Rethinking Collaboration: How Networks Challenge Traditional Organizational Mindsets
By Matthew Spence and Elsa Henderson
We live in an era of continuous change. Looking at the news and noticing what’s unfolding in many communities, it seems the world is going through rapid shifts at the economic, geopolitical, social, and environmental levels. Amidst these shifts, complex challenges arise that increasingly intersect and transcend organizational boundaries. Such challenges require collaborative approaches that bridge silos. One such approach is the development of multi-sector, purpose-driven collaborations, or impact networks, designed to engage complex challenges through shared learning and action.
However, forming a network and coordinating the activities of its members is frequently a complex undertaking all on its own. When confronted with these demands, there can be a tendency to try and transpose conventional organizational expectations onto collaborations.
There can be, for example, a strong desire to assume that the way forward requires that we figure out what's happening, assign roles, make a plan, put someone in charge, and set and achieve quantifiable goals. In a network context, however, whether in an impact network or an organization that is taking a network approach, these expectations not only fall short of meeting the context appropriately, but can also stifle the potential of the collaboration altogether.
“Those who succeeded often noted that it wasn’t just what we taught, but how we engaged with curiosity, humility, and a deep respect for complexity that made the difference. ”
At Converge, a network of facilitators and consultants the authors participated in, our early work emphasized a series of frameworks to structure and guide the work of network cultivation. Over time, however; we noticed a curious pattern: some clients applied these frameworks successfully, while others struggled to even understand how to think about large-scale collaboration. Those who succeeded often noted that it wasn’t just what we taught, but how we engaged with curiosity, humility, and a deep respect for complexity that made the difference. These insights led us to recognize that collaborating in a network context demands more than new tools; it requires a different way of understanding how we approach organizing and working together.
Based on these experiences and insights, what we wish to propose, is that designing, launching, and cultivating networks is challenging not just because networks are complex, multifaceted undertakings, but also because engaging a network approach, requires a distinctly different way of thinking about human organizing than we tend to encounter in most of the organizational contexts. Working in networks is so different that it can challenge virtually every assumption we make about relating with others and working in groups. As a result, working in networks can be an unsettling experience.
In our own practice, we have come to appreciate that, in a network context, where we are drawing upon a diversity of perspectives to engage with a shared purpose, which is often focused on addressing a complex challenge:
The reality of what is happening is often unknowable.
The work of collaboration is more personal and relational than transactional.
Leadership is best exercised as a shared responsibility.
Decision making must take all the interested parties into account.
The process of collaboration is as much a measure of effectiveness as tangible results.
Outcomes are more emergent than they are planned.
Let’s look at each of these assumptions in greater depth, beginning with the implications of the network approach on our views about reality.
1. The reality of what is happening is often unknowable.
In traditional organizations, the assumption is that much of reality can be known, predicted, and controlled. Work proceeds through planning, goal setting, and the assignment of clear roles and responsibilities. The aim is to reduce uncertainty and maintain stability.
In a network context, by contrast, what is happening is often unknowable. Networks exist to tackle complex, dynamic, and interdependent challenges that function like systems. Donella Meadows described a system as “an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something.” Acknowledging that there are many kinds of systems in our world, in this context, we are speaking about living systems, in which the different elements are dynamic and influence each other in visible and invisible ways.
Faced with a complex challenge, no single actor can see the full picture. Every participant brings a different perspective, shaped by their unique role and lived experience in the system. This understanding aligns with frameworks like Dave Snowden’s Cynefin model, which reminds us that, while some aspects of our work may be simple or complicated, complex challenges resist causal thinking and straightforward solutions.
Embracing this diversity is essential, but it also demands humility: no one has all the answers, and the situation itself may change before any clear answer emerges. Instead of trying to impose change, participants must engage in a constant process of sensemaking, learning to notice where change is already happening and act from within it, a mode of engagement that Chellie Spiller, a professor who writes about strategy and engaging complexity from a Maori perspective, calls “dwelling dynamically.” This is a stance of presence and responsive participation, rather than seeing ourselves as separate from the situation we are seeking to influence, and trying to control what is happening.
2. The work of collaboration is more personal and relational than transactional.
In many traditional organizations, professional relationships are viewed as instrumental means to efficiently achieve specific outcomes. Collaboration often stops at role-based coordination. Emphasis is placed on deliverables, timelines, and outputs. In these contexts, performance is typically prioritized over cultivating nuanced relationships that are capable of sustaining and engaging with creative tension.
