An insightful post from the folks at FSG, the organization that developed and promoted the “collective impact” idea, explored two aspects of leading a network: the essential importance of building trust among members and the inherent tension between staff vs. member-driven leadership. Titled “3 Misconceptions Around Collective Impact,” the blog noted:
- “One major misconception is that collective impact is a straightforward process, or a ‘formula’ for achieving social change”. It is not a step-by-step process; “every collective impact initiative is unique.” Collective impact is . . . “about the relationships and trust among the people and organizations involved . . . It is ultimately about enabling adaptive, collective problem-solving.” This is precisely the point we make in Connecting to Change the World : a generative social-impact network is a platform of social relationships; reciprocity, trust, and shared identity are the underlying social dynamics of a successful network.
- “A second misconception is around the role of the backbone for a collective impact initiative. There is sometimes the belief that a backbone organization sets the agenda for the collaborative and holds the ‘power’ for the group’s decisions. In reality, the backbone should be playing a facilitative, servant-leader role—guiding the decisions of the collaborative, based on the expertise and input of a cross-sector steering committee and input from a broad range of partners and community members.” Here, too, we agree. Our chapter on leading a network, called “Three Rules to Live By,” also used the “servant leader” language. But discussions with many network leaders reflect how difficult it can be to play this role.
“When do you lead? When do you follow? How do you know?” asks the founder of a regional network.
“I think great servant leadership requires the capability to deliver insight and service that is two steps ahead of the network members,” explains the organizer of a community-based network. “Does this also make sense?”
In the three rules for network leadership we tried to both capture and respond to these inherent tensions:
1. Trust the network. You’re role is not to get everyone to do what you think is right. It’s to help them to connect, align, and produce–to do what they think is right.
2. Serve the network, but don’t wait for it. You have two roles: facilitating network processes and bringing new ideas into the network.
3. Embrace vertigo. Network builders search constantly for a network’s balancing points in the midst of dynamic complexity. But endlessly rebalancing means being off balance some of the time. You have to be comfortable with uncertainty. You have to know when to change. You have to cope with criticism that you’re taking too much control or that you’re not taking enough control.