© Centre for Integral Excellence Sheffield Hallam University Mike Pupius Centre for Integral

© Centre for Integral ExcellenceSheffield Hallam University

http://integralexcellence.shu.ac.ukhttp://excellence.shu.ac.uk

Mike PupiusCentre for Integral Excellence

Sheffield Hallam UniversityJohn Swanwick

Open University Business School

Networking for Success

British Council QualityForum Conference22 February 2004



The presentation

• Some thoughts about networking

• Summary of progress so far

• Some contradictions

• Implications for our networks

• Implications for the EFQM model



Six Degrees of Separation

Don’t I know you?



A Small World?

Some people feel that any two people in the world, no matter how remote from each other,can be linked in terms of intermediate acquaintances, and that the number of suchintermediate links is relatively small - irrespective of, and across, social groupings





Six degrees of Separation

• Stanley Milgram (Harvard professor) – 1967 social networking experiment• How many ‘social hops’ would it take for messages to traverse through the US population (200 million) • Posted 160 letters from randomly

chosen people in Omaha, Nebraska

Boston

Omaha

• Asked them to try to pass these letters to a stockbroker working in Boston, Massachusetts

• Rules:• use intermediacies whom they know on a first name basis• chosen intelligently• make a note at each hop

• 42 letters made it !!

• Average of 5.5 hops

• Demonstrated the ‘small world effect’

Proved that the social network of the United States is indeed connected with a path-length (number of hops) of around 6 – The 6 degrees of separation !Does this mean that it takes 6 hops to traverse 200 million people??



everythingconnectstoeverything



Map your personal network

Prof.Institutes

Work

You

ECOPGym

Other networks

FamilyFriends

StudyClass

Place ofWorship



A Model for Alignment(after Robert Dilts)

Capabilities & skills ‘I Choose’The capacity to generate Behaviour in any specific context. E.g. setting

goals, listening skills, being sensitive to our environmental context

Behaviours ’I Act’The actions we take intended to influence our Environment which generates positive

or negative feedback from the Environment. These are the external evidence of thoughts

Environment ‘I React’The context in which we operate. Source of feedback on our Behaviour and the triggers

for our reactions.

Beliefs & Values ‘I Can’Beliefs influence Capability and support Identity. We have beliefs about the contextual environment of our lives, behaviour and capability (ours and others). How well we use

our Capabilities will be based on our beliefs & values about them.

Identity ‘I Am’Our combined Beliefs & Values define our Identity. That Identity

can also limited our Beliefs and Values. Identity can be expressed in terms

Purpose ‘I Know’The sense of SELF which remains constant, whateveraspects of IDENTITY change or develop. A sense of

Connectedness



Tips for Networking (Donna Fisher)

1. The Power of Giving2. The Power of Interdependence3. The Power of Praise4. The Power of Quality Connections5. The Power of Staying in Touch6. The Power of Knowing you7. The Power of Small Talk8. The Power of Listening9. The Power of Speaking Up10. The Power of Asking11. The Power of Thinking Big12. The Power of Commitment



Summary of work so far

• Born of the idea that we should look to improve our networks

• Some contradictions emerge between commonly assumed network attributes and theory (see papers)

• An opportunity for members to input ideas by questionnaire and today

• Some conclusions to help us improve?



Contradictions 1 Formality

• Loose coupled and individual, members come and go as they please

• Or more structured relationships and forms of communication involving some form of hierarchy, specialist roles etc



Contradictions 2 Purpose

• The network as a source of highly individual learning, loosely gathered

• Or the network specifically intended for collective and organisational learning – which might include periodic assessment and review of activities

• Learning for creativity/innovation?



Contradictions 3 Style

• Informality supported by questioning and open style reinforced by social interaction

• Or more formally structured to offer learning through ‘set pieces’ e.g. presentations, visits etc



Some thoughts about our networks

• The starting point is ‘what is our purpose’? Learning? Creativity?

• Loose formality or not? – correlates with learning gain?

• Just how much hierarchy/ structure do we need?



Some thoughts about the EFQM Model

• Is the Model predicated on hierarchical structures? (both principles and criteria). Not suited to networks (some or all) except in the sense that some sub-criteria have relevance?

• If so, do we have to build a new ‘model’ for networks based on the those principles which remain relevant?

• Networks will grow as a form of organisation in the new century, so we can hardly ignore this?



Results from Questionnaire

• Effective communication• Willingness of all members to share information

and learning• Committed reviewing scheme to ensure network

runs as efficiently as possible• Good planning• Strong commitment to carrying out defined goals• Financial support to underpin the activities of the

network



Integral Thinking(after Ken Wilber)

Sense ofConnectednessSense of IdentityPersonal ValuesSkills, Knowledge

Individual behaviourRolesResponsibilitiesActions

Shared PurposeShared VisionShared contextsCollaborative working

StrategiesPlansProcessesInformation

Ali

gn

men

t

Common direction

Resu

lts



Group Working

• Reflect on the the presentation

• Consider the purpose of your networks

• Identify any common values

• Brainstorm issues and ideas for improvement and record on paper

• Feedback the “best” idea in plenary



Vision without action is simply dreamingAction without vision is merely activity

Vision with action - you can change the world

Joel Barker

Documents

© Centre for Integral Excellence Sheffield Hallam University Mike Pupius Centre for Integral