Employers rely heavily on self-report surveys and interviews to assess organizational culture. But on their own, such tools provide a flawed view. By combining them with analysis of informal networks, leaders can gain a richer understanding of how new values take root locally. This allows them to see more precisely where desired behaviors are communicated, modeled, observed, and adopted on the ground. With that level of insight, leaders can more effectively target their change efforts in five key ways.

A role transition, whether it's a promotion, a move to a new organization, or a fresh challenge in an existing job, can be a huge boost to one's career. But in today's hyper-collaborative and dynamic workplaces, successful moves aren't as easy as they once were, even for the most qualified, hardworking people. After analyzing employee relationships and communication patterns across more than 100 diverse companies, and interviewing 160 executives in 20 of them, the authors discovered an overlooked prerequisite for transition success: the effective use of internal networks. That involves five practices: surging rapidly into a broad network by asking a lot of questions and discovering boundary-spanning, innovative people across the organization; generating pull by understanding, energizing, and adjusting to new connections; identifying how to add value, where one falls short, and which people in the broad network can help fill any gaps; creating scale by using the network to engage other key opinion leaders, expand the scope and impact of one's projects, and more efficiently deliver outsize results; and shaping the network for maximum thriving by making connections that enhance one's workplace experience.

Today's organizations rely on networks of dynamic systems of "agile" teams to get work done. Teams are distributed, transient, and loosely bounded in service of responsiveness and innovation. The key to this new way of doing work is managing the networked ecosystem in which teams are embedded. But in the context of leading multiple teams with fuzzy boundaries and shifting membership, the average overwhelmed manager quickly defaults to what is nearest in urgency: managing internal team dynamics and responding to internal customer demands. Drawn from field interviews with 100 top-performing team leaders, this article presents a framework-for-action to leaders who want to engage the networked ecosystem with intention and precision, including specific tactics for identifying and influencing high-leverage stakeholders.

Leaders will need to offer a compelling rationale for why post-pandemic work models that include some degree of in-person collaboration are not only good for the company but also valuable for employees. The authors explain how organizational network analysis a methodology that maps employees' working relationships can help guide leaders' return-to-office decisions and show employees how hybrid work can improve their own effectiveness.

Early analysis of racial and networking data in 10 organizations highlights three behavioral drivers of inclusion: establishing ties with colleagues and stakeholders early on, building networks with diverse "bridging" ties, and seeking out mentoring. These behaviors were associated with faster promotions and longer tenures for employees of color.

Agile methodology, created to fast-track software development, is now being used throughout organizations by teams that want to execute projects quickly. But those efforts often don't pan out, say Babson's Rob Cross and Alia Crocker and Harvard Law School's Heidi K. Gardner. Their research reveals that many large agile initiatives not only miss their goals but also cause organizational disruption--including staff burnout, the loss of key talent, and infighting among teams. What's going wrong? With the help of organizational network analysis--a methodology for mapping how people collaborate--the authors have identified where unforeseen barriers undermine agile initiatives. The main problem they found: Traditional practices for executing agile projects are ineffective. Companies err by staffing agile teams only with stars, isolating them from the main business, and dedicating members 100% to teams. In this article, they offer alternative approaches: tapping "hidden stars," who will be less overloaded, for agile initiatives, and then identifying and reaching out to highly connected potential resources who can bring in expertise as needed.

Leaders must identify the causes of collaborative failure in their organizations and teams before they can mitigate consequences such as poor productivity, stifled innovation, overload, and burnout. This article describes six patterns of dysfunction (revealed through organizational network analysis), a number of the drivers that create them, and a set of remedies for addressing them.

As organizations become more global, matrixed, and complex, they are requiring employees to collaborate with more internal colleagues and external contacts than ever before. According to research, most managers now spend 85% or more of their work time on e-mail, in meetings, and on the phone. And although greater collaboration has benefits, it also leaves significantly less time for focused individual work, careful reflection, and sound decision making. Organizational solutions are, of course, necessary to eradicate collaborative overload across the board. But research shows that with some strategic self-management, individuals can also tackle the problem on their own, clawing back 18% to 24% of their collaborative time. The first step is to understand why you take on too much work for and with others; this often involves challenging your identity as a "helper," a "team player," or a "star performer." Next, figure out how you add-and from where you derive-the most value and eliminate any collaborations that distract from that work. Last, ensure that the collaboration you continue with is as productive as possible.