Networks, however, require a deeper kind of connection if for no other reason than – as Edgar Schein, a social psychologist and academic focused on supporting the pragmatic side of culture and organization through tenets of humble leadership and inquiry observed – the most productive way to engage with complexity is to acknowledge that you don’t altogether understand what is happening or what to do about the situation. For most professionals, however, acknowledging that you don’t know something is an admission of powerlessness and vulnerability that is unacceptable. Therefore, working collaboratively requires relationships between professionals in which this kind of vulnerability is not only acceptable, but is seen as the necessary basis for engaging successfully with one another.
Because the work of collaboration is emergent and non-linear, participants are also asked to navigate ambiguity and disagreement in a manner that does not threaten their relationships with one another. As Schein has also pointed out, collaborative capacity is rooted in cultivating strong human connections rather than simply managing tasks. He proposes that to-do lists and other formal processes for coordinating collective activity are not sufficiently adaptive to meet the demands of unanticipated and complex challenges.
For these reasons, professional relationships need to extend beyond the strictly transactional domain that is common in many organizations. Rather than relating role to role or task to task, participants need to relate to one another person to person and as equals. Even though there will be power differences in a more human relationship, challenges and points of contrast need to be acknowledged and discussed without threatening the collaboration. Participants need to engage with one another as whole people, not just as professionals.
In settings where there are higher degrees of complexity, the ability to hold multiple, sometimes conflicting viewpoints and values becomes essential. Relationships need to be resilient enough to accommodate disagreement, discomfort, and evolution. Therefore, trust, empathy, and shared learning are the invisible structure that holds collaborations together.
3. Leadership is best exercised as a shared responsibility.
In most organizations, leadership is tied to formal roles within a hierarchy. Leaders are expected to define strategy, make decisions, and guide the path forward, particularly when it is not clear to everyone what is to be done and how to do it. Although this centralized model works well in the face of complicated challenges, it is less effective in situations that are uncertain, ambiguous, and complex.
In networks, since challenges are ambiguous and evolving, no single person can “own” the path forward. Instead, leadership becomes situational and responsive. The person who sees what needs to happen next steps forward. As we often said at Converge, “the leader is the one who knows what to do next.”
This approach reframes leadership as a quality of awareness and contribution, rather than title or control. Leadership is an attitude, not just the attribute of a role. This approach also highlights the necessity of fostering relationships not just between individuals, but between the nodes of the broader system in which the network is situated. Here, leadership is more akin to cultivating a garden. It arises in the spaces between one task and another, shaped by dialogue, trust, and a shared sense of purpose.
4. Decision making must take all the interested parties into account.
Most of us have grown used to the idea that, in large organizations, hierarchy is the most efficient and effective way to organize work. We all know what can happen when too many people want to have a say in decision making, whether at work or at home and there isn’t a clear process for arriving at consensus. Therefore, authority flows from the top, and measures are usually taken to ensure that there is a limit to the number of people who contribute to defining the way forward.
A primary characteristic of networks, on the other hand, is that they are intentionally horizontal organizational entities, no matter what differences in power may exist between the participants in the world beyond the network. Because the issues at hand are complex and interdependent, decisions benefit from being informed by diverse lived experiences. Horizontal governance structures aim to support inclusive deliberation, even if the process takes longer. Decision-making becomes a way not just for advancing action but for deepening shared understanding, learning from diverse perspectives, and advancing the network’s purpose.
Of course, inclusive decision-making can be slow. However, the slower pace is often needed to engage with multiple perspectives, move beyond quick fixes, and cultivate long-term coherence. Over time, methods like consent-based decision-making or facilitated consensus can help strike a balance between inclusiveness and effectiveness. The key is to recognize that a decision is not just a command, but a process and a collaborative act.
5. The process of collaboration is as much a measure of effectiveness as tangible results.
In conventional organizations, effectiveness is often measured by the work that gets done. Outputs, metrics, and deliverables are the usual metrics of success. In such contexts, there can be pressure to “move fast and make things happen.”
When bringing a group of stakeholders together to discuss and address a complex challenge, some participants may express impatience about getting down to business and taking action. As we have discussed, however, if the reality of what is happening is elusive, relationships are as important as formal roles. In this respect, the way the participants work together is at least as important as the outcomes. What is needed is patient exploration of the many facets of the system everyone is aware of, and the many skills and experiences they bring to the consideration.
