A Swimmer’s Guide to Networks

(Photo by iStock/LeeAnnWhite)

In the civic and nonprofit sector, we are seeing more and more networks formed to address important issues. These networks occur when groups of nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and private sector partners choose to join forces toward a shared purpose. But while the number of networks has increased, one fundamental question is rarely discussed: how—and how much—do network members interact with each other as they work toward their common aims?

The answer to this question will help network organizers to answer a host of other questions:

• How should we organize ourselves for the highest impact?
• How can we manage the tension between members’ individual identities and the identity of the network?
• How do we keep members engaged?
• How do we sustain the network over time?

This article introduces the concept of interaction within a network and illustrates why it’s important to understand it before thinking about network planning and sustainability. Note that our focus here is on networks of organizations, where the members are all working on programs or policy, and network activity results in work product or outcomes. These networks are distinct from peer learning or purely social networks.

Two Kinds of Interaction

To begin with, there are two distinct kinds of interaction, each with different characteristics. Think about the differences between a competitive swim team and a water polo team:

• On a swim team, each swimmer competes independently, striving to win in their particular contests. Each swimmer relies on their teammates to do their individual parts, so that together the team can win the meet.
• On a water polo team, swimmers must continually work together to win a game. They execute plays and pass the ball to one another to enable goals. The actions of an individual water polo player are important, but only in the context of a cohesive, highly functioning team.

This distinction, the amount and quality of interaction and integration among team members, is also useful when applied to networks. We call the network equivalent to the swim team an alignment network. On the other hand, some networks operate more like the water polo team, with network members working together on common tasks. We call these networks co-labor networks.

 

Alignment Networks

In an alignment network, members are aligned towards the same common purpose, but each member works independently. Members are essentially working side-by-side, or in alignment, towards their common purpose. It is the synergistic combination of each member’s own mission-related activities that enables the power and impact of an alignment network. Network priorities and a member’s participation in the network may influence how they conduct or measure their own work, but there is typically a low level of integration between members’ activities.

For example, Building Healthy Communities: Long Beach is a place-based alignment network made up of organizational members and coalitions working towards a healthy and safe community. Part of a larger initiative (which is itself an alignment network) started in 2010 by The California Endowment, the Long Beach effort is organized with a “hub” that has three core functions: communication, technical assistance, and governance of the initiative. Hub staff members also connect with and engage other networks in the area, to coordinate and leverage efforts where possible. Initially, network members (called “partners”) were organized in four workgroups, addressing issues related to parents, youth, environmental justice, and healthy neighborhoods. Planning processes over the years resulted in a “roadmap,” which outlined key objectives in each issue area that partners and local collaboratives agreed to work towards. The effort has evolved with time, reconfiguring workgroups as needed, and is now part of Long Beach Forward, though its alignment structure remains.

 

“Collective impact” networks, as originally defined by Kramer and Kania, are also examples of alignment networks. Kramer and Kania state that one of the five conditions of collective impact is “Mutually Reinforcing Activities” and that “the power of collective action comes not from the sheer number of participants or the uniformity of their efforts, but from the coordination of their differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action.” In addition to working in alignment toward a common purpose, the collective impact model also includes common indices or benchmarks to assess progress.

Co-Labor Networks

In co-labor networks, members’ activities are highly integrated and conducted jointly with other members, often in committees or workgroups. Each member’s contribution to network activities is still related to its organizational mission and activities, but the work of the network primarily consists of new activities that can only be done jointly by multiple members. Members work together to create something that goes beyond their usual, pre-network organizational services or products. The power of a co-labor network comes from the value of the joint work product and rests in large part on the ability of its members to work together to accomplish their shared tasks.

 

For example, the Spare the Air campaign, located in the San Francisco Bay Area, depends on eight county-based cross-sector “community resource teams.” Each team functions as a co-labor network, in which team members jointly develop and implement projects designed to improve air quality in their community. Each team has the freedom to decide what it wants to do, and selects projects based on what its community most needs. Spare the Air teams have established vanpools, created classroom kits, and run public awareness campaigns, all with the common purpose of reducing air pollution.

Hybrid Networks: Both Alignment and Co-Labor Modes

Not every network is 100% an alignment or a co-labor network, however. Many networks have elements of both alignment and co-labor behavior and structures. Indeed, while Building Healthy Communities: Long Beach is primarily an alignment network, it also has co-labor structures within it, where work is conducted in coalitions.

