Exploring Network Stewardship

In a recent collective learning call, we asked a portfolio of networks: “In a nutshell, how is your network being stewarded?”

From the responses we see that networks organize their stewardship in a range of ways. In the mix of approaches to gathering perspectives for decision making, some patterns emerge when looking at age, number of members, and geographic focus. What stands out most is that same question about stewardship brought forward very different responses. What’s top of mind varies by network. 

In what follows, we’ll lift up three themes with highlights from the descriptions offered by network leaders. In closing, we pose some questions that partners can consider exploring in the future.

Variety & Diversity 

Responses in this small sample vary from a global network with 40,000 members after 20 years to early stage networks with an initial base of 38 members. The majority of networks responding were established between 2016 and 2020. 

Stewardship most often includes a board or steering group. Several networks have more than one group playing an advisory role, for example a steering committee may be setting strategic direction while an oversight board has final approval. Two networks mentioned engaging advisors or chair people who direct and support specific network initiatives. 

“Stewardship means creating concrete tools and guides, as well as explicit permission and role-modeling, for members to harness the network towards their individual and collective goals.”

— Network leader

Several networks with larger memberships and geographic focus established regional hubs or sectoral clusters to encourage connectivity and opportunity sharing between members. One shares, “our governance is decentralized, not uniform in many ways” and “there are processes that enable us to be accountable to each other based on our strategy and plans.” Another network specifically states that board seats are tied to geographic regions to ensure diversity.

One emerging theme is that governance formalizes over time. One network noted a gap of several years between launching its network and putting its steering committee in place. Others shared that their stewardship group evolved from a steering group to a board. 

Day-to-Day Stewardship 

“Stewardship means nurturing our network as well as sustaining it.” –Network leader

Several networks confirm that the secretariat or team of network coordinators are leading day-to-day, providing the “operational backbone.” These folks who “wake up thinking about the network” frequently describe their work as supporting engagement and managing infrastructure. Coordinators facilitate convenings, create opportunities for connection and peer learning, and coordinate activities, working groups, and action teams. In addition to supporting collective initiatives, coordinators most often mention focusing on communications, storytelling, inviting new members, and developing partnerships. 

Several coordinators point out in the true spirit of stewardship, they act from a place of service, drawing on member input and ideas to guide their work.

A Network Approach 

“Stewardship means creating concrete tools and guides, as well as explicit permission and role-modeling, for members to harness the network towards their individual and collective goals.” –Network leader

A second theme we hear in the comments is that network stewardship has distinct flavors compared to governance for organizations and institutions. Coordinators describe how being a network has implications for how they think about structuring governance roles and processes to explicitly enable collective intelligence and collaborative action. 

A few networks spoke about their approach to stewardship, emphasizing collective decision making and collaborative strategy development that is community-led and prioritizes member needs. One network described their orientation as, “We emphasize co-creation: members identify priorities, champion working groups, conduct peer exchange, and help shape the network agenda.”  A few coordinators mention providing the materials, platforms, and infrastructure that encourage members to lead.

One network describes the intentional design of their stewardship group as “meant to represent the diverse regions and perspectives that make up our network.” Another highlights that member composition of their board means “members will always have a leverage on any votes that are required and it also means that we have member input into our strategy and decisions.”

Multiple networks point to the importance of “ensur[ing] a simple structure to encourage collaborative action.” One specifically notes that they take care to clearly articulate how the network operates, how the board is composed, and the responsibilities of being a member. “A small ‘job description’ of essential skills and experience, as well as time commitment required, helps with identifying the right nominations.” 

Topics to Explore

In addition to further discussion of nuances within the themes described above, several questions arise that may generate relevant insights for network practice.

• Who is framing strategic choices, who is consulted to gain perspective, and who ultimately makes decisions? Is this process ad hoc or clearly articulated?

• How is composition determined? What practices avoid “popularity contests” and bring complimentary skills to governance? 

• How do leadership roles rotate? What’s the logic behind tenure? 

• After becoming a network, when is it wise to put a stewardship structure in place?
  

How do these resonate? What else are you curious to discuss with fellow practitioners about network governance? Please let us know at connect@circlegeneration.com. We’re keen to continue the conversation.