Image Description: Cartoon-style illustration of a person with long blond hair, dressed in a blue sweater, white pants, and green sneakers, watering a potted plant that’s sprouting leaves and gold coins. By Ayush Kumar via Unsplash.
“Some live by love thy neighbor as thyself, others by first do no harm or take no more than you need. What if the mightiest word is love? Love beyond marital, filial, national, love that casts a widening pool of light, love with no need to pre-empt grievance. In today’s sharp sparkle, this [season’s] air, any thing can be made, any sentence begun. On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp, praise song for walking forward in that light.”
From “Praise Song for the Day” by Elizabeth Alexander
As we help support the weaving of various kinds and scales of networks with focus on different social and environmental issues, one refrain we continue to hear at IISC from those who are at the core of these efforts is that they need more resources and they want more resource providers to understand the power and importance of investing in networks. So, why invest in networks and network weaving now? Here are five essential reasons:
Because We Are Networks. We literally live and breathe because of the many networks we are a part of. “Nobody but nobody makes it out here alone,” Maya Angelou wrote. Social-ecological connectedness and exchange are a baseline determinant of health and wellbeing of all kinds – from our bodies/minds/spirits to our families/neighborhoods/communities to local/regional economies. Think in terms of the mycelial networks that are essential (and until recently, very much under-appreciated) for their contribution to soil health, which translates into nourishment of various kinds for humans and other species. If we do not tend to this foundation, we will see all of our hopes for anything better blow away like so much dust in the wind.
Because Imagination Thrives Through Connection and Exchange. Our overall consciousness and ability to imagine the better is strengthened through warm relationship and generous sharing. To support this, we must invest in convening, different avenues for ongoing communication and grounding our individual and collective nervous systems in a state of relative regulation. These are the key conditions that allow humans to do what we have done for eons: pool information, share understanding, and iterate our way forward through cooperative learning (do, reflect, redo).
Because Our Economies and Ecologies Are Failing Without Them. We need new patterns of connection and flow to ensure equitable wellbeing for all parts of the collective human body and our more-than-human kin. As Dr. Sally J. Goerner writes, “We should care about [growing] inequality because history shows that … concentration of wealth at the top, and too much stagnation everywhere else indicate an economy nearing collapse.” Furthermore, extractive economics that ignore impacts on ecosystems and other species will continue to harm and ultimately kill the host (our Mother) that sustains us all.
Because Movements Are Calling for Them. From frontline movements for human rights, social/climate justice, and Indigenous sovereignty, we’re hearing that there is an ethical imperative to invest in distributed leadership development and right relationship that counters the cult of hyper-individualism, competition, and “doing for and to.” And there is a recognized need among movement leaders to build broad-based solidarity through these trust-bound connections to confront the common enemy of humanity – sociopathic/ecocidal greed and self-serving power.
Because the Future Depends on It. Resilience is no static goal; it is a dance of evolution, reweaving, and collective learning. There is a need to invest in the evolution and reweaving of – and between – truly inclusive democratic institutions that can serve as the anchors for regenerative development, collective learning, and adaptation going forward. Funding network-weaving positions to support these vital processes isn’t just smart, it’s visionary.
There are other reasons that we might add to this list, but honestly, if these five do not grab the hearts and minds of funders/investors, that would seem to further illustrate the plague of disconnection and dissociation that has infected so many of us. Resistance and protest because of concerns about “return on investment” (ROI) is simply short-sighted and narrow in its understanding of system dynamics and the new science of sustainability. What this “energy system and flow network science” tells us is that:
Long-term prosperity is primarily a function of healthy human and more-than-human webs.
The stories we tell ourselves about how the world works are one of our greatest survival tools – so let’s get that (network) narrative right!
The next phase of human evolution is largely based upon our ability and willingness to both learn and reorganize ourselves with more diversity, intricacy, collaborative coherence, robust sharing, and greater resulting collective intelligence.
If you want to step into this light with us, join our webinar:
“Light Work for Heavy Times: Networks as Fuel for Long-Term Collective Wellbeing” on July 15, 2025 from 1:00-3:00 pm EST. Register here.
There is a difference between being a network by default and being one by intention. Sometimes that can be a big difference. I encounter a fair number of networks that are networks in name and in standing, at least in that they are connected entities. But that is pretty much it. Experience shows there are any number of different ways to structure a network, and name it for that matter.
And what I find is most important is the underlying intention to maximize network effects, including: speeding the spread of resources, ensuring resources reach everyone in the network, ensuring everyone has the opportunity to share resources, growing the overall pie of resources, strengthening adaptive capacity and collective intelligence, growing abundance and equity in many different ways.
What this boils down to is a set of network ethics, which I would summarize (certainly incompletely, and to which I invite additions and alterations) in the following way: Read More
How focusing on diversity, flow and structure in human networks can be a foundation for great change.
Over the past couple of years, we at IISC have partnered with a few different social change initiatives that have engaged in system mapping to both align diverse stakeholders and surface leverage points for collective intervention. In looking back at these different mapping processes, it is striking the similarities of the areas of focus that have been identified, despite the variety of issues being addressed (food system fragility to educational disparities to public and environmental health). Across these efforts, common areas of leverage have surfaced around:
Changing the dominant narrative.
Each effort has recognized that there is a dominant story that supports the existing system’s legitimacy. This has profound impact on what different players see as being possible. It is noteworthy that the narrative shifts each has called for are in the direction of more expansive and equitable definitions of health and development.
Changing information flows/making information more transparent and accessible.
Communcation is the lifeblood of social systems, and each of these initiatives has recognized that power gets bound up in who has timely access to and also who shapes critical information, as well as what kind of information is valued.
Creating more equitable access to and determination of resources.
