5-17+Network+Mindset+Funders+Guide

=The "Ask"=
 * //We'd love your thoughts / reflections on the preliminary outline of the guide, specifically://**
 * 1) General reactions: what works? what didn't?
 * 2) What’s missing?
 * 3) What's not needed / what can we drop?
 * 4) What additional examples / experiences from your work or others might we include to illustrate ideas?

** Network Mindset **

//** What does it mean to work with a network mindset? **// To catalyze networks for good, funders themselves need to work with a network mindset—a stance toward leadership that prioritizes openness, transparency, relationship building and distributed decision-making. // I like this sentence - Kate //

Working with a network mindset means operating with an awareness of the webs of relationships you are embedded in, and listening to, engaging with and cultivating these networks to achieve the impact you care about. The Community Foundation for Monterey County (CFMC) is doing this by a strategic focus on “convening diverse interests around issues of common concern.” They’re coordinating a network of providers and funders focused on adult literacy issues, they’ve helped government, nonprofit and school leaders working on youth development better align their efforts, they’re building relationships among leaders at the neighborhood level– to name just a few of the efforts to weave network connections. Throughout they’re applying insights from social network theory to build capacity for social change county-wide. As former CFMC senior program officer Jeff Bryant explained, “[understanding networks] gave us a new vocabulary—a new way of articulating and being intentional about what we’d already been doing for years.”

Working with a network mindset also means finding where the conversations are happening and taking part, rather than one-way broadcasting. It means exercising leadership through active participation and pushing power to the edges. For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) is listening to, actively participating in and sparking field-wide conversations about health and health-care reform. RWJF, established in 1972, has developed a trusted reputation for rigor and accuracy in the world of health and health care reform. Now they’re experimenting with a different way of working that reflects the changing environment for social change and challenges established norms. They’re intentionally embracing “Web 2.0 principles:” working in ways that are more collaborative and participatory, faster moving, distributed, open and transparent. [i]

Last, by not least, it means acting transparently by sharing what you’re doing and learning along the way, not just in a final report package for public consumption. The Organizational Effectiveness team at the Packard Foundation is experimenting with being transparent about what they’re learning and doing through their “see through filing cabinet”—a wiki where they’re sharing resources and learning with all who care to take a look. Now, a year into the experiment, they’re finding that transparency holds them to a “higher-level of accountability, quality, learning and vulnerability.” [ii] And, through the simple goal of working transparently they’re opening up to new inputs and starting to more actively seek engagement.

[add here Audrey’s point – working with a network mindset means getting involved in relationships of reciprocal exchange]

__**// Why is it hard to work with a network mindset? //**__
Can funders afford //not// to work with a network mindset? One in ten people in the world is on Facebook. Top headlines are now breaking on Twitter well before official announcements from a trusted authority. Tapping into network connections is becoming the norm for social change makers, whether they’re coordinating a protest to fight climate change or spreading an approach to community engagement, as Kaboom! has done with their freely available DIY toolkit for playground builds. For funders, working with a network mindset is a prerequisite to remaining relevant in world of fast moving information, ideas and complex persistent problems. Of course, working transparently and sharing leadership isn’t always easy. Here are a few common concerns: > > > > >
 * **// There’s not enough time. //**// I’m dealing with information overload already. My in-box is overloaded. I have a backlog of requests from current and potential grantees. //// How could I possibly make the time to make connections for the sake of making the connections? //
 * **// Compliance with my foundation’s communications protocol. //**// We have a clear set of guidelines for how to talk about the foundation’s work and set expectations. I need to work within these guidelines and I genuinely don’t want to send mixed messages to grantees. Clear communications is something we pride at our foundation. //
 * **// Privacy. //**// I pride myself on trusted relationships with grantees and leaders in my field. I don’t want to violate confidentiality by getting caught up in the transparency fad. //
 * **// Misuse of information. //**// What if information openly shared by the foundation is misused? Will it reflect negatively on foundation’s reputation and my own professional image?” //
 * **// Concerns about accurate and quality outcomes. //**// What if the “crowd” doesn’t get it right? Because I openly posed a question, do I have to act on the responses? //
 * **// Accountability //**// . If leadership is distributed, what if no one steps up to own the results? Aggregating the input and talent of lots people seems like a sensible path to scale – in theory. But how do you know the work is getting done and the results are what we want? //

Questions and concerns such as these don’t have straightforward answers. In many cases, “hub and spoke” institutional norms will have to be unlearned in favor of more open and distributed cultural defaults. Uncertainty and ambiguity needs to be embraced in favor of experimentation and a “learn by doing approach.”

