Network thinking is different.

With a traditional mindset, we are accustomed to facing a stark choice: change must come from either the "top down" or the "bottom up". That's the framework we been given with our orientation toward hierarchies.

Networks, however, have no top or bottom. So, the thought of making a choice between top-down and bottom-up quickly evaporates with a network mindset.

Networks work most effectively when we have strong cores and expanding, porous boundaries. The strong core enables us to get complex projects done. The porous boundary helps us continue to learn and gain insights from new, diverse sources and perspectives.
This dynamic sets us up for some interesting paradoxes.

If you want to expand the influence of your network, focus on the core, not the boundaries. Commitments to trust, transparency and pragmatism make the core work. As we strengthen our core -- our capacity to do complex work together -- our boundaries expand. In a hierarchy, if you want to extend your influence, you focus on expanding your boundaries (through co-option, conquest, merger or acquisition).

Here's another paradox. With open networks, we go slow to go fast. By that I mean that we need to focus on strengthening the bonds at our core. As we do that, the speed of our network expands. We are able to learn faster, spot opportunities fast and act faster. So, in network strategy, when in doubt, slow down now, and you will pick up far more speed later.

In hierarchies, you go fast to go fast. This approach often leads to miscues, mistakes, backlash, and unintended consequences.

Now back to the top-down/bottom-up choice. In network thinking, we want to encourage both open participation and leadership guidance. In a hierarchical world, that's not possible, but in a network world, that's how we expand our capacity (to take on really complicated projects) and our resilience (to absorb unpredictable shocks).

In hierarchies, there is a baked in bias for "top-down" solutions because -- from this mindset -- the alternative of bottom-up is chaos.

I've observed that as communities and regions move toward more open innovation, the first dimension to develop is usually the move toward more democratic, distributed forms of leadership. Here again is another seeming confusion.

In hierarchies, we are looking for the singular leader with the powerful vision.

With networks, leaders lead from both the front and the rear. Leadership is does not reside in one person, but is distributed and passed around. And leadership comes as much from asking perceptive questions as making bold statements. In a network, effective leaders provide coherence (and worry less about their own vision.)

As a core group embraces the authenticity required for network leadership, they become more skilled at developing new civic experiences that expand their cores and strengthen their networks.

One last thought: we can start moving people to think in terms of networks by conducting some simple assessments about how their community or region functions. We can also teach people to think and act strategically in loosely joined networks. That's what strategic doing is all about.

(download)

(download)