From financial to social to living and material capital, each of these initiatives has also recognized that inequitable distribution of resources has contributed to social disparities and overall systemic vulnerability. Another significant factor is who gets to say what is deemed to be valuable in the first place.
This leverage area flows as a matter of course from the two above. Systemic sickness and brittleness is evident in the fact that fewer people and power brokers are shaping systemic opportunities and outcomes, and often for their own benefit. Each of these efforts see more distributed decision-making and implementation as key to justice, sustainability and true prosperity.
Working with government to change incentives and supports in favor of healthier and more equitable opportunities and outcomes.
Each initiative recognizes the important role of government in changing policies and procedures in the direction of more just and sustainable means and ends.
It’s interesting and perhaps not accidental that these leverage areas align with what the late system thinker Donella Meadows identified as some of the deeper leverage points to affect change in any complex human system –
the mindset (story) out of which the system arises;
the power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure;
the rules of the system; and
the structure of information flows.
To get at any of these leverage areas clearly requires considerable clout – a network of diverse actors. And from our perspective at IISC, that network is not simply a means to an end.
Viewed in a certain way, and in consideration of the leverage areas mentioned above, intentionally developing human networks can be an important end in and of itself.
Part of the new story emerging across these various change efforts referenced above is a focus on what Sally J. Goerner calls “dynamic evolution,” which transcends the picture of a world built on competition, supremacy and selfishness. Through their multi-disciplinary study of energy network sciences (ENS), Goerner and her research colleagues point to an understanding of societal health as predicated upon more intricate human and organizational networks. Importantly, to deliver multiple goods in sustainable fashion, these networks must be characterized by:
social diversity
distributed empowerment and intelligence
widely circulating information and effective communication
synergistic exchanges of resources (or “capital”) of many kind
In other words, given unhealthy biases toward “efficiency,” streamlining, monoculture, concentration of resources and systemic brittleness, Goerner and colleagues see more robust network connections, flow and variety as being fundamental to social change and long-term resilience.
Taking this one step further, the Capital Institute (to whom Sally Goerner is Scientific Advisor) has created a list of 10 indicators for systemic healthwith direct ties to human network development (see their paper “Regenerative Development: The Art and Science of Creating Durably Vibrant Human Networks“). These give more specific guidance as to what systemic change initiatives might pay attention to as signs that they are on the right track.
Measures of Flow
Robust cross-scale circulation: Assesses how rapidly and well a variety of resources reach all parts of the social body.
Regenerative return flows: Assesses how much money and other resources the system recycles into building and maintaining its internal capacities, including human capital.
Reliable inputs: Assesses how much risk and uncertainty there is for critical resources upon which the system depends.
Healthy outflows: Assesses how much damage the system’s outflows do externally.
Measures of Human Factors
Degree of mutualism: Assesses the ratio of win-win vs win-lose relationships within the network.
Constructive vs exploitative: Assesses the level of value adding and capacity building activities vs. draining or “gradient degrading” (extractive) ones.
Adaptability (place in the adaptive cycle – see image above): Assesses the system’s readiness for change and its place in a classical S-curve cycle of development (related to degrees of diversity and formalized organization).
Measures of Structure
Number and diversity of roles: Assesses both the diversity and number of players perspectives in different activities critical to system functioning.
Distribution of resources: Assesses where resources, including money, go.
Balance of efficiency & resilience: Assesses the balance between levels of diversity and flexibility (resilience) and streamlining of throughput (efficiency).
I am curious to hear reactions and experiences with applying this kind of a network lens to system change efforts, and as a new member of the Research Alliance for Regenerative Economics, I look forward to sharing additional insights from energy network sciences.
Just coming off of co-delivering a 2 day Pathway to Change public workshop at IISC with Maanav Thakore, and I’m continuing to think about how important context is to the work of social change. In particular, I’m thinking about how seeing the foundation of all change efforts as being fundamentally networked can yield new possibilities throughout the work. There is the change we plan for, and the change that we don’t plan for and perhaps cannot even imagine – emergence. This is the stuff of networks, of living systems, of decentralized and self-organized activity, which can be encouraged and supported but not often predicted or controlled. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
As I prepare to do a couple of trainings for leadership in multi-stakeholder networks in the New England region (focus being on the skills of facilitation, process design, and managing decision-making), I intend to frame our conversations with some exploration of the differences between traditional organizational leadership and what is required to steward networks towards positive impact. I begin with the presumption that network form and function are chosen strategically for the ability to accomplish something that could not be done at all or as well through other approaches. Whether trying to develop a food system to eliminate food insecurity or change an educational system to yield more equitable opportunities and outcomes, the attraction to a network approach is likely due to a desire for some combination of the following: Read More
|Image from Carlos Gershenson|http://complexes.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html|
I’m writing this post from Quincy, Massachusetts where I’m attending the International Conference on Complex Systems. My head is very full and there is much to process that will no doubt spur further posts. A question I brought with me into these proceedings is what we are learning from complexity (in fields such as systems biology, network theory, epidemiology) about developing stronger collective regenerative capacity, the ability to work with each other and our various contexts in order to both survive and thrive (co-evolve). So here is a first take, in alliterative fashion: Read More
“It’s hard to make a difference when everyone is tangled up in the rigging of procedural formality and blanketed in fog.”
-Roberta’s Rules of Order
With all of the snow days we’ve had so far in 2011, you’ll understand if I begin this post from a “when things don’t go according to plan” mindset. We’ve all taken our lumps in doing collaborative work, even with the best laid plans and best intentions in place. I’ve had the opportunity to do a little reflecting (in between tours of duty shoveling) on what has made for more successful and less successful collaborative endeavors, and here are some of the important lessons I’ve learned when things have not gone as well as had been hoped for: Read More
