Are you networked as a leader or an organization?
A networked organization is one where the ability to succeed at the mission of the organization is strategically dependent upon others, by design.
This is not the same as having networks (as in being part of a market or field), community (which can be networked, but isn’t always), or having a supply chain.
A networked organization is different than a supply chain in many ways, because an organization could conceivably absorb or develop some of the capacity of parts or all of the supply chain, making it unnecessary.
An organization like those in public health rely upon community organizations, industry partners, and governments as a necessity to ensure that their actions achieve impact. It’s the trust, local connections, situational awareness and context, and legitimacy of those partner organizations that enables public health organizations to do what they do. It’s not that they can’t serve these roles, it’s that they won’t be effective if they did.
The configuration of those partnerships, the nature of the specific relationship those organizations have can differ from context to context, however, the core functional role of partner is what is critical.
A singular public health unit that absorbed everything into it, wouldn’t have the trust or legitimacy needed to its work. It’s a stronger, more effective organization working as a network, than as a singular unit.
A large organization that could do it all lacks the fundamental aspects of trust and local connections.
Professional member-driven organizations are another example of a networked organization. They are, as a means of structure and function, a network of members, connections, and relationships that is at the very core of what they do and why people join them.
The Buurtzorg Example of Networked Organizing
The Buurtzorg model is one that represents a model of how to operate as a networked organization. It’s networks are both within itself (self-organization), and outside itself, with external partners.
Buurtzorg is a complexity-oriented model of home and community care operating in The Netherlands, and exists with an entirely different managerial and relationship models than we find in most North American healthcare institutions.
At the heart of the model is an “onion” built on values and principles, not managerial rules and ranks.
The onion model assembles the building blocks for independence based on universal human values:
- People want control over their own lives for as long as possible
- People strive to maintain or improve their own quality of life
- People seek social interaction
- People seek ‘warm’ relationships with others.
Buurtzorg is a fundamentally different way of working when compared to many other health and care organizations, which are typically organized around centralized, command-and-control structures. It’s self-organized approach reduces or eliminates the needs for most middle-management, because front-line workers are empowered to make decisions and take action based on a set of principles, not rigid rules.
For a detailed look at Buurtzorg’s model and structure, the Harvard Business School case study is worth a read. For a more brief summary, see here.
From Rules to Principles and Roles to Systems
What enables organizations like Buurtzorg to function is a principles-focused approach that is centred on adaptation and learning, avoiding the trap of applying generic “best practices” that ill-fitting to context, with evidence-driven, situation-aware practice guidelines. Networked organizations operate using principles, informed by systems and complexity research, as well as the science of networks.
There is no singular model for a networked organization, although there are principles and concepts that are shared among them in different measures. It’s that attention to a model of leadership, decision-making, information gathering and sharing, sense-making, and infrastructure use that is what separates them from standard models of organizations.
Networked organizations are required to operate through a more elaborate, complex set of leadership requirements. Leadership teams have to balance the internal requirements for leadership that ensure there is internal structural alignment, strategic focus, and appropriate resourcing and administration to operate (think: human resources), while simultaneously developing relationships and inter-organizational stategy with others.
Relationship development is an ongoing, organic, and energy-intensive activity. The time, care, and attention that is necessary to nurture and grow relations with anyone — your employees, colleagues, and array of partners — is something that blends tactical, strategic, and charismatic elements that require a set of skills that aren’t commonplace.
These are also skills that reside in individuals and organizational cultures in parallel. I’ve worked with organizations where leaders — at different levels across the organizations — are empowered, supported, and encouraged to build social capital within their sector regularly as part of standard operating practice. Here, organizations work to create roles within systems, not roles within an org-chart — meaning that the focus is on the job to be done and the values guiding the job, not the person or their title.
I’ve also worked in organizations where the relationship development was funnelled through a small, select role(s), which can be effective sometimes, but it’s brittle, and creates a bottleneck in information flows. If a strong leader with more centralized responsibilities and functions leaves, the organization could be in trouble.
Designing Leadership for Complexity
Which gets to another part of what makes a networked organization effective and strong: redundancy. Having the relational capacity as an organization to lead, operate effectively, and develop (grow and adapt), requires that the organization has trust. That means that the organization can be counted on, not just the senior leader running it.
None of this is to discount the unique talents of leaders, but it means if you’re operating a networked organization, you need to ensure that there is a broad array of talent represented at the leadership table.
Your unique capacities for being the person you are is the strength you bring to a networked organization, not a critical skill or knowledge set that is what keeps it going. That is shared and distributed widely.
You are in danger if you’re asking “what would we ever do without [person] on our team?”. Your unique capacities for being the person you are is what you bring to an organization, not a critical skill or knowledge set that is what keeps it going. If you have that, teach others, and build the capacity in them to lead.
Capacity-building is an over-used phrase, but it can matter in networked organizations. The capacity to organize and learn using complexity principles through such things as developmental evaluation is one. So is developing strategic plans that are designed for adaptation, learning, and foresight, rather than just traditional 5-year windows and KPIs.
Learning and leading a networked organization isn’t something commonly taught. It’s something that requires new skills, creativity, network insights, and relational intelligence. The good news, is that leaders worldwide are recognizing this. We’ve worked with many.
If you’re looking to learn more, explore the links in this article. Buurtzorg is a great example, but it’s not hte only one.
To be successful, you need to design your own system based on your context, drawing lessons from organizations like Buurtzorg. If you need help, let’s connect –– this is what we do: We help networked organizations and their leaders with strategy, learning, evaluation and impact, by design.