Leadership Networks

Before demonstrating how to use social network metrics to evaluate different aspects of leadership networks, we provide an overview of evaluation questions that are frequently asked about leadership networks, and briefly highlight some additional methods of network evaluation that can be combined with SNA for a richer understanding of network impact.

What to evaluate

There is a growing body of research about what to evaluate when assessing networks (Durland and Fredericks, 2005). Some useful frameworks include those developed by Provan and Milward (2001) to evaluate the network effectiveness of public sector organizational networks; Nunez and Wilson-Grau (2003) and Church et al. (2002) to evaluate international social change networks; Diani (2003) to evaluate social movement networks; Plastrik and Taylor (2006) to evaluate production networks; and Gutierrez et al. (2006) and Umble et al. (2006) to evaluate leadership development program alumni networks. The context in which networks operate and the purpose for which they exist influence the focus of leadership network evaluation.

Some common evaluation topics are connectivity, overall network health, and network outcomes and impact. Below are some examples of questions in each category.

Connectivity. Does the structure of network connectivity enable efficient sharing of information, ideas, and resources? Is the network expanding and growing more interconnected over time? How far does the network reach? Does the network effectively bridge clusters (e.g., sectors, communities, fields, and perspectives)? Where in the network are there unlikely alliances?

Overall Network Health. What is the level of trust among members in the network? How diverse is the network? Are people participating and exercising leadership as they are able to and would like? Is the structure appropriate for the work of the network? What are the power relationships within the network and how are decisions made? How well do networks manage conflicts? Is the network balanced and dynamic (e.g., capable of growing more inclusive while sustaining collaboration)?

Network Outcomes and Impact. Is there evidence of greater coordination or collaboration among leaders? Does the network promote higher levels of civic participation and engagement in each of its members? Does the network make the most of scarce resources to produce desired results? Are more innovative products being developed? Is the network positively influencing policy decision-making or how resources are allocated?

How to evaluate leadership networks

Social network analysis is one tool for evaluating leadership networks. It is particularly useful for assessing connectivity within leadership networks, although it also has applications for evaluating overall network health. There are fewer direct uses for SNA in evaluating network outcomes and impact, and so we suggest using multiple evaluation methods.

Connectivity: SNA highlights who are core and peripheral members of the network; identifies where bonding and bridging are occurring; and points towards who has influence in the network. What is missing from a structural focus on connectivity is the story behind the connections (e.g., what did people do together). Social network maps can be used to stimulate people to tell these stories. There are a number of other methodologies that are also useful with groups, organizations, and communities to help them uncover the "collective story," such as Photovoice (Wang, 2006), Q-methodology (Militello et al., 2008), Most Significant Change (Davies and Dart, 2005), Critical Moments Reflection (McDowell et al, 2005), and participatory story-building (Church et al., 2002). While we do not discuss these methods in this paper, we urge readers to explore and use a variety of different methods when evaluating network connectivity in order to get a full picture of where there are important relationships and connections.

Overall Network Health: In evaluating the overall health of a leadership network, it is important to gather perspectives from a diverse group of network members. SNA can help inform this process. For example, the core and the periphery of a leadership network may be quite distinct, and people located in a variety of positions across the network should be included in an evaluation. Network maps can also be used by participants to stimulate conversation about how well the network is functioning. Other useful assessment tools for evaluating network performance are provided by Nunez and Wilson Grau (2003) and Gajda and Koliba (2007). Gadja and Koliba have developed a framework for assessing the quality of dialogue, decision-making, action, and evaluation by communities of practice that is equally applicable to leadership networks, especially those that are goal-oriented.

Network Outcomes and Impact: Network outcomes may be found in communities, organizations, fields, and individuals. At this stage there are few techniques for using SNA to evaluate network outcomes and impact. We recommend using interviews, case studies, and traditional survey methods to identify network outcomes. Evaluating network outcomes at the community level is more challenging because it is not always as clear who to gather data from (Behrens and Benham, 2007; Plastrik and Taylor, 2006). Results-based evaluation approaches such as EvaluLEAD (Grove, Kibel, and Haas, 2007) and Results-Based Accountability (Friedman, 2005) have been used successfully by network-based leadership programs to focus attention on desired outcomes and to track progress towards those outcomes. While more research is needed, the Annie E. Casey Foundation has recently published a series of reports on how social networks link to family and community-level outcomes (Ahsan, 2007).