A colleague sent me a video of birds flocking yesterday. He was excited by the implications for self-organizing in human systems, asking what are the leadership mechanisms behind flocking?
Since finishing Engaging Emergence: Turning Upheaval into Opportunity, I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of leadership in networks. Social networks have some parallels to flocks.
Think about the difference between pack animals, with alpha leaders keeping others in line versus birds, ants, bees, or other animals that seem to function with no one in charge. These interactions call on different leadership skills than rising to the top of a pyramid.
What can we learn from flocks, swarms, hives, and other leader-full forms of organizing? More, how can human consciousness enhance the effectiveness of these collective forms of leadership? We live in an age in which networks are an emerging means for organizing. They are more responsive, resilient, creative, and let’s face it, more fun than most hierarchical organizations I’ve experienced. Over time, hierarchies may well give way to networks as our dominant organizational form. Understanding new leadership skills will help us transition.
I’ve observed that leadership in social networks is a more multi-threaded phenomenon than hierarchical leadership. For example, traditionally, we rely on a few people to make strategic decisions for everyone else. Increasing complexity – a more diverse public, greater access to a broader range of perspectives, technological innovations affecting scale and scope of just about everything – makes this strategy less effective. No longer can a few people with relatively similar backgrounds and perspectives make the best choices for a whole system. Whether companies, communities, or social systems, like health care or education, networks call forth new approaches to decision making and leadership.
The Nature of Networks
Social networks are loosely connected, brought together largely by common purpose and personal passion. Following the boss’ orders just doesn’t work in networks. So how does anything get done? More basic, how do people know what needs doing?
Leadership in networks is relational, collective, and emergent. As I’ve read more about networks, two dynamics rise to the top when thinking about how they function:
- hubs form and evolve; and
- links connect.
How do these dynamics play out in social networks? My experience with network leadership has been influenced by a seminal experience with the Spirited Work learning community. Spirited Work met for an extended weekend four times a year over seven years. We met in Open Space, a process that supports groups in self-organizing around what matters to them. After the first couple years, the four founders did something quite unique: they stepped down as the sole leaders and invited anyone who felt called to do so to step in to steward the community. In other words, leadership became self-selected. It seemed such a great learning laboratory that I stepped in.
We, the stewards, became a hub for the Spirited Work community. We discovered that whatever challenges existed in the larger system showed up in our meetings. Stewarding was the intensive course! As we brought our diverse perspectives and interests together, we learned to listen for what was beneath the dissonance of our differences because it contained the seeds of breakthrough.
For example, early in our life, we had a financial crisis, discovering our income wasn’t covering our costs. A philosophic clash arose between paying our bills and welcoming whoever wished to participate regardless of their financial means. The larger purpose of Spirited Work – learning to link spirit to practical action on behalf of the community and the world – held us together as we worked through our differences. Ultimately, someone suggested holding an auction to raise funds. A few people took on the task and at our next gathering, the auction debuted. Not only did we clear half our debt in that first auction, people had so much fun sharing their gifts on behalf of the community, it became a regular activity. And our financial woes were permanently resolved.
Leadership and Network Hubs
From the outside, hubs in a network look a lot like hierarchical organizations. They are groups of people organized to accomplish something together. That makes it easy to confuse leadership of a hub with hierarchical leadership, thinking the same rules apply. Not! Giving orders, chain of command, top-down decision making doesn’t function when people choose whether to participate.
Hubs form because people are attracted to them. Hubs grow when people are drawn to the purpose and/or the people and believe that they can both give and/or receive something of value. The remarkable communities that maintain the Wikipedia or fill the Open Source software movement are examples of networks producing real-world benefit.
Leadership and Network Links
Link leadership is elusive because it doesn’t fit our traditional thinking about leadership. Why is connecting people or organizations a form of leadership? If you want breakthroughs, interactions among those who don’t usually meet is an essential ingredient. And when hubs connect to hubs, ideas can spread like wildfire.
While sometimes those connections are random, as often, they’re the work of people with a knack. Malcolm Gladwell famously identified three types of link leadership in his best seller The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. He called them connectors, mavens, and salesmen.
Hubs and links attract different personality types. As someone who tends to be part of stewarding a hub, I have developed a complex relationship with linkers. They come late to meetings (if they show up at all). They often bring dissonant ideas from “out there”. They never really seem to fully belong to the hub. So they’re easy to discount. And doing so is always unfortunate. And I’ve discovered, they often feel unappreciated.