In most cases, working with a network mindset in its extreme won’t be the answer, nor will holding onto command and control practices be suitable in its entirety. What will be needed is an artful blending of the old and the new. The chart below outlines opportunities to experiment with shifting from a “traditional mindset” to a “network mindset.” We’ve outlined the extremes and there a range of possibilities in between. The art is in figuring what’s appropriate for your situation and challenging yourself to experiment with the “network mindset” end of the spectrum.

[we’ll create this chart so it’s a series of continua, rather than two opposing lists]


 * ** Traditional Mindset ** || ** Network Mindset ** ||
 * Propriet ar y information and learning || Public / open information and learning ||
 * Single or expert perspectives || Broadening your view to include many perspectives ||
 * Strengthening individual efforts || Weaving connections and building network-wide capacity ||
 * Centralized leadership and ownership || Distributed / shared leadership and ownership ||
 * Firmly controlled || Loosely controlled ||
 * Planned || Emergent ||
 * Pathway to scale = replication || Pathway to scale = spreading ideas and action ||

__**// How to get started working with a network mindset? //**__
While we don’t know all the answers to how to work with a network mindset, and artfully strike the balance between when to hold on and when to distribute ownership and control, progress can be made by trying out new practices. As the saying goes, “We need to act our way into a new way of thinking.”

Some basic common language and understanding is helpful to have within an organization or a group trying to work with a network mindset, but don’t let the semantics overshadow the practice. Focus less on making the case and creating the playbook, and more on doing it so individuals can co-create their own guides and make the case for themselves and their peers through personal experience.

Experimentation might happen at the individual or the institutional level. At the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation they’ve encouraged individual staff members to embrace ‘Web 2.0’ principles in their work habits, in addition to higher profile institutional efforts –both of which have required experimentation. For instance, PreventObesity.net is set up to actively collect and mine user data, flying in the face of the foundation’s standard privacy policy. RWJF has had to revise their stance toward privacy for the experiment, weighing the risk of information misuse against the opportunity for new insight gleaned from the data about the network’s potential. Start by (1) creating environments that invite and celebrate working with a network mindset, and (2) experimenting and learning in real-time.

__ Create environments that invite and celebrate working with a network mindset __ In order to create a supportive environment for experimentation and working with working with a network mindset: model the change you’d like to see, put incentives in place and cultivate a learning culture.

> > >
 * // Model the change you’d like to see**.** // At RWJF, top management, starting with the CEO, are tweeting and commenting on blogs; they’re modeling a ‘Web 2.0’ approach to exercising leadership, and as of spring 2011 about 80% of staff had a social media presence.
 * // Connect what is new with what people are already doing // . Working with a network mindset often means applying a new lens to existing practices. Recognize and celebrate the ways in which people are //already// weaving network connections, acting transparently and sharing leadership in their work.
 * // Encourage foundation-wide experimentation and risk-taking //__ . __ For most grantmakers, there’s no statement that reads ‘work with a network mindset’ in their job description. Behavior change is rarely a formal responsibility. And, network work is typically considered the domain of the communications staff or, in some instances, the job of single program person with “network expertise.” These are starting points, but in order to be sustainable, weaving networks and working openly needs to be a shared responsibility.
 * // Cultivate a learning culture //** . ** In addition to having support from above, it’s equally, if not more, critical to have genuine commitment at the individual level. Cultivating a learning culture can make is safer for staff to experiment with working in this way and reinforce that its ok to start small and fail often. As one NNF participant said, “There’s a very busy culture within foundations: we seem to be in constant crisis… We don’t give ourselves the space and time to talk with each other and to break down silos. We need to be very deliberate in setting up safe internal spaces for conversation and learning.” The Packard Foundation cultivated a learning culture and increased commitment at the individual level by providing social media coaching and peer learning opportunities. They invited nonprofit social media maven, Beth Kanter, to be a visiting scholar. During her time at the foundation she coached staff and facilitated a series of ‘Deeper Dive’ learning sessions for staff that were interested and modeled public learning by writing about the experiences on her blog.