In a network context, therefore, the process of collaboration is itself a significant measure of success. Impact arises not just from what gets done, but from how people engage with one another and the systems of which they’re a part. When properly designed and facilitated, network convenings (gatherings ranging from 4 hours to 3.5 days) provide participants with opportunities to develop deep understanding about the experience, expertise, skills, and work of other participants and to discover the synergies that exist between network members.
Participants will also learn more about the work they are each already doing, of which they were previously unaware. This is what network enthusiasts are referring to when they speak about the “magic of networks” or “emergent activity.” These new relationships provide the seeds and fertile ground where innovative solutions can emerge and grow.
We often assess network health through four indicators:
who knows or is engaging with whom,
the benefits people experience from participating in the network,
how well the network’s administrative systems support interaction, and
the degree to which new projects or partnerships arise organically.
In a collaborative context, a network’s health and impact are not just destinations but developmental processes. They are dynamic and unfolding rather than static metrics. This invites a shift from transactional engagement to mutual learning. The degree of co-creation that is occurring among participants itself becomes a powerful measure of the network’s success.
6. Outcomes are more emergent than they are planned.
In many organizations, professionals are expected to seek planned outcomes. Strategic planning, KPIs, and operational plans dominate. In this model, deviation from the plan can lead to experiences of instability or mission drift.
In networks, however, the most impactful outcomes are typically emergent. The work itself arises from shared conversations, context exploration, and a growing sense of what’s possible together. This doesn’t mean abandoning coordination; on the contrary, effective self-organization requires intentional design and support. But, it does mean that generative action arises through relationships and learning rather than pre-defined goals.
Rather than asking “What should we do?” a network approach invites us to begin by asking “What are we noticing?” and “What wants to happen next?” Over time, by taking this approach, patterns begin to emerge, connections are made, new collaborations arise, and insights take shape. When cultivated with care, attention, and consistent coordination, networks become living systems capable of catalyzing results no single organization could achieve alone.
Conclusion
“Unless we are able to make the shift to new ways of understanding and taking action that are attuned to the realities evoked by complexity and collaboration, we may continue to be bewildered and frustrated by the demands of a world in which most social and environmental challenges are inherently complex. ”
In sum, networks are not merely a form of organizing, technique, or tool, they represent a fundamentally different approach to how we view and approach our work with others. A network approach will challenge our assumptions about reality, professional relationships, leadership, decision-making, effectiveness, and outcomes. These shifts are not just intellectual, they are also personal and experiential. They invite us to grapple not only with what we think we know about getting things done and working together, but also about how we relate to ourselves and each other in the process.
Because networks are so novel, we may not even be aware that it is not our colleagues, the pace of the conversation, or the apparent lack of tangible results that is causing the frustration and impatience we experience in a collaborative setting. Instead, as outlined above, complex collaborations function differently, they mirror aspects of complex systems; giving rise to emergence outcomes, and rarely function according to baseline expectations rooted in assumptions of cause and effect.
Unless we are able to make the shift to new ways of understanding and taking action that are attuned to the realities evoked by complexity and collaboration, we may continue to be bewildered and frustrated by the demands of a world in which most social and environmental challenges are inherently complex. In other words, the challenges we’re facing require us to work with others whose experience, understanding, and ways of working are different from our own. They invite us to move beyond.
The six principles outlined in this article can serve as guideposts, but they only come alive through practice. Networks succeed not only because of what we do, but also because of how we are. As we often said at Converge, “they will be as we are.” Our presence, way of thinking and engaging, all shape what becomes possible when working with others to address challenges and learn together what we can achieve that we cannot possibly do alone.
References
Schein, E. and Schein, P. (2023) Humble Leadership, Second Edition: The Power of Relationships, Openness, and Trust. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Snowden, D. (2005) Multi-ontology sensemaking: a new simplicity in decisionmaking. Informatics in Primary Care [online]. 13, pp. 45-53.
Snowden, D. and Boone, M. (2007) A leaders framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review [online]. pp. 69-76.
Spiller, C. (2012) Wayfinding in strategy research. In: Wang, C. L. D., Ketchen, J. and Bergh, D. D. (eds) West Meets East: Building Theoretical Bridges [online] , pp. 61-90. Leeds, England.