It’s commonplace to note that in a generative network no one is in charge. But that doesn’t mean that networks don’t have leaders. They do—but it’s a different sort of leadership than in an organization. In organizations, a leader is a take-charge person, someone who commands and directs others. In networks, however, the members, whether they are individuals or organizations, have the power and provide the network’s purpose and direction.

The focus of a network leader is to build the network’s capabilities and impact, and network builders are jacks-of-all-trades: network founders, designers, weavers, coordinators, planners, funders, and more. This requires skills and knowledge about network building and something else that matters: a way of being that’s a combination of personality, understanding, and skill—a network-centric point of view that network leaders hold personally and apply consistently.

We’ve drawn the following list of network leadership attributes from a publication by the Institute for Conservation Leadership, “The Less Visible Leader.”[1]

Catalyzes a Culture of Spirited Cooperation	Listens deeply to fully appreciate and understand the diversity of perspectives and motivations held by all involved. Encourages mutual appreciation for the ideas and contributions of all. Regularly uses “both/and” thinking to identify solutions that meet both shared and individual goals and needs. Fosters opportunities to develop camaraderie and trust.
Shares Power and Generates Momentum	Creates space for others to step up and contribute. Embraces ambiguity and encourages experiments and innovations. Helps the group to develop enough infrastructure to effectively make decisions and keep everyone moving forward.
Stays True to the Long-Term Vision While Navigating Frequent Twists and Turns	Persistently holds a clear picture of the purpose for working together. Helps those inside and outside the collaboration effort understand the progress that is being made as well as the roots of that success. Continues to adapt in an effort to successfully achieve the long-term vision.

[1] Andy Robinson, “The Less Visible Leader: Emerging Leadership Models for Environmental Networks, Coalitions, and Collaboratives,” Institute for Conservation Leadership, 2012, https://www.icl.org/resources/publications .

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.

Network leaders and funders of networks often worry about the problem of succession. They recognize that sooner or later the energy of some network leaders will flag or they will leave the network for various reasons, or–just as important–it’s essential to get some fresh blood, new thinking, newer members into leadership positions.

In many networks, however, leadership succession is treated as an emergent phenomenon that somehow will happen and happen well. That’s also called rolling the dice–especially since there are ways for a network to be intentional about succession.

1. Define leadership broadly. It’s important to start by being clear about what a “network leader” does. Often “leadership” is taken to mean being a part of network governance, decision making. That’s true, but it’s a limited view. A network leader is someone who does more than participate in network activities; she helps make the activities happen. This could mean playing a role in network decision-making, but it could also mean being willing to chair a network working group, or advising on questions to ask in a survey of network members, or being part of a team that does a presentation to a potential funder. In each of these cases, the member is  providing value for the network as a whole. That’s network leadership.

2. Develop a leadership pipeline . Keep an eye out for network members who are interested in the challenges of leading the network, not just participating as members. Invite them into planning and other processes so they can see what leading the network looks like. Also look for members who are natural weavers and are becoming well-connected hubs in the network. If they move into leadership roles, they bring their weaving skills and connections with them.

3. Create leadership opportunities. Make sure that there are open leadership positions to fill–opportunities for others to step up. Don’t let leadership roles–steering committee membership, working group chairs–be filled by the same people forever; term limits create opportunities for others. You can even think of a a progression of opportunities that give members a little taste of being a leader and then allow them to step up into more important roles.

The last chapter in our book focuses on how to be a leader in a network. We figured that after seven chapters with details about starting, evolving, and managing a network, it made sense to address the readers’ interest and concerns about leadership–as a founder, a manager, a member–in a decentralized network setting.

We wanted to write about what seemed to be unique about leading in a network and we didn’t want to create a full-scale “leadership curriculum.” So we identified what seemed to be the three most difficult aspects of network leadership, based on what we’d seen dozens of network leaders experience, and how to handle them.

* The tension between advancing one’s own vision and needs and tending to those of the network. Answer: Trust the network.

* The tension between responding to a network’s demands and bringing new ideas/possibilities into a network. Answer: Serve the network, but don’t wait for it.

* The tension between living in a network’s constant fluidity/uncertainty and settling into a more manageable order. Answer: Embrace vertigo.

There’s much more detail in chapter 8, including great insights from successful network leaders.