Reposted with permission from the Connecting to Change the World blog
There are many structures for organizing collaboration among individuals and/or organization. But they are not all the same–and we’re often asked if a particular structure is or isn’t a network. So we’ve taken the time here (and in more detail in chapter 1 of
Connecting to Change the World) to identify and differentiate some of the main structures that social activists and philanthropic funders use and support.
In general, the differences fall across a spectrum related to how structured/organized the form is. Some (like professional associations) are too organized; others are not organized enough. As we’ve said in other contexts (and explain more of in chapter 5): networks are on the “edge of chaos,” with enough organization to stay together, but enough freedom to creatively evolve; they contain autonomous agents who share common rules. In some of the collective forms we look at, the agents aren’t autonomous (too much structure); in others, there aren’t really common rules that bind them (not enough structure).
| Type of Collective Organizing |
Typical Distinguishing Features |
Difference from a Generative Network |
| Coalition/ Alliance of Organizations |
A temporary alignment of organizations to achieve a specific objective such as electing a candidate or securing adoption of a new public policy. Usually disbands when the effort has been completed. |
Narrower in purpose/scope than a network. (Some alliances reorganize as a generative network once their campaign is over.) |
| Membership- Based Association or Organization |
Organized mainly to pool resources and provide dues-paying members with services, often for professional development or representation within public-policy arenas. Association/organization staff does most of the work. |
More staff-driven, less member-to-member relationship driven, than a network. Focus is on serving members rather than members collaborating with each other. |
| Community of Practice |
Organizations and individuals loosely align and coordinate around development, adoption, and spread of innovative practices and/or policies to address a particular set of problems or opportunities. |
Participants typically lack a firm sense of “membership identity” and do not make explicit reciprocal commitments. Communities of practice often have many sub-networks. |
| Movement |
Large numbers of people loosely aligned around a large cause (e.g., civil rights, environmental protection), their passion ignited by a personal desire to right a wrong. |
Less coherent, focused, and coordinated—and much larger, sprawling—than a generative network. A movement may contain networks; networks may spawn a movement. |
| Social-Media Web |
Alignment is around a passing cause. Online; open membership; enables many “weak ties” among participants. |
Less coherent, focused and coordinated, with no clear membership expectations. |
