global action networks as big change strategies

Post on 17-Jan-2015

200 Views

Category:

Government & Nonprofit

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

DESCRIPTION

Global Action Networks (GANs) are multi-stakeholder networks that span geographical, institutional, and sectoral boundaries to effect systemic change on critical global challenges such as climate change, inequality, war, disease, and environmental degradation. Examples include the Global Compact, Transparency International, The Climate Group, Social Accountability International, the Principles for Responsible Investing and the Global Reporting Initiative. Because they involve systems thinking and are designed to build connections and trust, they lead to superior results. Learn about successful examples of GANs, their characteristics, how they compare to other approaches to change, and the promise they hold to address critical global issues and to become a major global governance form for the 21st century. Author: Steve Waddell, www.NetworkingAction.net

TRANSCRIPT

Steve Waddell

Principal

swaddell@networkingaction.net

Global Action Networks

…as big change strategies

swaddell@networkingaction.net 2

The Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Founded: 2002

Vision: A world free of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria

Mission: Investing the world’s money to save lives

Structure: Eight stakeholder constituencies Partnership Forum Board: donors, implementers, non-voting Country Coordinating Mechanism; Local Fund Agents

Activities: >140 countries $30 billion disbursed 6.1 million people on AIDS antiretroviral therapy Tested and treated 11.2 million people for TB Distributed 360 million anti-malaria nets

Operating Budget: $306m (2012)

swaddell@networkingaction.net 3Steve Waddell ©

Transparency InternationalFounded: 1993

Vision: a world free of corruption

Mission: to stop corruption and promote transparency, accountability and integrity

Structure: Board with National Chapter Reps >100 National Chapters

Activities: Transparency as-an-issue, index, anti-corruption pacts, National Integrity Systems, legal advocacy

Secretariat Budget/Staff: $33 million/180 (2014)

swaddell@networkingaction.net 4Steve Waddell ©

RE-AMP…a “regional” GANFounded: 2005

Mission: to reduce global warming pollution US economy-wide 80% by 2050

Structure: over 160 NGOs and foundations Annual Meeting Six Working Groups (one coordinating) <Dozen staff working in member organizations

Activities: Halting new coal plants, heightening efficiency standards, transportation policy changes

Operating Budget: $0.7 million (2011)

swaddell@networkingaction.net 5Steve Waddell ©

Table Discussion 1

What do you know about these networks? What examples might you know?

As “change strategies” what qualities come up for you to describe their strategy?

swaddell@networkingaction.net 6Steve Waddell ©

swaddell@networkingaction.net 7

A Challenges View of Network TypesHighly Abstract

Unknown(Learning)

Complex Challenges(Issue development

networks)Eg: Addressing poverty

Complicated Challenges(Production networks)

Eg: Putting a person on the moon.

Known(Teaching)

Chaotic Challenges(Chaos/unseen networks)

Eg: People experiencing a disaster

Simple Challenges(Simple networks)

Eg: Filling potholes

Very Specific

Adapted from: Snowden, D. (2005). "Strategy in the context of uncertainty."Handbook of Business Strategy 6(1): 47-54.

Table 1: Types of Change(Adapted from Waddell 2011)

Type of Challenge Simple Complicated Complex

Type of Change Incremental Reform Transformation

Core Question How can we do more of the same?Are we doing things right?

What rules shall we create? Who should do what?What are the rewards?

How do I make sense of this?What is the purpose?How do we know what is best?

Purpose To improve performance

To understand and change the system and its parts

To innovate and create previously unimagined possibilities

Power and relationships

Confirms existing rules. Preserves the established power structure and relationships among actors in the system

Opens rules to revision. Suspends established power relationships; promotes authentic interactions; creates a space for genuine reform of the system

Opens issue to creation of new ways of thinking and action. Promotes transformation of relationships with whole-system awareness and identity; promotes examining deep structures that sustain the system

Core Action Logic Mediation Negotiations Visioning

swaddell@networkingaction.net 8Steve Waddell ©

Table Discussion 2

What questions arise for you about these types of change?

Can you think of other examples, perhaps in your own work?

swaddell@networkingaction.net 9Steve Waddell ©

Dimensions of ChangeSource: Adapted from Wilber, K; (Pruitt and Hemmati 2009)

Individual Self-awareness Knowledge, skills, competencies Assumptions, mindsets, beliefsExample:Creating of self-awareness among citizens for asking for information (shifting to being confident, responsible citizens not ‘underlings’)

Relationships Trust, respect, recognition Awareness of interdependence Reconciliation / conflict transformation Example: Mutual cooperation between NGOs Higher level of cooperation between NGOs and

government institutions

Culture Underlying values and beliefs Implicit “rules” Discourse, languageExample: Strong media campaign against

polluters

Structures / Systems Policies, legislation Institutions, procedures Allocation of resourcesExample: Pressure to the Ministry for releasing information

and data; awareness that they could be asked Forming of intersectoral group in Ministry for

support Changes in legislation (e.g. significantly increased

fines for polluters)

swaddell@networkingaction.net 10

Table Discussion 3

What questions arise for you about these dimensions of change?

