Skip to main content

Published on: 14/04/2011

Networks are a thing of love, as I found out yesterday during the event that PSO and MDF co-organised around the topic of ‘network approaches and alliance management’. During four hours, 70 or so participants came over to hear a tiny bit of network theory, to follow two network cases and to engage on seven statements. So what about the love? One of the organisers did mention the term of forced marriage after all. Of course the network is not based on romantic relations – although Meetic et al. are effectively romantic networks – but there are a lot of parallels between network dynamics and heart affairs.

It takes two to tango, it takes more to network (Photo credits: mrsannino, FlickR)

And as with heart affairs, we can imagine two opposite scenarios: arranged marriage vs. love at first sight. In development terms, this could equate as donor-driven vs. civic-driven networks. The former have been set up as an initiative funded by a donor agency and the latter have been set up by people gathering ideas and forming the networks on their own terms.

This is an interesting parallel because most networks are somewhat in a grey area: not many of them are purely driven and facilitated by their members without any seed funding, support, interest from external parties – unless they have been around for a while and have found ways to institutionalise themselves; on the other hand, very few networks, I assume, are totally dependent on donors’ ideas and funding.  Looking at the extremes may give us an idea of the tensions to manage and opportunities to seize; it may also reveal our blind spots. So here’s my summary of some differences. I realise I am portraying a very broad-brush caricature of each spectrum end and I do not mean to stigmatise any of them here:

‘Arranged marriage’ networks‘Love at first sight’ networks
The gain is not obvious for newlyweds  – the parents’ agenda is on the tableThe gain is obvious for newlyweds – they shaped their own agenda
Many financial resources – we will help you!Scarce financial resources – do it yourself!
Love / Energy and trust develops over timeLove / Energy and trust form the basis and start of the relationship
Results matter: do not get together just for the sake of itRelations matter: we get together and let’s see what happens
Manage the tensions – We can fix thisFacilitate the tensions – Let's talk and mend the bruises
Upward accountability: parents should be happy about the relationship tooHorizontal (peer) accountability: the marriage has to work for us before anything else
This is my network (say the parents)This is our network (say the members)

Once again every network probably borrows from both sides; luckily so, since an arranged marriage-type of network may not be driven by the energy that comes from self-empowerment but love at first sight networks may prove flimsy or not organised enough to get really far. However, both marriages promote love and trust, like well-functioning networks; both marriages celebrate success, like good networks; both marriages try to balance results and relationships with the common goal they wish to achieve.

And that’s where the metaphor stops, though because in networks, there is a free actor – the facilitator that helps the network function – and luckily there is no such thing in a marriage (or perhaps there is, fragmented across our many friends and kindred). Both case study presentations (from AgriProFocus and from IANRA, links below) made quite a detailed and useful list of attributes for the ideal network facilitator and both agreed that the network should actually not be managed but facilitated. And that trust is the cement of networks and it should be relentlessly fuelled and cherished. As consultant Eelke Wielinga summoned from the start of his presentation, the start of a network – compared to an organisation – is ‘people’.

The presentations were good, the four tools that Eelke introduced (spiral of initiative, network analysis, circle of coherence and triangle of change) seemed useful, but the really interesting part of the seminar was – as in a network – the participatory game: we had five given statements and two blank ones to discuss and engage with in groups:

  1. Networks are just a fashion
  2. Networks are the future
  3. It’s the results that counts
  4. Networks are without obligation
  5. Networks cannot be managed
  6. How do relations and hierarchy relate to one another in a network
  7. Networks need to start with a strong animator and end with a facilitator".
Engaging with the statements

Seven posters were collected with our ideas – they will be fed back later. And I may blog about them later as this post is getting long-winded already.

For now, I just want to emphasise a few other interesting insights I picked out from that mini-seminar: Let things bubble up – love cannot be managed; manage the pacing of your network between new and old members (introducing a buddy system for newbies to find their way?); organisations will end up (working) like networks – this was the statement of one participant, in itself a very compelling perspective; To avoid the bias of donor funding, multiply donors, make them part of your network, build capacity for fund raising among network members, target learning-focused donors.

And at the end of it, as the Xhosa (South Africa) have it: “If you want to walk fast, walk alone; If you want to walk far, walk together”. While we need to balance results and relationships in networks, in the end I do believe that networks are based on relationships and relationships are part of our human DNA: they were here before, they will continue, and no valuable and meaningful result can ever be achieved without them. So if you ask me, I go tango!

By Ewen

Disclaimer

At IRC we have strong opinions and we value honest and frank discussion, so you won't be surprised to hear that not all the opinions on this site represent our official policy.

Back to
the top