Paper 2

Network Form of Organization

This paper explores how network form of organizing can help non-profits in general - and the school reform & national parks, as discussed in the two referred documents1 in particular. For conceptual elements, the paper refers to a third source- Networks As Learning Communities : Shaping The Future of Teacher Development ! "nn #ie erman. $ome of the o ser%ation are ased on author&s experience in 'ndian %oluntar! sector.

What is Network management?

(etwork management or go%ernance can e descri ed as a pluricentric s!stem - as opposed to the unicentric s!stem of hierarchies or state rule and the multicentric s!stem of market competition )*ers ergen, *. %an & +aarden, F. %an 2,,-.. The! could e considered halfwa! etween market and firm, a lend of oth. 'n contrast to hierarchies of %ertical organizations and competiti%e markets, network management in%ol%es a large num er of interdependent actors who interact in order to produce pu lic purpose, goods or ser%ices. Below- Schematic iagram !Firm" Network" #arket$:

Boundary Spanner

Broker

NETWORKS

Producers

Markets

Vertical Hierarchies Unicentric Hierarchies Pluricentric Networks

Consumers

Multicentric Markets

These are ne ulous, order-less entities spanning man! organizations/ the! exhi it lateral form of communication and colla orati%e pro lem sol%ing a ilities/ "ccounta ilit! in a network is dri%en ! stake-holders, not ! an external mandate. 't is a sensi le response to a complex en%ironment, where 0uick changes in 'nformation1 2ommunication Technolog! and market forces create an atmosphere of uncertaint! and continuous change. 3ut networks are less a out technolog! and more a out people and culture2.

1 2

4eform Through $chool (etworks5 " (ew kind of "uthorit! and "ccounta ilit! )"ndrew *. $mith & Priscilla +ohlstetter. 6o%erning 3! (etwork5 The (ew $hape of The Pu lic sector )$tephen 6oldsmith, +illiam 7. 8ggers. 9asan, 9. & Pousti, 9. 2,,:.

Features
" stud! of school reform networks identified fi%e salient features of such networks )Parker, 1;<<=.5 1. " strong sense of commitment to an idea5 'n the case of 6olden 6ate (ational 4ecreational "rea )66(4". in $an Francisco, (ational Park $er%ice and the local non-profits had a clear commitment to reclamation and conser%ation of nature so that it could enefit the larger communit!. This was a huge task, which state grants- e%en if the! were a%aila le, would not ha%e sufficed to achie%e. 'n the second case, it was a commitment to increase student achie%ement across "## schools- "m assador "nnen erg&s challenge to "merica&s pu lic schools. Traditional school ! school reforms had failed to dent the o%erall s!stem. 2. " sense of shared purpose5 in oth the cases state ureaucrac! and ci%il societ! institutions or non-profits see an opportunit! for colla oration leading to success, in terms of pu lic good. =. " mixture of information sharing and psychological support5 'n the school reform networks, road ased learning plans and self-e%aluation plans were de%eloped ased on large scale sur%e!s. 'n 66(4", the park superintendent de%eloped a strategic plan and shared it with all the stake holders, who constituted >2? as opposed to mere 1>? of the park staff itself. These other pla!ers- uni%ersities and non-profits, were not onl! pro%iding funds and human resource ut o %iousl! were offering emotional support to each other in a situation full of uncertainties and flux. $ince the risk )& lame. of failure is eing distri uted all o%er the network, this approach offers a etter ps!chological stance to explore and experiment with new ideas. -. " facilitator who ensures %oluntar! participation and e0ual treatment5 The park superintendent appears to pla! this role in 66(4". 'n the school reform network, as it e%ol%es o%er time, there are man! facilitators5 $chool district administrator who sets up the network, who is replaced o%er time ! a Principal who tries to ensure continued operation of the network. #ater, since it was too much of a responsi ilit!, a post of $chool famil! facilitator was created in man! schools. These shifting roles ha%e een captured well in = categories5 Founder )"rchitect., 3oundar! spanner @ the actor who is trusted ! more than one organization and the 3roker- who mediates exchange of information and transactions. A. "n egalitarian ethos5 'n oth the cases, %arious actors are rising a o%e their routine role expectations/ the! are a le to percei%e a no le idea and their role in it. This is wh! the end result far exceeds the simple sum of their indi%idual contri utions. "s the school reform case stud! mentions- the network approach not onl! impro%ed 0ualit! of education for the students ut also exposed the educator )teachers. to a higher form of colla orati%e learning.

