Building Networks

People build structures to bring order and predictability to their worlds. Agendas give structure to meetings; a calendar to tasks and time; folders to documents; and house numbers to neighborhoods. These are only a few of the simplest cases of a practice that defines identity, gives shape to culture, and simplifies the ordinary to release energy for the extraordinary.

Every structure brings both costs and benefits. The costs are real, but sometimes they’re invisible. Structures require investment of resources to construct and maintain. They lock in behaviors that may lose their usefulness over time. They require individuals and groups to agree and to commit to shared, systemic goals. They may lull us into thinking that change is not inevitable. On the other hand, the benefits of structure are overwhelming. They distribute goods across a group. They relieve individuals from constantly negotiating relationships. They concentrate resources that may take the form of art or innovation. They encourage discipline and reduce some kinds of waste.

At HSD Institute we try to build structures that generate the benefits of our internal and external interactions while limiting the costs.

• We look for a variety of structural options to select one that is most fit to purpose. For example, we use different information storage structures to track our finances, contact information for clients, and intellectual property.
• We review our structures often and change ones that no longer serve us well. For example, in our annual planning sessions, we review our operational infrastructure and plan for innovations that might be needed to adapt to an ever-changing environment.
• We don’t over structure. Some activities beg for structure because it makes them repeatable, reliable, and consistent. Others resist structure because they are unique, surprising, and diverse. We try to match the investment with the need. For example, the process we use to write proposals is very flexible, while our billing procedures are highly structured.
• We share infrastructure when possible. Many small businesses need similar supports and services. Sharing those resources conserves while optimizing learning. We contract with external services to support publishing and distribution, financial planning, computer support, and online learning. We choose to develop our own internal infrastructure for training and communications.
• We know when to let go. No structure is permanent in a human system. Even the ones that we hold most dear—family or faith community—are open to transformation over time. It is just as important to let go of a structure with grace, as it is to build it with courage and insight. For example, as our network has grown, we have adjusted our procedures and replaced some of the more intensive leadership activities with looser, more self-organizing structures.

Whether and how much to structure are important questions, but another critical question is about the kind of structure to build. We think of three structural architectures for human systems and try to choose the one that best fits a particular need and level of resources.

Blueprint. Architects use blueprints to communicate with their clients and their construction crews. Such a structure divides a whole into parts. It establishes categories and sorts things into those categories. Examples of such a structure in human systems are the school (grade levels), unions (management and labor or seniority), political parties (Democrat and Republican). While this structure makes things easy to identify, it constrains interaction and reduces innovation. It also contributes to various –isms when we overgeneralize or categorize unfairly or incorrectly. The benefit of a blueprint is that it facilitates the efficient distribution of people, functions, or objects.

Hierarchy. Many current management gurus dismiss hierarchy as antiquated and not agile, but I disagree. For some functions, a hierarchy is perfect. Such a structure sets clear levels of priority and relationship. Biologists use hierarchies to define the classification of plants and animals, the military uses it to manage material in times of peace, and programmers use hierarchies to create automated decision-making machines. The strength of a hierarchy is that it efficiently distributes resources and authority. Its weakness is that it depends on and reinforces a power structure that may be unfair or unresponsive to change.

Network. The network is the emerging structure for the 21st century. It consists of nodes (for example, individuals or organizations) who are connected to each other so that they receive, hold, and transport information, material, or energy. Social networks, like those supported by Facebook and LinkedIn, are great examples of how networks develop and function. Other examples include the internet, the energy grid, highway systems, and terrorist organizations. The strength of a network is that it gives both freedom and connection to participants, there is no natural boundary to its size, and it can recover quickly when disrupted. The drawbacks are ambiguity about who or what is “in charge,” autonomy and accountability of the parts, and a tendency to see from the point of view of the part rather than the whole. Networks efficiently distribute energy and information.

That is why networks are emerging as essential structures in our fast-paced, information-rich, massively entangled, and highly diverse world of the 21st century. That is why the science of networks is increasingly insightful as we build today for the human systems of the future.

This coming week, I will participate in a meeting that was designed to create a “Network of Networks.” Along with a design team and our federal clients, we are setting the conditions to encourage a national collaboration for Preventing Child Maltreatment and Promoting Well-being: Network for Action. Next month I will share with you the principles we used in the design, lessons we learned in the implementation, and our observations of an emerging future.

In the meantime, look around you. What kinds of structures influence your action? What structures do you create and/or encourage? Are those serving you well, or should you begin to recreate the structures that will fit the future you imagine? Share your insights with me by email. And find out more about human systems dynamics at www.hsdinstitute.org.

Glenda Eoyang, Ph.D.

Executive Director

HSD Institute