The authors argue that executives need to better support emergent innovation to supplement planned new product or service development activities. Successful service, product, or process innovations within large, complex organizations are, the authors contend, very much a social phenomenon. This is why organizations that are routinely innovative are intentional about enabling individuals to engage and connect in ways that trigger and expand ideas. How can organizations best connect employees in ways that more systematically unleash emergent innovation? The authors'research suggests that part of the answer lies in the power of network structures and the ability of organizations to create what the authors call adaptive space. They define adaptive space as the network and organizational context that allows people, ideas, information, and resources to flow across the organization and spur successful emergent innovation. Adaptive space works by enabling ideas generated in entrepreneurial pockets of an organization to flow into the operational system to generate innovations that lead to growth. Adaptive space within organizations is fluid and can shift based on need. Companies create adaptive space through environments that open up information flows and enrich idea discovery, development, and amplification. That can be done in a number of ways. For example, the nonprofit research corporation Noblis created adaptive space through an internal crowdsourcing initiative, while General Motors has generated adaptive space through events that bring together people from different parts of the organization. Using network analysis and data collected from more than 400 interviews, the authors found that innovation leaders within an organization engaged with experts, influencers, and decision-makers through different phases of an innovation's journey, and in the process managed to substantially expand the impact of their innovation and streamline its acceptance as it moved from

Collaboration is taking over the workplace. According to data collected by the authors over the past two decades, the time spent by managers and employees in collaborative activities has ballooned by 50% or more. There is much to applaud about these developments-but when consumption of a valuable resource spikes that dramatically, it should also give us pause. At many companies, people spend around 80% of their time in meetings or answering colleagues' requests, leaving little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. What's more, research the authors have done across more than 300 organizations shows that the apportionment of collaborative work is often extremely lopsided. In most cases, 20% to 35% of value-added collaborations come from only 3% to 5% of employees. The avalanche of demands for input or advice, access to resources, or sometimes just presence in a meeting causes performance to suffer. Employees take assignments home, and soon burnout and turnover become real risks. Leaders must start to manage collaboration more effectively in two ways: (1) by mapping the supply and demand in their organizations and redistributing the work more evenly among employees, and (2) by incentivizing people to collaborate more efficiently.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Leaders and human resources professionals are searching for ways to generate more value from their employees. Recent studies show that companies perform at a higher level when they have integrated talent management programs that are aligned with business strategy and operations. Organizations can get more from their investments in talent management, the authors argue, by focusing on collaboration.<BR> <BR>Job design and performance management are typically based on individual accountability despite the fact that most work today is collaborative. Talent management practices tend to focus on individual competencies and experiences, while overlooking the importance of employee networks. By examining individual performance data together with the results of organizational network analysis, the authors say, senior managers can look at talent along two important dimensions. In addition to looking at individual employee performance for the purpose of succession or work force planning, they can take a network view to assess the same employees in terms of their broader collaborative contributions to the organization.<BR> <BR>The authors show how applying a network lens reveals a significant number of key players (including marginalized talent, hidden talent and underutilized talent) that traditional performance management systems miss. They identify best practices for nurturing networks through talent management initiatives, illustrating them with examples from organizations including IDEO, Nokia, Dow Chemical, Best Buy, Gallo and the U.S. Army.<BR>

The adage "It's not what you know, it's who you know" is true. The right social network can have a huge impact on your success. But many people have misguided ideas about what makes a network strong: They believe the key is having a large circle filled with high-powered contacts. That's not the right approach, say Cross, of UVA's McIntire School of Commerce, and Thomas, of the Accenture Institute for High Performance. The authors, who have spent years researching how organizations can capitalize on employees' social networks, have seen that the happiest, highest-performing executives have a different kind of network: select but diverse, made up of high-quality relationships with people who come from varying spheres and from up and down the corporate ladder. Effective networks typically range in size from 12 to 18 people. They help managers learn, make decisions with less bias, and grow personally. Cross and Thomas have found that they include six critical kinds of connections: people who provide information, ideas, or expertise; formally and informally powerful people, who offer mentoring and political support; people who give developmental feedback; people who lend personal support; people who increase your sense of purpose or worth; and people who promote work/life balance. Moreover, the best kind of connections are "energizers"-positive, trustworthy individuals who enjoy other people and always see opportunities, even in challenging situations. If your network doesn't look like this, you can follow a four-step process to improve it. You'll need to identify who your connections are and what they offer you, back away from redundant and energy-draining connections, fill holes in your network with the right kind of people, and work to make the most of your contacts. Do this, and in due course, you'll have a network that steers the best opportunities, ideas, and talent your way.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. As information technology becomes increasingly critical within large, global organizations, chief information officers are being held to higher standards. In addition to streamlining business processes, reducing enterprise costs and improving work force effectiveness, top management also wants the IT department to be a strategic business partner -to forecast the business impact of emerging technologies, lead the development of new IT-enabled products and services, and drive adoption of innovative technologies that differentiate the organization from competitors. Although organizational charts and standardized processes can be helpful, the authors find that these traditional tools are not flexible enough to support the types of internal and external collaborations and partnerships that large, global IT organizations need to maximize value. The key to delivering both operational excellence and innovation, they argue, is to allow innovative solutions to emerge unexpectedly through informal and unplanned interactions between individuals who see problems from different perspectives. Based on their research at Monsanto and 11 other large companies, the authors argue that CIOs who learn to balance formal and informal structures can create global IT organizations that are more efficient and innovative than organizations that rely primarily on formal mechanisms. The authors found that organizational network analysis provides a useful methodology for helping executives assess broader patterns of informal networks between individuals, teams, functions and organizations, and for identifying targeted steps to align networks with strategic imperatives.