Comparison with Resource dependency model

'n resource dependenc! model, if Brganization " depends on Brganization 3 for inputs )or outputs. for its core processes B4 is in competition with it, it would ideall! attempt a merger- %ertical in the first case, horizontal in the second case. Bnce the merger is o%er, it must deal with the new organization 5 oth its assets and lia ilities. 3ut in a network model, it can create functional links with the other organization without a take o%er, and work through trust, negotiations and mutual political o ligation.

How a network can assist non-profits?

"s discussed a o%e, an organization can e distracted from its core operations, ecause of the external constraints, like dependencies on critical resources- funds, human resource, know-how,
= "s 0uoted in "nn #ie ermann article.

markets. 3ridging or uffering attempts ma! consume considera le time and efforts- and still ma! not gi%e the ad%antages of a networking approach. For example, in 66(4" case stud!, the network of non-profits, was not onl! a le to generate more than C=- million for the reno%ation, ut in addition roped in unprecedented support from the communit! and %oluntar! agencies in the form of educational and en%ironmental programs at the park. 9ad the park approached 2ongress, it would ha%e recei%ed onl! the necessar! funds, if at all. This generous support from ci%il societ! allowed the park to o%ersee and run the core ser%ices, with Dust 1>? of the staff in the park. 't is interesting to note that one of the core functions, as %iewed ! the Park management is the o%erall facilitation of this network5 Ewe tr! to get our people to see themsel%es as facilitators, con%eners, and rokers of how to engage the communit!Fs talents to get our work accomplished.G )3rian BF(eill, (ational Park $er%ice $uperintendent. 3ut networks ring not onl! funds and human resource, the! also ring in knowledge and technical inno%ation as a %alua le resource, for example in a school reform network uni%ersities ma! introduce inno%ati%e pedagogical elements in the class room. Bther ad%antages in this context was communit! ased colla oration, which ensured that schools de%eloped a ridging program, suita le to the needs of the students from the larger communit!. 'n traditional school ! school reform, the principal was the weakest link. $1he was answera le to the 7istrict ureaucrac! alone. $1he, dri%en ! parochial interests, could easil! derail the entire reform process. 3ut the network approach spreads out the authorit! and resources more e%enl! and ensures that reforms are dri%en & sustained ! man! actors, limited not Dust to one school or communit!. "lso, since man! schools and uni%ersities were mem ers of these networks, cost of research, de%elopment and training programs were etter utilized and shared. (etworks also rought a out attitudinal changes in schools5 since the! were not Dust o e!ing the district ureaucrac!- ut initiating their own pro lem sol%ing exercise in colla oration with other schools and uni%ersities, the! were much more open to experimenting with new ideas, self and peer e%aluations etc. "ll these changes and ad%antages led to impro%ements in the core function of the schools5 significant impro%ement in learning en%ironment. (etwork organizations, unlike ig hierarchies, are known to e fast and flexi le in adapting to the changes in the underl!ing en%ironment. This can e an important consideration for the sur%i%al of small non-profits.

How can managers build a network form of organization?