One example of a hybrid network that changed over time is Future of California Elections (FoCE), a statewide group of election officials, civil rights organizations, and election reform advocates who came together in 2011 to expand voter participation and improve the state’s election system. FoCE started out, primarily, as an alignment network: members set priorities and strategies annually to achieve their common purpose and established workgroups for each of their key priority areas. Given the nature of the organizations that make up FoCE’s membership, each of the members did (and still do) their own work and played their own role in the election environment: the registrars conducted elections and the advocates conducted policy work and/or registered voters. Members checked in regularly via conference calls and biannual meetings. They also formed issue-based workgroups to regularly discuss strategy, compare notes, and provide updates about what each is doing.

However, over time, co-labor elements began to develop as some workgroup members began to do joint work together. For example, one workgroup jointly developed toolkits to document what they had done in their own counties and to assist people from other counties in doing the same things. Another workgroup was formed to advance effective implementation of a new state law (which FoCE members had worked in alignment to get passed). Creating a toolkit was not something FoCE members would normally do in their regular jobs, but their joint work and network staff support made it possible for others to benefit from their experience and, thus, advance the network’s common purpose.

Storyline Partners is an example of a network that has intentionally chosen a hybrid mode. Initially conceived as a clearinghouse for entertainment industry executives, writers, and showrunners to source guidance for scripts that involved specific issues or communities, the group is a diverse collective of issue- and community-based organizations that collaborate with the entertainment industry to promote accurate, authentic, and equitable storytelling in television and film. Storyline Partners also serves as a referral service for issues beyond members' scope.

Each member brings identified expertise in specific community or issue areas, but they quickly saw opportunities to work together on more holistic and comprehensive script reviews and to train writers, directors, and producers. During a strategic planning process, they decided that a hybrid model incorporating individual consultations and advocacy in their areas of expertise combined with joint work across areas would best advance their common purpose. Understanding the distinction of alignment and co-labor has helped them to more clearly frame and manage their structure, processes, and strategies.

How Interaction Affects Network Success: Different Characteristics of Alignment and Co-Labor Networks

The distinction between alignment and co-labor networks provides an important lens when thinking about how to best manage, support, and sustain organizational networks.

Relationships Between Network Members

Good relationships between network members are always helpful, but, depending on the type of network, the quality of those relationships may play more or less of a critical role.

In a co-labor network, because relationships between participants are essential to get the work done, network facilitators and members will want to pay attention to relationships and intentionally create time for relationship-building. For example, Spare the Air resource team members occasionally get together for celebratory lunches or other fun activities that are not work-related, but offer helpful bonding and get-to-know-you time.

In an alignment network, the quality of member relationships may be less critical to its success. Members of an alignment network often don’t work together (and may not even know each other), so relationship-building may not warrant as much of the alignment network facilitator’s day-to-day time and attention. This is the case with BHC Long Beach and many collective impact networks, where some of the members don’t know each other… because they don’t need to.

Communication

Communication is also an important component of any strong network. Communications between members tend to follow the work being done, so the relevant difference in an alignment vs. a co-labor network is where the communication occurs.

In an alignment network, other than setting and periodically revisiting the purpose and priorities, most communications are primarily between the individual member organizations and the facilitator. Communication between members is likely less frequent and probably less important to keep track of.

For a co-labor network, which is driven by and grounded in joint activities, it is extremely important that members communicate regularly to plan and conduct their joint work, as well as to regularly assess network-level priorities and accomplishments.

Interdependence and Accountability

Interdependence (reliance of members on each other) is at a high level in both co-labor and alignment networks, but in different ways and at different times. For co-labor networks, interdependence manifests itself in the day-to-work: for example, a FoCE toolkit can’t be completed until each participating workgroup member finishes their section. In alignment networks, interdependence is built in at the design level. While the work of one member of BHC Long Beach—on food access, for instance—may not intersect with another member’s work on housing, both are essential for the network to reach its purpose of a healthy community. This is why it’s vital to make sure that all the necessary players are at the table, particularly in an alignment network where interdependencies may be less obvious. Like the overall performance of a swim team in a meet, the ultimate success of an alignment network rests on the aggregate strengths of each member.

Accountability also functions differently within the two kinds of networks, following a similar pattern: in the co-labor network, the members are more accountable to each other in the short term, because they are working closely together, and reliant on each other to complete the work. In an alignment network, members work independently but are accountable to each other for the ultimate goal.

Ownership of the Work

The question of who “owns” the work of the network, particularly in co-labor networks, can sometimes become an issue for members and network facilitators to address. In pure alignment networks, each member is essentially the “owner” of its own work product, but when work is done jointly in a co-labor network, ownership is often more complicated or unclear.

