Oak 10 Supporting Intermediaries and Networks

A group of organizations working together to achieve a common goal, often with a focus on advocacy, capacity building, or coordinating service delivery.

The tendency to expect CSO networks to behave like traditional grantees, leading to disappointment when they don't meet typical expectations.

The specialized roles that different types of CSO networks play, such as advocacy, capacity building, or service delivery.

The potential for a network secretariat to become too powerful, leading to members becoming passive and the network losing its original purpose.

The risk of network members becoming passive consumers rather than active participants, leading to a decline in network effectiveness.

The disconnect between member organizations and the coordinating body can be a major challenge, especially in large networks or umbrella groups operating at global or regional levels.

Civil society networks are often encouraged to formally register and create legal structures, though this can be complex in practice. This is often encouraged for funding purposes.

The hub-and-spoke model, where a central coordinating body leads and the members are dependent, can limit the growth and sustainability of a network. Networks need to evolve beyond this structure.

A network mindset is essential for the success of a network. This means actively fostering collaboration, participation, and inclusivity among members.

Leadership in a network is crucial for establishing a culture of collaboration. Leaders who are inclusive, participatory, and collaborative are key to a successful network.

The idea that the shared purpose of a network is more important than the individual goals of each member organization.

The tendency for more powerful members of a network to take on leadership roles, potentially reinforcing existing power structures.

The challenges that arise when network governance and decision-making processes involve conflicts of interest between members and the network itself. This is particularly apparent when it comes to resource allocation and positioning.

The difficulty in attributing impact to network activities, as the results often arise from the collaborative efforts of multiple organizations.

The ongoing need for network leaders and coordinating bodies to demonstrate the value they provide to their members, as it is essential for sustaining member engagement and support.

The challenge of securing funding for networks, as funders often prioritize direct, tangible outcomes which are difficult to demonstrate in the context of network activities.

The dynamic where networks often get sidelined by the day-to-day priorities of member organizations, leading to reduced participation and potentially a decline in the network's activities. This occurs even when members recognize the value of the network.

The dependence of many networks on external aid and funding, making them vulnerable to changes in funding policies and priorities.

Network leaders can add value to members by helping them solve problems and contribute to their goals. This contrasts with extractive leaders who only reach out to network members when they need something.

Network leadership requires a unique set of skills, including relationship-building, listening, and managing conflicts between network members. It differs from traditional organizational leadership.

Differences in size, resources, and influence can create power imbalances within networks, with larger organizations potentially dominating decision-making.

Funders who are also members of the network can exert significant influence. This can be mitigated through intentional action to dilute their power over time.

Network governance models can include an annual general meeting (AGM) or two separate governing bodies.

Networks can be governed by their members, but this raises concerns about self-interest and potential conflicts. Effective network governance requires focusing on the overall network interests.

Board members of networks can be chosen either to represent specific skills or to represent the interests of different member organizations.

Individuals representing their organizations on a network board must prioritize the network's interests over their own organization's goals. This ensures the network functions effectively and avoids becoming a tool for individual agendas.

Donors often expect tangible results from CSO networks, especially in the early years, overlooking the importance of building relationships, trust, and a shared vision.

Early phases of a network are crucial for building relationships, establishing a shared vision, and fostering a supportive culture, rather than solely focusing on immediate tangible results.

Different types of questions are needed to assess the effectiveness of CSO networks compared to traditional projects.

Indicators that measure the participation, capacity building, and relationship building within a network.

Indicators that measure the impact of a network on the development of its members and their ability to participate in decision-making.

Indicators that measure the impact of a network's activities on policies and social change.

A network mindset is essential for success, fostering collaboration, participation, and inclusivity among members.

Investing in exercises that clarify a network's purpose, values, and identity can strengthen engagement and build a stronger network.

The mindset of recognizing that a network's success depends on collaboration, shared purpose, and mutual support among members, rather than solely individual goals.

A network mindset should be fostered within the network itself but also encouraged among other actors like donors.

Developing a network mindset requires intentional efforts, time, and a participatory approach, involving all members in the process.

Network leadership plays a vital role in building a network mindset and fostering collaboration, making it a critical area of focus for donors.

Donors often value short-term, tangible results, which can make it challenging to secure funding for the long-term, intangible work of developing a network mindset.

Investment in building a network culture pays off in the long run, leading to stronger, more effective, and sustainable networks.

Addressing these tensions requires a focus on strategic planning, reflection, and open communication within the network.

The challenges and complexity of leading a network require a unique skillset, often requiring specialized leadership training and development programs.