I cut my teeth on managing organizations relatively earlier in my career as the VP for Advancement at an urban community college. For those unfamiliar with how a college operates, suffice to say, decision-making is pretty hierarchical and deliberate. That same basic pattern ensued with much of the major decision-making at the land trust I ran for 13 years before coming to the Exchange, save the fact that our decisions about where we worked and how we designed the parks we conserved were very much driven by constituent preferences.
Realizing that I am fairly steeped in Western assumptions of how change happens through deliberate planning and control, I knew I had some work to do in coming to a network, so as not to “stub my toe” right out of the gate. First, I needed to understand exactly what it means to be organized as a network. Second, I needed to discern how that theory is playing out for us, i.e. “to get the lay of the land.”
Following through on the first task, I picked up and read a copy of David Ehrlichman’s 2021 book, Impact Networks: Create Connection, Spark Collaboration, and Catalyze Systemic Change. It turned out to be a great primer on networks, replete with links to relevant models and many resources for growing the work. My high-level takeaways can be read here. A few that stood out for me are as follows:
- Leaders who have adopted a network mindset focus on the following:
-
- Scaling impact, not growing their organization or function
- Being part of an interconnected system, not the center of it
- Sharing leadership and credit with peers, not hoarding power or trying to be a hero
- Building trust-based relationships, not systems of control
- If networks are as strong as the connections that hold them together, those connections are only as valuable as what’s flowing through them.
The text also mentioned a hybrid form of organization, i.e. an impact network exists for process and action, while the hierarchy contributes to administration and reporting.
I turned my attention next to task two, understanding how network theory is currently operating with the Green Infrastructure Leadership Exchange. I’ve tried to capture my thoughts in the drawing below:
It seems to me that we have a hybrid structure. The activities that go to the heart of our mission are more emergent, while those related to administration of the organization are less so.
Getting this right is important to how we choose to operate going forward. The work of networks requires cultivation. In Erlichman’s words,
It’s helpful to think of networks as like a garden. Like gardens impact networks are living systems—they have a life of their own. This is precisely why we think of cultivating networks as opposed to building them. Cultivate, an agricultural term, means “to nurture and help grow.” It implies that you’re creating the right conditions for something to emerge and flourish. (Impact Networks, pp. 60-61).
If you agree with the model depicted above, that same result may not hold true for the administration of the network, where a more deliberate approach is in order.
We have some immediate growth needs when it comes to marketing, communications, membership and fundraising, which I will delineate in subsequent posts. (Some of these were born out in the strategic assessment that the Exchange very wisely conducted last spring). I think some fairly quick, deliberate action is called for in these areas.
So, I wanted to test the waters with the idea that our organization is, in fact, a hybrid? The Strategic Planning and Policy Committee was in general agreement, although consensus has not yet been achieved on where Playbook Development fits. What say you? Let me know what you think about this idea or anything else that may be on your mind at barbara@giexchange.org or at (410) 657-2657 (cell/SMS) and thank you for your continued support and cooperation.
– Barbara L. Hopkins, Esq., ASLA, Executive Director
