Crossing the river by feeling the stones together
Don’t be confused by David Ehrlichman’s direct title, Impact Networks: Create connection, Spark Collaboration, and Catalyze Systemic Change. Behind this simple and straightforward framework for network leadership are a leadership mindset and a set of behaviours that can attend to the complexity of our world. Ehrlichman wastes no time to express,
Across the globe, we face extraordinary challenges: climate change; lack of affordable shelter; food insecurity; racism; sexism; social inequities; large-scale displacement, migration, and resettlement; biodiversity loss, habitat degradation, and animal abuse; continuing violence against Black and Indigenous people, against all communities of color, against women and girls, against the Earth itself [1].
His point is that a hierarchical mindset won’t cut it for this level of complexity. I agree. In building his work upon the Cynefin framework for decision-making, Ehrlichman calls for us to differentiate between four kinds of issues:
- Simple issues can be definitively solved, with a clear beginning and end, such as cooking a meal.
- Complicated issues involve many moving parts, but they can be defined and understood. They are technical in nature, with predictable solutions that can be implemented effectively by people with the right expertise. Planning and implementing the logistical operations for an event is complicated but not complex.
- Complex issues are difficult to define, as they have no clear beginning or end. They also have no readily apparent solution, and we cannot accurately predict the path ahead. Consequently, we have to be able to adapt to changing circumstances and modify strategies as we learn what works and what does not. An example of a complex challenge is equitably eliminating greenhouse gas emissions across a large region.
- Chaotic issues, like their complex counterparts, cannot be accurately predicted or controlled. They are also turbulent, dangerous, and rapidly evolving. Chaotic situations-such as a humanitarian disaster-often require that we act quickly to save lives or tend to emergencies before working to establish some sense of order. They call for a rapid response to distribute information and resources to where they are needed most, before addressing the underlying issues [2].
When the issues we face are complex, they have a better chance at being addressed when a constellation of voices from different sectors are sought. Ehrlichman argues for a type of leadership that is fit for purpose in these complex situations, which can enable change. What I value about this is the assessment of the issues to be addressed before acting upon them, something which Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky refer to as “getting on the balcony” when needing to distinguish between technical problems and adaptive challenges [3]. Ehrlichman‘s point is that “hierarchical structures are a poor choice for multistakeholder collaborations” favouring centralized, top-down decision-making from a restricted body of information [4]. Rather, a network mindset is one which steps back, and generates space for collective decision-making within a living system of relationships. A leader who embraces this approach must set aside their own self-importance.
This is reminiscent of the undefended leadership concept which Simon Walker calls for in wrestling with one’s defended ego while addressing the complex issues of our time. He articulates, “It is about helping people to learn how to see under the surface, to read between the lines, to discern the larger patterns and bigger forces at work. It is about helping people to notice things that would otherwise pass them by, to teach them to be good ‘seers’ whose eyes are always open” [5]. So from this leader mindset, a new set of behaviours can emerge.
Ehrlichman names four different roles required in a network’s life cycle:
- Catalyzing is the art of crafting a vision and inspiring action. Catalysts… bring people together for the first time to explore the potential and get the effort off the ground.
- Facilitation is about guiding participants through group processes to find common ground and collaborate with one another. Facilitators design and lead convenings, hold space for different points of view, and help conversations flow.
- Weaving involves fostering new connections and deepening relationships. Weavers engage with participants to gather input, introduce participants to each other and inspire self-organization, and build bridges with new communities to help the network grow.
- Coordination is the work of organizing the network’s internal systems and structures to enable participants to share information and advance collective work [6].
These behaviours grow out of relationship. Impact network leaders can explore the potential that comes from gathering diverse voices to address problems, and then carry on with building bridges. I see the resonance with coalitions, fellowships, and guilds. On this last point, Eve Poole’s Leadersmithing references these behaviours, under slightly different names, in her toolkit of essential practices to gain guild-like mastery as a leader [7].
