weaving process? // At first, weaving has needs to be squishy. The weaver needs to foster trust by being honest and showing network members that they are “figuring it out together.” If the weaver were to come in with a set of defined goals and outcome measures, the message would be very different.
 * // Who should get the credit? // It is best if leaders in the field take the credit. There is more value in giving credit to network members than to the weaver. This could even be a metric of success.