For this, the first step will e5 can the manager unlearn his 1 her straight Dacketed role of a traditional manager )Egetting the Do doneG. and %iew him1herself as a facilitatorH " negotiatorH " ene%olent ut astute politicianH (etworks depend on negotiation, not on force or compulsion. (etwork management is colla oration, not take o%er. (etwork management demands group process skills much more than technical skills. 't also re0uires a ilit! to see far and holisticall! - and communicate the %ision to other stake holders con%incingl!. $o the first re0uirement is5 1. " compelling Vision5 the founder must do a road ased need assessment )stake holder anal!sis. and come up with a solution. 2. Personality traits5 " network manager should ideall! ha%e two 0ualities- ". (etwork mentalit!5 a holistic sense of social structure the! elong to/ understanding of social space, their place in it, %arious structures and relations in it. 3. Inderstanding of network as a +9B#8, rather than mere complementarit! and particular partnerships in it. People ma! or ma! not e orn with these traits. The! ma! learn these as the! go. " stud! indicates that e%en &neurotics& ma! succeed as network managers if the! persist-. =. Group process skills5 The manager needs to de%elop facilitation skills, mo ilization, negotiation
1: - 1 - +88*> - $$2 1 - (etwork manager.mp-

and pro lem sol%ing skills. $he should ha%e a good grounding in participator! theor! and methodolog! )P4"1P#J tools.. This will help her to facilitate man! teams across the network, towards the common goals. $haring information freel! with all the actors is an important part of her role. -. Information sharing5 " network first and foremost shares information. "ccessi ilit! and Kualit! of this information will determine the health of the network ! ensuring "ccounta ilit!, transparent e%aluations, identification of E ottle-necksG and colla orati%e solutions. Jem ers ma! ha%e to e gi%en training to take ad%antages of %arious 'T solutions- colla orati%e softwares )groupwares, proDect management softwares. and 'nternet technologies. +hile sharing information o%er a network, one ma! ha%e to consider pri%ac! issues, information-o%erload, and use discretion in deciding what and how much to share etc. A. Learning Communities5 (etworks can promote etter technolog! and task, especiall! in schools ) ut elsewhere too., if the network itself is seen as a learning communit!- a communit! where pro lems are studied & sol%ed colla orati%el!. 'f we recall, organizational learning can e promoted through 2BJJI('TL and (8T+B4*s of practice )2BP, (BP.. $o, if the manager can look at the network, not Dust as a strateg! to access markets, funds and skills from the en%ironment @ ut also as a learning communit!, where colla oration generates e%er higher le%els of practice ased knowledge, which is constantl! peer-re%iewed & updated - he will e creating a network of a much greater significance in the long run. :. Strategic vision5 (etwork manager must not take organizational relations for granted and should ser%ice the network regularl! and Dudiciousl!. 'nformal meetings, fa%ors granted1 exchanged, strategic information shared etc. all these could e the wa!s of ensuring that network continues to function well. 3esides, the manager must also look for emergent needs and opportunities to rope in new network partners. "nother issue to consider is striking a careful alance etween external and internal inputs in a network. 'n the context of school reform network, according to #ie erman5 %eeping a &alance &etween insi e knowle ge !the e'periential knowle ge of teachers$ an outsi e knowle ge !knowle ge create &( research an conceptuali)ation$ is a hallmark of successful colla&oratives* "t times, this can re0uire a fine political alance etween %arious stakeholders and their expectations. 9e also must look for and pre%ent competition within the network. 't can e %er! d!sfunctional for the network. <. Volunteer management5 Particularl! non-profits should reach out to %olunteers through 'T networks like Linke in or Devnet. Molunteers not onl! ser%e free, with high moti%ation and skills ut often ring in cross-cultural perspecti%es and pro lem sol%ing skills. $atisfied o%erseas %olunteers can set up a network, scouting out future %olunteers. >. Community mobilization5 " good network manager will ha%e deep faith in communit! and will create scope for its participation. 2ommunities increasingl! want to ha%e a sa! in the matters affecting them and can function as a cost-efficient watch-dog. 'n an! case, communit! '$ a %alua le stake holder, oth in market d!namics and go%ernance issues. ;. 'mpact on Core operations5 'f network management can take care of peripheral ) ut critical. needs, the organization can de%ote itself to the core operation, as is e%ident in the two case studies5 66(4" and school reforms. To share another example from 'ndian non-profits5 " small #epros! reha ilitation center in 7ehradunA, produced hand wo%en mats, cushion co%ers, ed-sheets etc. " out three decades ack, it had much difficult! selling its produce and sustaining itself. " 6erman %olunteer found potential for upgrading the skills of the workers and the product itself through introduction of more cosmopolitan designs, fa rics, colors etc.
A http511kkmhandwea%ing. logspot.in1