Ownership of the work can particularly become an issue when credit is due—for example, when the network produces a joint work product and wants to list the contributors. Some co-labor networks address this issue by listing everyone who participated. Others don’t list individual contributors at all but credit the network as a whole.

Participants’ sense of ownership may also have an impact on how much they are willing to contribute staff time and other resources. In a co-labor network, it may be harder to motivate people to contribute if the final product or outcome is attributed to the network, as opposed to their individual organization. However, an organization may be more comfortable supporting a political or controversial position if the entity taking the position is the network as a whole rather than the individual network members.

Focus of Shared Decision-Making

The healthiest networks operate under a shared decision-making structure, with decisions made by committee or the whole membership. In an alignment network, the main decisions that need to be made relate to the overall network priorities, which should be reviewed on a regular basis and revisited or updated as needed. Once the overall priorities are determined, individual members can make decisions about how to do their own work, although they may agree to certain standards, measures, or procedures to enable alignment and synergy that leads to the best outcomes. Since the decision-making at the priority level will ultimately affect everyone’s work, it is important that facilitators of alignment networks ensure that these decision-making processes are transparent, equitable, and inclusive.

In a co-labor network, the shared decision-making focus goes beyond priorities into the realm of the work itself. Selecting which projects to tackle jointly and the interaction between members required to carry out the work of a co-labor network brings shared decision-making down to that level. Therefore, in a co-labor network, facilitators will likely be called upon to facilitate and support decision-making processes more frequently. A facilitator of co-labor activity will also need to allocate additional time to accommodate the additional shared decision-making.

Summary of Characteristics

• In alignment networks, relationships between network members may not exist; in co-labor networks, they are critical.
• In alignment networks, communication is primarily between individual member organizations and facilitators about progress towards a common purpose; in co-labor networks, communication is between individual members about the progress of joint work.
• In alignment networks, interdependence and accountability are focused at the level of the common purpose; In co-labor networks, it is at the level of day-to-day joint work.
• In alignment networks, ownership of the work is not usually a factor because each member owns their own work; in co-labor networks, it is important to agree on how joint work products are attributed.
• In alignment networks, the focus of shared decision-making is common purpose and priorities; in co-labor networks, it goes beyond common purpose and priorities to include the work itself.

More Implications for Network Facilitators

Many networks benefit from having a dedicated facilitator, someone who coordinates network processes and functions. Understanding the implications of the two types of networks can be especially helpful for network facilitators; like a coach in the swim team and water polo team examples above, a network facilitator’s role will depend on whether the network is working in alignment or co-labor mode.

When supporting an alignment network, the facilitator needs to see the big-picture, making sure member organizations are aligned and working toward the same articulated common purpose. The facilitator communicates regularly with members, identifying gaps, spotting opportunities, and connecting members when the need arises. Since alignment network members primarily stay in their lanes, the facilitator’s role is staying in touch with each member and identifying opportunities when members might benefit from hearing what other network colleagues are doing or learning. Facilitators of alignment networks also help members to spot opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise be attuned to.

The facilitator of a co-labor network may more frequently go back and forth between the big-picture and day-to-day levels, focusing both on the joint work product and on what goes into developing it. They pay attention the interactions between the members, making sure that members know who is accountable for what and that everyone is working well together. And like the alignment network facilitator, the co-labor network facilitator works with members to identify potential gaps and opportunities for work that would advance the network’s overall success.

Implications for Network Funders

The distinction between network types also comes into play when considering how financial resources are controlled and shared. Both kinds of networks need resources to support the necessary infrastructure, administrative work, and facilitation that keep a network humming along. Members also use staff time and may have direct expenses when participating in network activities. In some networks, members are expected to contribute their staff time and other expenses. In others, member organizations may need funding to offset their costs.

Funders who want to support the work of a network can consider funding at both levels. A grant for network operations can be a catalytic and much appreciated investment. Funders may also want to support members individually, through individual grants to members or through additional funding to the network that can then be allocated to members through contracts or sub-grants.

In all cases, network facilitators should support members to have regular and candid conversations about how resources are allocated.

Swimming Forward

Knowing how members interact is an important lens for understanding how a network can operate most successfully. Whether your network is a group of organizations operating in alignment, working together to co-labor, or some combination of both, paying attention to member interaction is critical.

We encourage network members, facilitators, funders, and conveners to consider whether your network operates more like a water polo team or a swim team … or some combination of both. Better understanding that dynamic will help you to dive in and improve network productivity and success toward meeting your goals. Come on in, the network water’s fine!

Read more stories by Linda Fowells & Malka Ranjana Kopell.