In my work with the Lausanne Movement and the Peace and Reconciliation Network (PRN), issues need to be addressed with determined commitment to gathering divergent voices, and allowing people to self-organize to advance collective work. In Lausanne, these are called “Collaborative Action Teams” [8], and in PRN, this framework will guide the formation of communities of practice coming together to see peacemaking and reconciliation advance across diverse contexts in Canada. I am reminded of the old African proverb, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”.
What I value about this book is the depth under the surface. Along the way, Ehrlichman uses a metaphor for embracing emergent strategies. This Chinese saying harmonizes a leader’s mindset and behaviours for complex issues one cannot address on their own: “we cross the river by feeling the stones” [9]. And so, I too must recognize the limitations of my own perspectives on the issues that need to be addressed, and to call others towards a posture that enables decentralized work, by picking up Ehrlichman‘s challenge:
The need has never been greater for many more of us to learn how to catalyze, cultivate, and lead in networks. Let us answer the call of our time: to honor our interdependence; to invest in our capacity to work across difference; to cultivate resilient networks that foster more just, equitable, and vibrant systems. Together, let’s collaborate in service of a world that works for all [10].
______
[1] David Ehrlichman, Impact Networks : Create Connection, Spark Collaboration, and Catalyze Systemic Change, Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2021, 1.
[2] Impact Networks, 2-3. For more on the Cynefin model, see David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone, “A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making,” Harvard Business Review, November 2007, https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making.
[3] Ronald A. Heifetz and Linsky, Marty, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading, Harvard Business Review Press, 2002, 60.
[4] Impact Networks, 34.
[5] Simon P. Walker, Leading Out of Who You Are: Discovering the Secret of Undefended Leadership, Piquant Publishing, 2007, 205.
[6] Impact Networks, 60-61.
[7] Eve Poole, Leadersmithing: Revealing the Trade Secrets of Leadership, London ; New York, NY: Bloomsbury Business, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. Under ‘Spades’ Poole argues for the essential mastery over Difficult Conversations, Numbers, Creativity, Remaining Competitive, Conflict, Delegation, Communication, Public Speaking, Meetings, Networking, Working the Room.
[8] Meredith Martin, 2023, “Lausanne 4: Collaborative Action.” May 26, 2023, https://lausanne.org/l4/act.
[9] Impact Networks, 65.
[10] Impact Networks, 209.
About the Author
Joel Zantingh
Joel Zantingh serves as the Canadian Coordinator of the World Evangelical Alliance's Peace and Reconciliation Network, and as Director of Engagement with Lausanne Movement Canada. He has served in local and national roles within the Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada, and led their global mission arm. He has experience teaching in formal and informal settings with Bible college students and leaders from various cultures and generations. Joel and Christie are parents to adult children, as well as grandparents. They reside in Guelph, Ont., situated on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit, and home to many past, present and future First Nations peoples, including the Anishinnabe and Hodinöhsö:ni'.14 responses to “Crossing the river by feeling the stones together”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for this great post and research Joel. Of the four roles that Ehrlichman describes do you find yourself functioning in one of those more predominantly than the others? Is this out of necessity or gifting?
Joel, Ryan beat me to my question, so I’m going to tag on. here. I really appreciate this book recommendation and have put it on my list to read. This directly addresses my NPO on hierarchical leadership, nominal collaboration, and lack of listening.
Hi Ryan and Kari. In some ways, these are all related to empowerment of others, creating space for others’ voices, networking them together, and finding points of alignment around collaborative goals. In some ways, these are necessities in my current season, but I also recognize my comfort with most of these roles. The last one mentioned — Coordination, is my weakest. I often have to look for someone else to coordinate the workflow and keep things on task.
You state that Ehrlichman calls for us to differentiate between four kinds of issues: Simple, Complicated, Complex and Chaotic. In your ministry context is there one kind of issue that seems more prevalent than others? Do you direct the Collaborative Action Teams or are you directly involved with them?