I’m learning to love linkers! They are late or seem outside because they spend their time with those at the margins. They are often the source of new ideas or differences that can attract others who, in the abstract are desirable, but aren’t getting involved. Skilled linkers learn how to bring outside perspectives and participants in graciously.
There’s So Much More To Say!
I could keep writing because there’s so much more to say. And even more to learn. Still, I’ll stop for now, knowing my understanding of the multiple skills and aspects of leadership in networks will continue to evolve.
Stimulating item. We are networked and always were. We do belong to that class of animals that has an apha leader as well. To fully and deeply get into the network requires leadership, structure. Somone usually quite charismatic and well trained conducts and holds the space for the network aspects to emerge. How do we manage collective processes. Or is that the wrong question? Simply let them be? I don’t think so, some processes, Dynamic Facilitation, Open Space, World Cafe, and my own discipline, Psychodrama and Sociodrama enable the network to tap into itself. The phrase “direct the process not the story” comes to mind.
Yes these are different skills to simply being the boss, the dictator, but even dictators need some sort of mass support…
I am not making a case for anything, just reflecting, and worried that in so far as humans flock and swarm with inadequate leadership we will swarm to extinction.
What are the skills needed, the organization that is needed, and can we build that in time?
[…] in a Networked World https://peggyholman.com/leadership-in-a-networked-world/ # Possibly related posts by Walter Logeman: (automatically generated)3024600Emotional […]
Does it take leadership and structure to get into a network? As you said, we have always been networked. I think understanding the nature of leadership and structures that amplify network effects can help us work more effectively with networks.
And I am in no way suggesting there is no role for leadership. I’m just saying that the skills of leadership are changing.
Sometimes charismatic leaders can get in the way, keeping others from stepping into the fullness of their leadership potential. I’m thinking of a non-profit I know of who needed the charismatic leader to leave before the organization made room for the other talents it had to shine.
And I don’t think it’s about managing or directing collective processes. Nor just letting them be. One strikes me as holding the reins too tightly, the other too loosely.
I am reminded of a 1940’s vintage study by Kurt Lewin in which they experimented with different leadership approaches with Boy Scouts. They thought they were testing the effects on behavior of authoritative and democratic styles of leadership. Because two researchers interpreted what it meant to be democratic differently, they realized they had explored three styles. They called the additional style laissez-faire because the leader had left the boys to their own devices. Among their conclusions: 1) democratic behavior is learned; and 2) it was superior to autocratic and laissez-faire. (See The Dynamics of Group Action)
I am assuming that networked leadership and democratic leadership are different ways of pointing to the same skills. One way I’ve been thinking about the role of networked leadership is stewarding shared intention and tending to the social fabric.
When it gets down to it, I get to the same question you pose:
What are the skills needed, the organization that is needed, and can we build that in time?
Interesting ideas. I think one difference that we need to look at is how far we have come from the natural conditions of the village setting, or older still, the tribal format.
It is rare that people live close enough to each other to see the coherence develop like what is seen in flocks. The corporate picture is an interesting scene in itself, where many folks are not operating in safe space, but a armored sphere.
How do we break out of that?
I have an inkling, having worked in a worker owned collective for 6 years. It was the most diverse and highly communicative environment possible. It was successful and continued to be so. It was about sustainability and also social justice. Financially it is also successful.
This is Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco. It was the first time I saw collective intelligence at work, there was chaos, but also a sense that the whole was running the show, not any one person or group of people. It was my first experience of democracy, real democracy.
The second group place was a Health conglomeration of businesses around Taoist philosophies and practices. It was built up around one man though, who was hell bent on creating community. The practice was Tai Chi, but the forms it took were quite diverse. I left that though because of it’s lacking a more direct approach to saying what it was doing out loud a bit more. There was definitely a spirit of group going on, and each person was growing in power. The locus of personal power was more visible, but people were all growing just the same and he was personally very powerful, he was a natural leader and healer.
I am interested in becoming more wild, but not like what the ‘fantasies’ are like, going back to the stone age, etc..
But we all need to get really into growing back what naturally grows food for people, as well as bringing about honesty to each other, speaking from our hearts and listening from that same place. We need the walls to come down between us, and the asphalt to come down around our hearts.
If we can’t meet the needs of all people, why would people who cannot meet basic needs give a fig about the earth or what death awaits all of us if we don’t all make the shift. If we can’t hear the voice of our mother Earth, how could she keep meeting our needs, no matter how much she loves us.