Leading by Networking

Talking to Mike Barry, of the D-School at Stanford University this week, we reflected on what a leader needs to make innovation happen in a large organization. In summary, the keyword was networking: both to receive information so as to assess what “can” be done (rather than what might be done); and then to influence others to make changes happen even when faced with uncertainty. Taking this further I wondered what type of network might be best for a leader to effect innovation and/or make changes. According to Battilana et al., “it depends”, but in their HBR article the authors give clear guidance as to what network types can improve the leader’s chance of innovating: “The Network Secrets of Great Change Agents” (July 2013).

Here’s how to lead by networking along with further implications (“et alors”):

Leading by Networking

The authors focused their research on finding effective change agents in large organizations and then mapping their success to the type and nature of the network they had. The predictors of the change agents’ success were the following:

Central

Change agents who are central in their organization’s informal network “have a clear advantage”, regardless of their position in the formal hierarchy.

Review your network. If you are not central (like a “hub” with many “spokes” spanning 360°), either develop your network and/or engage someone who is in order to achieve the change.

Bridge (for Dramatic Changes)

When the person’s network contacts are not connected to each other, the person makes the bridge between disparate individuals and groups. This proves best for making “dramatic” changes.

If you are proposing divergent change which disrupts existing practices then make sure your network is a “bridging” type or “appoint a co-chair whose relationships offer a better fit”.

Cohesion (for Minor Changes)

When the person’s network is cohesive (i.e. contacts are also connected to each other), the ease of facilitating communication and building trust proves ideal for making “minor” changes.

Once the change proposal is “out”, a cohesive network either tends to fully cooperate or to form a coalition against the change; hence the suitability for minor rather than dramatic changes.

Closeness to other influencers

Defining closeness in terms of “mutual trust, liking and a sense of social obligation”, being close to “change endorsers” proved to have no impact on the success of either dramatic or minor changes; but being close to “fence-sitters” had high impact on the success of either type of change.

Being close to “change resistors” impacted success for minor changes; however closeness had no impact on the success of dramatic changes (since when resistors perceive a significant threat they are typically difficult to influence otherwise).

Et alors

So it really does depend! Innovation comes in many shapes and forms from incremental adaptive changes to large and singular disruptions. These changes can be best managed according to the type of network the leader has; however if we change the frame of reference from “network” to “ecosystem” then the position of the leader in the “ecosystem” is by no means leader-centric! The leader is part of a larger ecosystem and will accordingly have to adapt to the environment which might be impacted by the local culture (national or organizational). Some cultures might be collegiate and group-orientated whereas others might be competitive and individual-focused. The former might lend itself to “cohesive” networks; the latter to “bridging” networks. Therefore in turn, and despite the best efforts of the leader, in collegiate and group-orientated cultures, innovation and change might only occur on an incremental, gradual and “minor” basis; whereas in competitive and individual-focused cultures, innovation and change might happen more often as large and singular disruptions!