“Creating change at the rate we need is going to require a whole new level of planetary collaboration”
Houston, we have a problem. The complexity of the issues we face, both global and local, are simply too great for any one person or organization to take on alone. And yet, the systems in which we operate tend to incentivize heroic leadership, organizational competition for funding, and transaction over relationship. The good news? There's a different way if we shift our frameworks, incentives, and approaches: cultivating networks.
Two recent books—Impact Networks: Create Connection, Spark Collaboration, and Catalyze Systemic Change (2021) by David Ehrlichman, and Changemaking Network Effects: A Playbook for Social Entrepreneurs (2023) by Sushmita Ghosh—offer important stories on the power of effective networks for social impact and helpful guidelines to create them.
Spoiler alert, much of an impact network’s secret sauce will sound familiar to faith communities: values, trust, in-person connections, shared purpose, the offering and receiving of gifts. Other aspects may seem more foreign: system change, distributing power, co-creation, emergence.
Why networks?
Networks seem at once ubiquitous and difficult to meaningfully define. We know they matter, but why exactly, other than some vague notion of connectedness? In the era of entrepreneurship (business, social, spiritual), we have turned much of our attention to starting new things. This innovation provides the engine for learning, growth, and change. At the same time, it can foster fragmentation, where everyone is too focused on their own piece to concern themselves with the bigger whole, or even whether their piece connects to the bigger whole at all.
In the push to start new initiatives, energy and resources get diffused across all these pieces, and as Ehrlichman notes, if those parts "continue to work in isolation, they will be limited in their understanding of the whole." Not only that, but we miss out on so much of the real magic that happens in the ambiguous, complicated connective tissue between the parts: "The most vibrant conditions for creativity and new life are found in the places where different parts of a system intersect" (Ehrlichman). Also, we might add, where systems intersect with each other.
A new type of network
We don’t often create networks, though, to unleash that potential. We generally use the word "network" in a transactional way, and many networks operate transactionally. We network to find connections that will help us in our careers or ventures. We host networking events to enable those transactional connections. We build networks as a way to accomplish a goal that we have or to spread our ideas or products.
Both Ghosh and Ehrlichman uplift a different type of network. As Ghosh puts it, it is about "removing walls between systems and sectors that need to work together to bring about big change but don’t. The purpose is not to commodify an innovation or service; it is to create an interdependent ecosystem of players who work together in new ways toward a shared social change vision." Notably, there is no control in such an ecosystem, only distributed power: "Every system and actor in a Changemaking Network enables others to be disproportionately powerful, rather than simply conduct individual transactions at scale" (Ghosh).
To tackle the complex issues we face, we need a wealth of experimentation, but if that experimentation happens across our various silos, progress will remain slow. Instead, if that experimentation benefits from the inputs of diverse perspectives and feedback loops, from shared purpose and vision, from rapid learning through the free flow of data and information, from targeted and shared resources, we can truly create change.
The how-tos of network weaving
This all sounds desirable, but cultivating effective networks often remains more aspiration than reality. Adopting a network mindset is challenging. It means stepping out of our own egos and need to control. It means trading off short-term outcomes for long-term relationships and impact. It means investing in the role of network weaving. It means sharing our gifts, knowledge, and resources not just for the benefit of the entity where we work but for the benefit of the impact that we seek and the people and organizations for and with whom we seek it.
Both Ghosh and Ehrlichman point to three elements as the foundation of everything else: purpose, relationships, and trust. A shared vision or common purpose, rooted in shared values, draws people together and keeps them together. It is the north star to which everyone orients. On relationships, there is no way to shortcut here; relationships make networks work. In fact, Ehrlichman advises, "If at any point you feel unsure about how to proceed, invest in relationships." Relationships matter because the fuel for networks is trust. And as much as technology helps us connect more often and faster, according to both Ghosh and Ehrlichman, in-person connection fosters trust more effectively. Importantly, this kind of “trust for impact,” as Ehrlichman calls it, does not require that we like each other or always agree, only that we are willing and able to engage with each other, even through conflict, to pursue our shared purpose.
As faith communities, we usually excel at purpose and relationships, but often within certain boundaries of shared beliefs, political views, or ideologies. The challenge and opportunity of cultivating networks, the thing that makes it different from community-building and that can help nudge our social change work to new levels of impact is the scope and scale to change systems. "Changemaking networks design for bigness and complexity" (Ghosh). They push us beyond our boundaries to learn and achieve by engaging across lines of difference in pursuit of a shared vision that none of us can achieve alone. Basically, we need to think bigger if we’re serious about helping address the world’s challenges.
This doesn't mean that small strategies or localized initiatives don't matter. Quite the opposite, they are the pieces that the network enables to grow into bigger change, says Ehrlichman. To operate at a larger scale, though, means branching out of our own community to work with others we may perceive as different. The beauty of doing this with the intention of cultivating shared purpose is that "[w]hen people recognize the nature of their interconnected aspirations, their perceived differences shift from barriers to gifts" (Ehrlichman). With the abundance of gifts that an entire network can bring, change at scale becomes possible.
Surfacing learning from a wide range of initiatives is a fundamental piece of designing for big change and enabling progress even amidst the complexity. "Only a network that learns constantly, does constantly" (Ghosh). And the only way to enable constant learning and thus generate the benefits of network intelligence is for relevant information and data to flow freely across the network. The type of learning that drives a network’s impact requires 1) deep listening, even when we might disagree, and 2) generous sharing, even when we might be inclined and incentivized by existing systems to protect what we know. A network that is serious about creating change "liberates rather than hoards data" (Ghosh).
Finally, both authors note the importance of co-creation and emergence when it comes to networks. As Ehrlichman puts it, this isn't about "inviting [people] into 'your thing'; it means inviting them into co-creating what is possible." Co-creation requires relinquishing control and leaning into what emerges from the collective work. Embracing emergence does not mean giving up strategy, though. Effective network facilitators do not just throw people together and see what happens. Ghosh provides a tactical way to think about this: "build their ownership of the shared vision, integrate your work with theirs, get them big wins, and learn from them."
None of this is easy, and yet perhaps it calls us to a more natural way of engaging in the world. Ehrlichman (quoting researcher Roberto Restrepo) notes the Indigenous roots of the network weaving concept: "The native Andeans understood that we live in a world 'where we are all interwoven threads and stitches,' and 'when we do not impose, control, or dominate, but when we allow, respectfully, the expression of the other . . . we weave together, without ceasing to be ourselves, now as jaqui: partner, community.’”
We recommend checking out both books for more insights on network weaving and the stories of those who have cultivated networks for change.
Find the books here:
Insights for Change is our series to pose questions and share short insights (our own and others’) for thinking creatively about faith and social change. They may be full-baked, half-baked, or just a pile of raw ingredients to play with. We hope they start conversation or inspire ideas. We invite you to add your own thoughts, experiences, and ideas to the mix. You can find the full series at www.innofaith.org/insights-for-change.
Photo by AfriMod Studio on Unsplash