Can you think of other examples, perhaps in your own work?

Can you think of methods to approach the different dimensions?

swaddell@networkingaction.net 11Steve Waddell ©

swaddell@networkingaction.net 12

Dynamic 1: Community Development

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

Building Shared identity Shared

understanding Interactions Inter-dependence Collective action

…coherence, alignment

Feb. 18, 2014 - RWJF

Dynamic 2: Experienced-Based Learning Cycle

Planning(“Solution” design)

Doing(Implementation)

Reflecting(Questioning, reviewing)

Concluding(Formalizing Learning)

April 29-30, 2014 swaddell@networkingaction.net 13

Dynamic 3: Future-Focused Learning

co-sensing co-inspiring

co-creating

The Presencing Cycle

(Scharmer et. al.)

swaddell@networkingaction.net14

Steve Waddell ©

Dynamic 4: Generative Action

swaddell@networkingaction.net 15Steve Waddell ©

Non-Reflectivere-enacting current reality

PartsWhole

Self-Reflectiveenacting emerging futures

ITalking nicepoliteness

IITalking tough

debate

IIIReflective dialogueinquiry

IVGenerative

dialogueflow

Sources: Isaacs, W; Scharmer, O.

Table Discussion 4

What questions arise for you about these dynamics?

Can you give illustrations of when you’ve experienced them?

swaddell@networkingaction.net 16Steve Waddell ©

A Network of Individuals?

17

Inter-Personal

Legally Distinct Entities

Many

Organizing Structure

Informal

Organizing Logic

Personal

Operating Focus

Relationships

Participation Open

Steve Waddell © swaddell@networkingaction.net

18

An Organization?

Organization

Legally Distinct Entities

One

Organizing Structure

Hierarchical

Organizing Logic

AdministeringManaging

Operating Focus

Organization

Participation Closed

Steve Waddell © swaddell@networkingaction.net

19

An Inter-Organizational Partnership?

Inter-Org. Partnership

Legally Distinct Entities

Small to Modest

Organizing Structure

Hub and spoke

Organizing Logic

Coordination

Operating Focus

Task

Participation Highly controlled

Steve Waddell © swaddell@networkingaction.net

20

An Inter-Organizational Network?

Inter-Org. Network

Legally Distinct Entities

Very large

Organizing Structure

Multi-hub

Organizing Logic

Coherence

Operating Focus

System

Participation Loosely controlled

Steve Waddell © swaddell@networkingaction.net

21

A System?

System

Legally Distinct Entities

All stakeholders

Organizing Structure

Diffuse

Organizing Logic

Diverse self-direction

Operating Focus

Definitional

Participation External

Steve Waddell © swaddell@networkingaction.net

Network Types

Inter-Personal

Organization Inter-Org. Partnership

Inter-Org. Network

System

Legally Distinct Entities

Many One Small to Modest

Very large All stakeholders

Organizing Structure

Informal Hierarchical Hub and spoke

Multi-hub Diffuse

Organizing Logic

Personal Administering Managing

Coordination Coherence Diverse self-direction

Operating Focus

Relation-ships

Organization Task System Definitional

Partici-pation

Open Closed Highly controlled

Loosely controlled

External

swaddell@networkingaction.netSteve Waddell © 22

Table Discussion 5

What questions or insights arise for you about this way of thinking about networks?

What do you think are the qualities of networks that make them useful change agents?

swaddell@networkingaction.net 23Steve Waddell ©

5. Communi-

cations

4.Change

andConflict

3. Measuring Impact

6.LearningSystems

7. Policy

and Advocacy

2. Network

Development

1.Leadership

8.Resource

Mobilization

Action

Legitimacy

Network Competencies

Table Discussion

How does this competencies model resonate with your own experience?

What competencies do you think you have greatest knowledge about? Share your thoughts about it!

swaddell@networkingaction.net 25Steve Waddell ©

26

To a “Sustainable Governance World”

Political

SystemGovernment

EconomicSystem

Business

SocialSystem

Community-BasedOrganizations

Environmental System

swaddell@networkingaction.netSteve Waddell © 26

Table Discussion 6

Do you think this is really an important trend?

What do you see as impediments and supports for this type of world?

swaddell@networkingaction.net 27Steve Waddell ©

top related