Defining collective leadership
Collective leadership is "the capacity of a group of leaders to deliver a contribution in service of the common good through assuming joint and flexible leadership, according to what is perceived and required" (Kunkel 2005). Collective leadership "embraces diversity of people and perspectives, unleashes self-organizing and the collective intelligence that exists when people come together to act" (Gauthier 2006). At the heart of collective leadership are groups of diverse people who are connected and taking actions that positively affect themselves and their communities.The value of collective leadership networks
Collective leadership networks rely on self-organizing of members who share a common goal. The value of collective leadership networks is in their capacity to solve problems quickly in an environment of uncertainty and complexity (Watts, 2004). Collective leadership networks also provide members with a sense of purpose that comes from the feeling of belonging to something bigger than oneself.Examples of collective leadership networks
Mybarackobama.com
Mybarackobama.com is a portal created by Facebook co-founder, Chris Hughes, that gave supporters of Barack Obama for President a platform for self-organizing. Supporters used the platform to build relationships, share information, and act together on a scale that would have been unimaginable if it were orchestrated from the campaign headquarters. One example was how supporters used the network in the aftermath of the February 5, 2008 Super Tuesday primary. All campaign supplies in the Obama store were on back order and would not be available for 2-3 weeks. Meanwhile, hundreds of communities across the country were gearing up for primaries in March. They needed supplies. Within days people who had supplies began offering to send them to those who needed them. Supporters used open source graphics to create bumper stickers and yard signs that could be downloaded and used to produce materials quickly in local areas. Within a week an Obamacycle website was launched to coordinate the recycling of campaign supplies. This example shows how powerful networks can be for solving problems quickly when people have the tools that enable them to self-organize.Lawrence Community Works
Lawrence Community Works (LCW) is using the power of networks to restore Lawrence, Massachusetts, a dying industrial city, that is one of the poorest urban centers in America. Bill Traynor, a veteran community development practitioner, returned to his hometown of Lawrence to become a catalyst for transforming his community. Instead of setting up a traditional community development corporation to tackle local problems, Traynor thought in network terms. The challenge, according to Traynor, was to build a constituency that was not based on organizations and roles but instead was focused on getting things done (Plastrik and Taylor, 2004).LCW created an "open architecture" -- "a flexible structure that provides numerous opportunities for community residents to engage in civic life and connect with each other" (Plastrik and Taylor, 2004). At the heart of these connections is the opportunity residents have to share their stories and what they value about the community. Through these connections, they find common ground, and discover ways to work together to transform their community. Over 1,000 people have committed themselves to Lawrence's revitalization by volunteering in everything from community outreach to youth development. The assumptions of LCW's theory of change are the following: Civic health depends on civic engagement. If people do not know and understand each others' stories they will not trust each other enough to work together for the common good. When they do trust each other they can quickly solve local problems.
Cancer Information Service Partnership Program
The Cancer Information Service (CIS) Partnership Program is run by the National Cancer Institute to reduce the burden of cancer in minority and underserved populations, by reaching the public with information that helps people take action. CIS applies a collective leadership network approach to its mission by reaching out to partners that are dedicated to serving minority and underserved populations and have an established and trusted presence within their communities. CIS provides national resources to help regional cancer prevention efforts by offering expertise in areas such as program planning and coalition building on cancer-related topics.Since the inception of the CIS Partnership Program in 1984, the number of organizations involved in cancer control has increased substantially. In response, the CIS has tailored their outreach strategies to meet the needs of minority and underserved populations. In 2008, the National Cancer Institute used SNA to gain a better understanding of the capacity of the CIS Partnership Program network and the partner organizations within that network. SNA illuminated the key role that state programs now play in the cancer prevention network. With this new information in hand, the National Cancer Institute is re-examining how federal programs such as the CIS Partnership Program can further those efforts. This type of re-examination is common: as a collective leadership network matures, the original sponsors and facilitators of that network must adapt-often by focusing more on general goals and less on specific programs (Krebs and Holley, 2002).