Great question Jeff! In my world of Christian leadership that is both national and globally connected, it is shifting into more complexity all the time. Ehrlichman’s impact network leadership is designed to help in complex situations. But every day there are still simple and complicated issues to address like leading a worship service or hosting an ecumenical prayer vigil, and the occasional chaotic issue, like dealing with a global pandemic.
But the nature of the Collaborative Action Teams work is addressing complex matters like ‘Addressing Ethnic and Racial Tensions in Society and Church’ and “Polycentric mission and resource mobilization”. Fortunately, my role is not to lead all of these directly, but to ensure Canadians’ get connected to North American or Global collaborative action groups within Lausanne. I am trying to be disciplined to not facilitate any directly, because I am leading the development of PRN Canada simultaneously. However, I am talking about complexity theory with folks all the time to grow in their appreciate of the value of including diverse voices, and handling differing perspectives, etc.
Hi Joel, in your experience, how can leaders facilitate a network mindset that encourages collective decision-making within a living system of relationships?
Shela, thanks for this question. I’m curious how you see it working as well, but will say that facilitation for collaboration requires discipline to stay focussed on establishing and speaking to shared goals, and drawing out different perspectives from different participants, across varied learning styles and input modalities (writing, talking, sharing in small clusters, quiet reflection, polls, sub-committee work, etc). Above all, it’s learning to honour what my friend Ruth Esau calls “the wisdom that is in the room”. (Inspired To Lead – ruthesau.com).
Great post Joel, thanks! As I was reading, I was wondering first, if you have much experience with this type of network leadership, and second, if so, what do you find the pros and cons to be?
Debbie and Adam.
There’s an old saying in Coaching: When the house is on fire, it’s not time to ask, ‘so what options do you foresee?’ Network leadership, impact leadership for collective decision-making is for complex situations. I haven’t worked out a Pros and Cons list, but wold say that discernment is necessary on when to pull this out of your toolbox. But the formula for that discernment might look like this:
An Issue too complex to solve with one or a very few leaders / orgs.
+
Time
=
Impact Network Success
I have been taking a coaching and networking approach to leading since 2002. To Adam’s point, what Erlichman proposes is that hierarchical leaders are necessary within the Impact network model once specific actions or projects are identified, and I would concur.
Thanks for the book recommendation, Joel, this touches on my NPO.
Based on your learnings are there certain types of leaders who thrive better in collaborative environments or are these skills that one needs to learn?
Graham, I love this question because it calls a leader to think through what leadership models would work well in their context, and then to develop the skills that enhance their leadership. As we are both in Canada, for instance, with a Christian minority, increased humility and grace-giving towards other leaders opens up the way for ‘communitas’ — being a fellowship on a mission together. Are we getting to a place where we might need one another in the cause of Christ? Can we explore new models like impact network leadership that leave room for variant viewpoints within a common purpose to see gospel transformation? I certainly hope so.
Joel,
Thanks for your post and challenging thoughts. I read this through the lens of a Fire Captain who spend 10 years in a very hierarchical system. It was this very hierarchical system that kept me alive on numerous occasions. I see the complex and chaotic situations through the lens of an earthquake or a large scale wildfire. These chaotic incidents always had to be brought to order and would also be multi-jurisdictional. There had to be someone at the top of the structure who was calling the shots so that everyone below them knew the direction we were going. With that in place there would also be checks and balances as the scale grew.
I also understand that not everything is an emergency and non-emergencies have more time that can be put into a collaborative approach. Anyways, I am just thinking that there is a time and a place for different leadership structures and approaches.
Hi Joel,
Thank you for this excellent post. When you wrote about generating space for collective decision making within a living system of relationships, the collaborative design process for problem-solving we are using in our projects came to mind. Since I know your design workshop was today, I’m wondering how what you read may have impacted the process?
Hi Joel, Reading your blog and how it relates to your work was encouraging. It gives hope for a future that finds a new normal that respects what each individual in a group brings to that group, rather than give lip-service to a decision made ourside typical business times. As you are working to cultivate peace and understanding among different groups, what setbacks have you experienced?