Leadership in Networks

In my early days of reflecting on the nature of networks I speculated that as people work more and more in networks that leadership would become less important. Fortunately, I have recovered from that naive notion. Today, experience has shown me that for networks and collaborative work to succeed, leadership is actually more important than ever. I have seen great collaboration efforts and thriving networks literally killed off by the wrong kind of leadership.

Leadership can be considered as an emergent behavior that arises out of a particular shared social reality. The qualities that are important to a leader are dependent upon the conditions in which that leader is operating and the other roles that people play in that particular culture, society, network, or organization. At a very fundamental level the leader does not define and create their role. The role of the leader is defined and validated by the group - that then accepts or rejects individuals as candidates for that role.

In most value networks and collaborative work there is no actual role of "leader." The accountability in networks and most truly collaborative work happens peer-to-peer, not upwards. Rather, the specific contributing roles played by a group leader are defined instead. Such a role might be "Resource Provider" or "Executive Team Liaison" or "Advisor." This can be a very big adjustment for leaders and even for those within the group who have been conditioned to put the leader's priorities above those of other roles in the network.

In networks and strongly collaborative environments, leaders and managers are well advised to focus on two things 1) their own direct contributing roles within the work activity and 2) the conditions that allow the network to thrive.

• How and where does this collaborative network intersect with other networks?
• How can we best handle "phase changes" when the network is evolving from one stage to another? 
• How can I help people define their rules of engagement and norms of behavior?
• What can I provide for the network as a whole to function well? (physical or space needs, technologies, policy or administrative changes)
• How can I help people better execute their roles? (resources, equipment, training)
• Which roles in this network do I serve directly? What are my specific deliverables to individual roles?

There is already a natural trend toward higher transparency with the growth of collaborative work spaces and technologies. But transparency goes beyond simply monitoring tasks - it means transparency in decision making, resource allocation, and communication as well. Only with a solid grasp of the whole, can people make good decisions at the local level and execute their roles with confidence.

Value networks behave in many ways like intelligent living systems. A living system naturally regulates itself toward health and wholeness. When you get a cut on your arm you don't have to direct your body on what it needs to do to recover - rather you create the conditions for healing and trust your body as a living system to know what to do.

As a leader your goal is to create the right conditions for collaboration to happen and trust in the capacity of the group to self organize, respond to the environment, and even heal itself if things aren't working well. Value network mapping and monitoring is one of those conditions - like holding up a mirror that allows the network to better know and understand itself. This capacity can help a group move even beyond collaboration to access its own collective intelligence and wisdom.

TOP OF PAGE

Next page: Value Network Maturity