Leadership Networks

Defining organizational leadership

Organizational leadership is the capacity to set direction, create alignment and maintain commitment to get work done. (McCauley and Van Velsor, 2004). The exercise of leadership within organizations includes exploring new horizons, focusing collective attention, aligning and mobilizing resources, and inspiring others to participate (LeMay and Ellis, 2006). Organizational leadership also is the ability to plan, organize, implement and evaluate projects to maximize results.

The value of organizational leadership networks

Organizational leadership networks are the informal relationships that exist alongside the formal structure within an organization. They help improve innovation, efficiency, productivity, and growth by facilitating communication across departments, offices, and other boundaries (Borgatti and Cross, 2003; Cross and Thomas, 2009). Career success correlates strongly to one's position in the informal network (Burt, 2004). Also, the time one spends networking informally correlates to career success, whereas the time one spends convening more formally (e.g., meetings) can actually be counterproductive (Shipilov et al., 2007). Organizational leadership networks also refer to systems of multiple organizations that work together to more efficiently deliver services or produce a product.

Examples of organizational leadership networks

Global East

Global East (renamed) is a successful Fortune 500 corporation that operates more than 20 research and development facilities with more than 2,000 researchers and engineers. Global East depends on innovation for its success. The company leadership has recognized that informal networks as well as formal structures are critical to the success of a project and for the company. Rizova (2006) worked with Global East to identify the characteristics of its most successful projects; two of these were support from top management and open informal communication. In addition, each successful project included both a "technical star" and a "managerial star." Both technical and managerial stars are highly sought after for different kinds of advice. Global East uses SNA to help identify them, so that it can assign appropriate roles and responsibilities to maximize the opportunity for a project to be successful. The company also promotes a culture that supports the combination of informal networks with the formal structure; for example, most lab members are involved in all projects, and the incentive structure emphasizes overall company performance as opposed to the immediate results of one project. Rizova also found at Global East that some kinds of relationships (e.g., works-with, friends-with) have very little correlation with project outcomes; success depends more on the advice networks.

Acme Technology

Acme Technology (renamed) is a fast-growing startup that brings a radical new approach to its industry. Initially the company was organized according to expertise (e.g., engineering, manufacturing). In order to promote customer-driven innovation, the CEO reorganized the formal structure according to products, and the original formal divisions were dissolved. Acme wanted to ensure that people with similar expertise continued informally to share and learn from each other, even if formally they had been pulled apart into different teams. Acme supported communities of practice to promote this learning, and used SNA to help promote the program and assess its progress. At the same time, Acme worked to clarify paths of professional development for its employees, and SNA played a key role in this process. For example, network maps of expertise (similar to Figure 4) and advice (similar to Figure 9(a)) helped Acme get new employees on board more quickly. These same maps also revealed that Acme's unique approach to its industry-the cornerstone of its organization-resided entirely within one small group. Acme has since redesigned its program of professional development to encourage other employees to learn these key competencies.

Commonwealth Software

Commonwealth Software (renamed) is a young company with 50 employees that is planning for rapid growth. In order to grow effectively, Commonwealth started an "Emerging Leaders" program. One way the company identified emerging leaders was by examining the advice networks of its employees. Mapping this organizational network had several unintended benefits as well. The process illuminated one overtaxed senior leader and enabled him to rebalance his role. It also identified a client outside the company who had become a central leader of the organizational network. (This discovery occurred in part because employees were invited to name not just co-workers but also non-employees as people whom they sought for advice.)

When interviewed months later, the CEO added that the most important benefit of SNA to his company (which he also owned) was that it changed his philosophy of leadership. Maps such as Figure 6 revealed to him a new perspective on how the pieces of Commonwealth fit together. He reoriented his leadership development focus from individuals to the collective leadership system.

Key characteristics of organizational leadership networks

As mentioned by Rizova (2006) and others, organizational leadership networks need formal executive support without an imposed formal reporting structure. Interdepartmental links are key: high-performance in organizations correlates strongly to bridging. Promotions, pay raises, and good ideas all happen more often to those who are brokers between different network clusters (Burt 2004, 2005). Sometimes deliberate bonding is critical: For example, communities of practice cultivate interdepartmental bonding (Wenger et al, 2002). Also, junior-level employees and disadvantaged outsiders (e.g., minorities) are two groups for which early bonding with the help of strong mentors is critical for long-term leadership development. As organizations change more rapidly, however, these special exceptions become rarer and organizational leadership networks grow increasingly focused on bridging (Brass and Krackhardt, 1999).
Evaluating organizational leadership networks
Some questions for evaluating organizational leadership networks are:

• Are there appropriate bridgers in the network who connect disparate locations, specialities, and silos?
• To what extent do leaders use organizational networks to foster innovation?
• Are organizations more productive and capable of getting work done?
• Does information and knowledge flow easily through the network so that it is accessible to people when they need it?
• Do organizational leaders effectively learn from projects and experiences and share that information with others?

Using SNA to evaluate organizational leadership networks

SNA has many uses for organizational leadership networks. Perhaps the most common is to reveal where bridging is happening. SNA also helps to evaluate formal organizational structures. Both of these uses are illustrated below.

Figure 7 displays the weekly advice network of Commonwealth Software. It does not display any external non-employees, unlike Figure 6. Node shapes correspond to formal departments: circles are members of administration, sales, and marketing departments; triangles are members of the software engineering department; and squares are members of the product development department. Two distinct teams within the product development department are indicated as two different colors of squares. In Figure 7 (b), thick links are used to emphasize advice-seeking within a team, while thin links indicate advice-seeking across different teams. Node sizes indicate betweenness centrality (i.e., bridging).

The CEO obtained two major evaluative insights from Figure 7. First, his high regard for one young employee was affirmed: this young man (node 36) was both influential (high indegree) and well positioned for performance (high betweenness). Second, the CEO was surprised to see the difference between his two product development teams. Both teams were similar in their connections to the rest of the company, but within Team B there were strikingly few connections. Team B occupied a different building than most of the company (including Team A), and the CEO had been concerned with promoting collaboration between these two offices; the CEO had not realized that collaboration within Team B might be suffering. This insight was another important factor behind the subsequent company reorganization


Other common ways SNA is used to evaluate organizational leadership networks include assessing communities of practice and mapping organizational expertise. Both of these applications are critical in the Acme Technology case study. Evaluating a community of practice is quite similar to assessing a peer leadership network, which we described in the preceding section of this paper. Mapping organizational expertise is quite similar to assessing the network roles of a field-policy network, which we describe in the next section.

< Prev		Next >