Network Organizational Challenges

• There are distinct organisational forms of networks which may not behave as typical Oak partners
• Oak adapts its approach to capacity strengthening when working with networks
• This Guidance Note helps POs to identify key questions when supporting network partners

Organisational challenges of Networks

• Purpose and strategy

• Leadership and culture

• Governance

• Relationship between secretariat and members

• Power dynamics between members

• Financial sustainability

• Impact assessment (MEL)

• Oak takes a considered, network-appropriate approach to grant-making

• Oak organisational strengthening explores normal network challenges before individual network challenges

• Networks are supported by Oak for advocacy, representation, capacity strengthening, coordination of service delivery, and sometimes on-granting

• Oak supports networks to 'build the field' and strengthen civil society

• It is important for funders to adapt the ways they engage, fund, and support capacity strengthening for networks effectively

Key Terms

• Network: A group of interconnected civil society organisations (CSOs) that formally work together to achieve shared goals as membership organisations

• Intermediary: An organisation that re-grants with Oak support and fulfills other functions for/with Oak

• Social movement: A collective effort by a group of people, often loosely organised, to achieve a specific social or political goal through sustained action and mobilise individuals around a shared cause

• Oak Programme Staff should consider key differences when funding networks:

• Purpose and strategy

• Leadership and culture

• Governance

• Relationship between the secretariat and members

• Power dynamics between members

• Financial sustainability

• Impact assessment (MEL)

• The way any network operates depends on its history and context

Network Roles

• Advocacy

• Capacity strengthening - learning

• Coordination or movement building

• Representation

• Regranting to or funding members

• Implementation

• Many networks start with a single role but can take on more due to pressure or resources

• Networks can not simultaneously play all roles well, which require different skill sets

• Synergies may become tensions once a network starts funding its members, compromising capacity strengthening

• Open members may find difficult to speak about issues in case it impacts funding

• Funding roles always alter power dynamics as members view secretariat as donor

Leadership

• Leadership required at secretariat level differs from 'normal' CSOs
• Network leaders must be great networkers, play an ambassadorial role, build relationships through communication
• Network leaders need collective or distributed leadership, participatory approaches, consensus building, conflict management
• Organisational culture/network mindset drives CSO network functions as secretariat leadership influences organisational culture

Governance

• Governance poses a common challenge
• Important questions regarding board membership exist, such as whether members are individuals or representatives
• Should non-member individuals be brought in for skills and experiences?
• Electing members risks performance but is good for democratic values
• It is important to understand where governance decisions are made and what happens when stalemate occurs
• Relationship between secretariat and members is critical involving inherent tension and trade-off between secretariat strength and member engagement
• 'Networking' can diminish as network formalises, members contribute less, and secretariat grows

Power

• There is diversity/power differentials amongst network members through size, nationality, capacity, and resources
• Risk of larger CSOs dominating agenda or decision-making exists in networks
• It is important to understand member diversity with sticking together and supporting one another during adversities
• Funders wield considerable influence, as part of the network or on the board, adding stronger power dynamics

Finance

• Mobilising financial resources is an issue as networks ideally self-fund through membership fees which prompt ownership and demand services from secretariat
• Membership fees only contribute small proportion of network operating costs depending upon outside funding
• This raises question of financial sustainability, encouraging networks toward mission drift and lucrative areas like re-granting or implementing
• Siloed funding streams raise challenges as networks have to respond more to donor priorities than member demands
• Indirect nature of network impact makes MEL more complex
• Change can take longer and takes place through members or the wider ecosystem
• It is harder to attribute change directly to network work, being about contribution and plausible association

Support Effectiveness - Oak's role

• Oak has an agenda to align and reinforce Oak Programme strategies
• Oak's role and funding of networks and their members has an important influence on the resulting network development
• It is important to take an ecosystem perspective to align Oak support to network activities and wider systems change
• Oak chooses carefully as part of a strategic decision to build the field by considering which funder role is most helpful

Funder Roles

• Catalyst: establishes value proposition(s) and first links to potential members during the 'knitting the network' phase

• Sponsor: provides resources for knitting, organising, growing and transitioning or transforming the network

• Weaver: works to increase connections among participants and grows the network by connecting new participants

• Coach: provides advice once trust established and power dynamics are understood

• Oak's funding is inextricably linked to organisational strengthening, requiring network funding

• Networks do not behave like typical organisations, assessment processes and frameworks differ

• Funding networks carries opportunities and risks supporting institutional forms rather than networking processes

• Overfunding a network inhibits members taking responsibility and contributing financially

• Avoid encouraging sub-granting roles unless already an intermediary as it changes strategy/identity

• Funding should align with Oak's overall strategy as core, long term, flexible to play a critical role in cultivating capacity within networks

• Support vital conditions such as shared purpose, trust, relationship building, and a collaborative culture

• Evaluation metrics of networks should be different as they do not work directly with beneficiaries and changes take longer

• Demonstrating impact requires bringing people together, building the vision, and culture rather than delivering tangible results

Levels to consider for Change

• Representational indicators

• Relationship indicators

• Results indicators

• Oak Programme Staff can help support capacity strengthening of networks by looking at common issues and whether partners need specific support

• Helping networks make inclusive/wise strategic choices when faced by demands to play a multiplicity of sometimes competing roles

• Recognise network leadership taking a different skill set and collaborative style, requiring tailored leadership programme

• Governance of networks is always complex due to conflating organisations' interests with the network's

• The relationship between the secretariat and network members is vital, needing to be intentionally attended

• Inherent power dynamics between network members can be a practical challenge that requires careful management

• Financial sustainability is almost always an issue for networks by getting the balance between member and funder investment

• Oak looks out for and responds to specific capacity issues for any partner, and is able to resource through core support grants with specific OD objectives

• Project grants, OD grants, pooled funding learning opportunities through OSE team, and coaching and mentoring through trusted experts

Important questions for Programme Staff to ask

• How and why the network was originally formed
• Whether Oak Foundation was involved in any way
• What members want from the network and why they are a part of it
• What the primary role of the network is
• The dynamic, respected, and consensual aspects of leadership
• The governance structure and how engaged board members are
• The workload balance between the secretariat and members
• The most powerful members and if their opinions and priorities dominate decision-making
• Where the network income is raised and the percentage is from the members
• What the level of dependence on Oak is, and how has this changed
• How the network measures its own performance and achievements
• Which capacity areas are most important to work on and why
• What support do they need and why