$he rought in other 8uropean %olunteers to effect these changes/ found markets a road through a network of %olunteers. This %olunteer network made sure, that the tag line EJade in 'ndia, ! a #eper colon!G was seen in west as a %alue addition rather than as a stigma )as it was in the home markets.. B%er the !ears, the inmates of the center ha%e focused on and specialized in the core function5 hand wea%ing %arious items to a high standard, while the network partners ha%e taken o%er the responsi ilit! of marketing, updating designs and specifications etc.

Criti ue
(etworks approach is not Dust for small and poor non-profits. 't is increasingl! sought ! state go%ernments in two predominant forms5 pri%ate firms and nonprofits are increasingl! eing used to do go%ernmentFs work, and go%ernment departments are eing EDoined upG horizontall! and %erticall! to streamline ser%ice pro%ision:. 3ut in man! countries, the unwield! state machiner! is finding it difficult to adapt to this new role. For non-profits, e!ond attracting funds and knowledge resource, it can also enrich ser%ice pro%ision )eg. greater range of ser%ices to mentall! ill people<., enlarge support ase )eg. a small animal rescue group in "ustralia using Face ook>. etc. 3ut network approach ma! not suit each and e%er! situation or organization. #ow tech )art, religious. non-profits ma! find it difficult to adopt. Bther non-profits in highl! specialized niche operations ma! not find enough partners to network with. (etworks are also difficult to coordinate, manage and sustain. 'n the school reform case stud!, Principals found managing networks too much of a responsi ilit!/ therefore a post of $chool famil! facilitator was created in man! schools, which in the long run, ma! ecome another ureaucrac!inefficient and o li%ious of the original %ision. 'n the context of state wishing to partner with non-profits, a ig constraint is the existing hierarchical structure which is suited to deli%er ser%ices rather than facilitate partners of multiple hues and skills. Pre%ailing ureaucratic attitudes and lack of necessar! skills and knowledge of network management could e a igger hindrance. $tates must deal with these issues in order to take full ad%antage of network potential. $ociologist elie%e that network form of management helps in attainment of status or legitimac(" facilitate the management of resource epen encies" an provi e consi era&le autonom( for emplo(ees+. " tie to a 2hurch or a go%ernment department for example ma! impro%e network&s legitimac! and economic enefits. Bn the flip side, the pre-existing contacts determines future possi ilities of networking. $o, a firm will often e unwilling to form a tie with another if it lacks an! contact with the other - thus setting limits to the extent a network can change in self-interest. 3esides, man! networks do not perform the function for which the( were esigne )*ogut 1;>>a, *illing 1;>2, 'nkpen 1;;:. and a large num ers, especiall! strategic alliances, fail1,. 'n final anal!sis, network approach ma! not ser%e e%er! organization, in e%er! situation. 3ut it should e considered as a sensi le response to a complex en%ironment under rapid flux. Bnce adopted, it will need a certain mindset )network mentalit!., group process skills, colla orati%e learning and pro lem sol%ing, lateral communication and accounta ilit! deri%ed from stakeholders. $at!endra $ri%asta%a )$tudent. satksriNgmail.com Brganizational "nal!sis, 2oursera.org
: < > ; 1,

7ate5 =rd 7eceme er 2,12

6o%erning 3! (etwork5 The (ew $hape of The Pu lic sector )$tephen 6oldsmith, +illiam 7. 8ggers. $usan Park, (o% 1:, 2oursera 7iscussion Forum. Felicit! +ightwick, (o% 1>, 2oursera 7iscussion Forum. (8T+B4* FB4J$ BF B46"('O"T'B( , Poel J. Podoln! and *aren #. Page ' id.