Key characteristics of collective leadership networks
A successful collective leadership network relies on balancing two key characteristics. Control of the network must be in the hands of its users; this is a prerequisite for healthy self-organizing. Sometimes, however, core members of the network must be able to exercise veto power and keep control out of the hands of rank and file users; this is a prerequisite for long-term preservation of the group's mission. Shirky (2003) describes why and how online communities must manage participation for the sake of long-term effectiveness, including requirements such as establishing and protecting the notion of "member in good standing."When collective leadership networks successfully empower users and preserve their core values, they can grow very large as networks of clusters. Clusters form around specific issues, local problems, or promising practices to tap the power of the collective wisdom and energy that exists within groups. The power of collective leadership networks grows when clusters are connected. An important role in connecting network clusters is the network weaver. Network weavers bridge between many clusters, as illustrated in Figure 1. They form relationships with each of the clusters, discover what they know and what they need, and then connect individuals and clusters that can assist one another (Krebs and Holley, 2002). Network weavers are highly connected to other people, have knowledge of the wider network, and are motivated to help others use the network to get their needs met (Plastrik and Taylor, 2006).
Evaluating collective leadership networks
To assess a collective leadership network, it is important to look at both the health of the network itself and the effects that the network is having on community health and well-being.In 2005, Lawrence Community Works undertook an evaluation of its network approach to community development. Network members, network weavers, and funders were interested in what difference the network was making. Members of the LCW met to discuss how they would know if their network was healthy and what conditions were needed for the network to achieve its long-term goals (Plastrik and Taylor 2006). Here are the types of questions they asked:
- Is network membership growing?
- Is the proportion of members who are active in the network growing?
- Is network membership increasingly diverse?
- Are members engaging in multiple kinds of activities provided by the network?
- Are members coming together in different combinations in the network?
- Are members both bonding and bridging in the network?
Using SNA to evaluate and influence collective leadership networks
Evaluating collective leadership networks with SNA is challenging. Membership in the network can be very large and fluid. Clusters form for a purpose but may dissolve with members joining other clusters or becoming inactive. Collecting network data in this context is hard, and making sense of the data (e.g., mapping) is even harder. Network size and dynamics conspire against the usual approach of making network snapshots.For many collective leadership networks, including Lawrence Community Works, SNA concepts are used to inform the administration of the program, but SNA tools are not used to evaluate the results. The benefits of using SNA in this way have been rigorously demonstrated in the context of organizational leadership networks (Burt and Ronchi, 2007). Simply presenting SNA concepts to leaders produces significant improvement in their performance (e.g., pay raises, job promotions). We have informally observed similar benefits in other leadership network settings.
When planning a long-term investment strategy, the sponsor of a collective leadership network can use SNA as an effective evaluation tool. NCI is using SNA in this way: the evaluation of its $9-million-per-year investment in the CIS Partnership Program is informed by 24 years of history and an equally long-term vision of continued support.
The day-to-day support of a healthy collective leadership network does not demand such deep consideration; it merely requires ensuring that members can find one another and form the groups they need to get things done. This is the task of a weaver. In our work with collective leadership networks, we have assisted the weaving process using SNA-based methods, often without explicitly stating that SNA is being used. Our approach is influenced by Web sites such as eBay, which acts as a virtual network weaver, making expert introductions between buyers and sellers of various products. In our simplified adaptation of this approach, we help people in collective leadership networks find those with whom they share a common passion or desire to learn, and we help identify where there are resources and expertise in a network.
One simple way to implement this approach is to ask network members what problems they care about, and what problems they are willing to help others work on. The results of such a survey can be mapped using the same structural equivalence techniques illustrated in Figures 4 and 9; however, in many cases it is far simpler and more effective to publish a list. For example, the list can report the overall interest in each topic as well as names of people who are available to help for each topic. Such a list equips network members to find the people they need to form groups around shared issues.
A challenge in administering this kind of survey is knowing what questions to ask. Ideally, a survey would include a relatively short and specific list of all the issues that network members most care about; then the survey would invite members to indicate next to each issue their relative interest and energy. Such a survey is only successful if these questions tap the diverse passions of the members and respect the values of the core. In order to discover what these questions are, we usually conduct some sort of open-ended inquiry before defining the specific language of the actual survey.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