__ Experiment and learn in real-time __ In order to get started working with a network mindset, here are a few experiments you can try out: > >
 * // Understand the ecosystem and your position within it. // Map and reflect on your position in the surrounding ecosystems, and the networks or communities you support. Consider the ways in which you can and do exert influence, and what’s constructive and what’s not about that power dynamic.
 * // Listen to the community and act on this insight. // Openly ask questions, like the Peery Foundation did when they asked for input to their strategy development through Twitter. Then, synthesize what you learn and incorporate these insights into your decisions. As Knight Foundation president and CEO Alberto Ibargüen said: “Our biggest challenge is to overcome our instinct to believe that we know what to do and being open to ideas where we’re skeptical. The hardest thing in foundations is to not go out and look for your ideas, but to fund ideas that the community is interested in.”
 * // Broker new and unusual connections //__ . __ Funders are in a privileged position for weaving networks themselves, by simply making introductions or implementing more ambitious efforts to bring people together. You have access to a wide range of stakeholders, and are well positioned to bring in fresh perspectives and bridge the network to unusual suspects. When weaving networks, move beyond the traditional sectoral distinctions and experiment with ways to engage important network “nodes” and infrastructure providers that may be commercial or public sector entities.
 * // Share responsibility. // Open up and encourage participation from a wide range of people working on the issues you care about. The Wikimedia Foundation did this by tapping their worldwide community of Wikipedians to participate in a year-long process to develop a strategic direction for the Wikimedia movement. All who wanted to help were invited to participate, in the belief that an open process that engaged a broad base would result in smarter, more effective strategy, while activating the community around agreed-on goals.

__**// Sidebar: What competencies do network leaders need? //**__
The Leadership Learning Community (LLC) is conducting a collaborative research project to better understand leadership in networks. Network leadership is a vast field that draws on a rich and diverse history and sources, like negotiations, multi-stakeholder engagement, and innovation. While there is no definitive list of talents needed, the following competencies were identified by the LLC research: > > > > >
 * //Self-awareness//: reflecting on who you are as a leader and your influence on communities. Seasoned community organizer, Bill Traynor writes that network leaders need to reflect on, “how they move through the world. How you exhibit fear, react to change, deal with letting go of power and ego. How you listen and observe and the keenness of your instincts for both conceptualizing and synthesizing. How you hold onto or let go let go of strongly held convictions about what is right and what will work.”
 * // Connecting //: creating social capital by making new connections and developing stronger trusted relationships.
 * // Bridging: // dedicating time and resources to reach out to others and making connections across silos to insure a diversity of experience and perspectives.
 * //Using network strategies and tools to organize//: using social media tools and network strategies to help network participants get involved in and coordinate large-scale social change efforts.
 * //Experimenting and learning//: taking an action learning approach where plans emerge and action is adapted in response to trying out different ideas and approaches.
 * //Systems thinking//: developing a shared understanding of how multiple factors interact to influence a system and identifying leverage points for making progress on complex social problems.

__**// FAQs About Working with a Network Mindset //**__

 * What is network weaving and how to support it? (See page ___.)___.)
 * When weaving networks, what needs to be done in-person and what can be done online? How to integrate the online and in-person? (See page
 * What are techniques for facilitating network interactions and “holding network space”?
 * How do I get started using social media if I don’t have any time? (See page ___.)___.)
 * How do I convince others that working transparently and using social media adds value to my work as a program officer? (See page

__**// Additional Resources //**__
Explores how social media tools are driving more connected ways of working characterized by principles of greater openness, transparency, distributed effort and collective action. Diana Scearce, Gabriel Kasper, and Heather McLeod Grant, //Stanford Social Innovation Review//, Summer 2010. ONLINE: []
 * “Working Wikily”**

A book rich with insight about working with networks in an organizational context and examples of how nonprofits are using social media to “power social networks for change.” Beth Kanter and Allison Fine. 2010.
 * The Networked Nonprofit**

An article about how nonprofit leaders are achieving greater impact by working through networks. Includes detailed examples. Jane Wei-Skillern and Sonia Marciano, //Stanford Social Innovation Review//, 2008.
 * “The Networked Nonprofit”**

The Leadership Learning Community, a learning network dedicated to transforming the way the social change leadership development work is conceived, conducted and evaluated, is spearheading a collaborative research project on leadership approaches that are more inclusive, networked and collective. Publication forthcoming. Summer 2011.
 * “Leadership and Networks: Bringing a Network Lens to Leadership and a Leadership Lens to Networks”**

Go back to 5-17 Draft Funders Guide TOC