personal networks

Archive

August 14, 2016 by Patti

Knowledge in the Network

Off the shelf

Pulled off the bookshelf last month

The past few months I have been working on a few different projects for nonprofits, initially focused on network mapping or the development of a NetWorkShop, but slowly morphing into (or taking sideroads down) knowledge management. Fortunately I have a good bookshelf and a good network, and a long history of my own. A surprising number of elements came together in both cases, and I quite happily brought some lessons from the (mostly) corporate KM world into some nonprofit work.

Especially pleasing was to see an alignment between Harold Jarche’s networked learning model (recently updated and republished in his recentblog post) and the three types of social change networks from Net Gains by Madeleine Taylor and Peter Plastrik. Harold’s model is focused on learning and personal knowledge mastery and acknowledges that we live in multiple networks and that these networks have different structures:

networked-learning-model Jarche

  • Our loose-knit social networks offer us a fairly large number of informal, or weak, ties.
  • Within our communities of practice, we develop some strong ties, so the network becomes a more trusted space
  • To really get work done, our ties need to be strongest and we may need some formal structure

One version of this graphic shows little network maps illustrating whether the ties between nodes are strong or weak. Having seen this in the past, I found it this time while I was researching working out loud. What really worked for me was, obviously, the way that Harold has so neatly integrated the network foundation into the model.

Because I’ve been in the nonprofit space and the immediate client need was to introduce network concepts and network thinking, I immediately saw the connection to the Taylor/Plastrik model’s differentiation of network types as connectivity, alignment, and production. Now, the purpose of this model is to provide insight for people who are creating, building networks so the intent of the model is a bit different. (I’ve also included the key tasks for a network builder in each type of network.)

Connectivity Network Alignment Network Production Network
Definition Connects people to allow easy flow of and access to information and transactions Aligns people to develop and spread an identity and collective value proposition Fosters joint action for specialized outcomes by aligned people.
Key task of network builder Weaving — Helping people make connections, increase ease of sharing information Facilitating — helping people to explore potential shared identity and value propositions Coordinating — helping people plan and implement collaborative action

So you see that it did not take a great leap to see the similarities in these. Our social networks are all about connectivity and access to ideas; we align ourselves in communities of practice with those people who have common interests and who want to share more formally; and, when it comes time to set goals and get some work done, we need more structure and people to coordinate the work.

I love the congruence in seeing these models come together; I wouldn’t try too hard to make them agree in all aspects. What I like is that they both use sound principles from our knowledge about how networks work, the underlying principles of network structure, to inform action about using networks to enhance knowledge.

(Net Gains was written in 2006. Last year, Pete and Madeleine collaborated with third author, John Cleveland, to update and expand that into Connecting to Change the World.)

Share

Archive

July 15, 2013 by Patti

The Net Work of Change Agents

Change management has been on my mind a bit of late — especially since I was invited to participate in a panel on the topic in the knowledge management track at the SLA annual conference in San Diego last month. It was a panel of two; I was pleased to be able to re-connect with a former colleague from my work with MITRE, Ethel Salonen, who was my co-panelist.

I began delving into my file cabinet and came up with the following articles spanning 25 years:

SLA 2013

Both long-time veterans of corporate change programs, Ethel and I were able to provide two different perspectives:

  • Naturally, my part was about the network perspective (understanding the organization, finding the influencers via social network analysis). I included some insights that I have learned from working with nonprofits who develop logic models supporting their theories of change
  • Ethel gave a historical and theoretical perspective based on types of change giving examples from MITRE, wrapping her talk around three types of change (incremental, paradigmatic, and cataclysmic) from work by Roger Greer.

It was a fun, engaging session with lots of Q&A (SLA is a great audience). The fact is I hadn’t originally intended to talk about change management and network analysis, and was planning to do a more KM-focused talk, but Ethel convinced me to give the network perspective, and that worked well.

What would have worked better is if I had seen the new HBR article, The Network Secrets of Great Change Agents a day or so before the talk. (It was not published until a week or so later, so I excuse myself.) (Also, hat tip to colleague Cai Kjaer at Optimice for posting a link in the SNAP Linked In Group.)

So, this article, by Julie Battilana and Tiziana Casciaro, identifies what the social networks of change agents should look like based on the type of change. The research base consisted of 68 change initiatives within the UK’s National Health Service. Building on the network concepts of bridging ties versus bonding ties, which they’ve articulated as bridging and cohesive network patterns, they found that:

  • For divergent change, that is, a change that requires “dramatic shifts in values and practices that have been taken for granted,” a bridging network (or bridging network strategy) is more effective. I suspect that divergent here might correspond to some combination of paradigmatic and cataclysmic in the Greer model)
  • For nondivergent change, that “builds on rather than disrupts existing norms and practices,” a cohesive (bonding) network or strategy is best

They also summarize the importance of looking at your personal network and seeing, within it, people who might be categorized as endorsers, fence-sitters, and resisters and the most effective strategies for working with people in each of these categories, again, based on how divergent the change is. The upshot? Focus on the fence-sitters, for either type of change. Deepening personal relationships with endorsers doesn’t add much value, and resistors should be kept at arm’s length. (Also on the change management front this past week: a new blog post from Maya Townsend on “Go Slow to Go Fast:” doing the careful work of talking to people before embarking on a change initiative. She doesn’t use the word “network,” but I believe she is talking about creating a solid network to support change.)

This is a good, quick, read that provides the kind of insight that I like to see from rigorous research. Next time I’m asked to give a talk on change management, I’ll update the network perspective.

 

 

 

Share