In this first in a series of cases on organizational network analysis (ONA), Vic Gulas, the new head of IT at the engineering consulting firm MWH Consulting, is charged with turning a geographically organized department into one organized by function. He knows that the success of the reorganization will depend on effective collaboration, but he cannot get a sense of what collaborative relationships do and do not exist by looking at a formal organizational chart. Instead, Gulas uses ONA, a method for mapping relationships among people in a group. In the ONA results, Gulas sees a group still fragmented by geography and constrained by hierarchy and other gaps in connectivity. After studying the highly detailed assessment of working relationships within the IT department, Gulas must decide in the A case what steps he can take to align the department's network with its business objectives.

In this first in a series of cases on organizational network analysis (ONA), Vic Gulas, the new head of IT at the engineering consulting firm MWH Consulting, is charged with turning a geographically organized department into one organized by function. He knows that the success of the reorganization will depend on effective collaboration, but he cannot get a sense of what collaborative relationships do and do not exist by looking at a formal organizational chart. Instead, Gulas uses ONA, a method for mapping relationships among people in a group. In the ONA results, Gulas sees a group still fragmented by geography and constrained by hierarchy and other gaps in connectivity. The B case presents the network-building steps Gulas took on the basis of the ONA results and the results of a follow-up ONA Gulas conducted two years after the initial analysis. This second ONA revealed a network that was stronger and more appropriately connected in various ways.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. One could argue that "what business are we really in" is the most important question a leader can ask about his company. But perhaps right up there with the classic Peter Drucker interrogatory is this one: What is your business model? So argue the authors, who correctly point out that firms searching for forms of competitive advantage -- sources of distinctiveness that are enduring, hard to copy and valuable in the marketplace -- should take a look at their management model. That is, they should examine the choices made by the top executives in how they define objectives, motivate efforts, coordinate activities and allocate resources. How they define the work of management, in other words. Not only do the authors provide a framework for this discussion -- dividing companies' business models into four possible choices -- but they supply a list of questions leaders can ask to determine which management model may be right for their company. Clearly, when it comes to management models, one size does not fit all. And it is equally obvious that even similar-size companies in the same industry may choose differing models, depending on their own particular circumstances. While the model they choose is of extreme importance, so, too, is the process they follow -- and the thinking they use -- to select it.

Whether selling products or services, making strategic decisions, delivering solutions, or driving innovation, most work of any substance today is accomplished by teams. However, since the early 1990s, teams have evolved from more stable groups-where members were co-located, dedicated to a common mission, and directed by a single leader-to more matrixed entities with colleagues located around the world, juggling time between several projects, and accountable to multiple leaders. As teams have become more fluid, substantial challenges have been posed to traditional advice on team formation, leadership, roles, and process. This article describes how leaders at all levels within an organization can obtain innovation and performance benefits by shifting focus from forming teams to developing networks at key points of execution.

Although many organizations initiate communities of practice to drive performance and innovation, managers typically have little insight into their internal effectiveness and business impact. Offers network analytics, interventions, and metrics (both in terms of network connectivity and business outcomes) to improve and track the success of such community initiatives. Specifically, shows how social network analysis can help move a community from an ad hoc, informal group to a value-producing network by focusing on five critical levers: improving information flow and knowledge reuse; developing an ability to sense and respond to key problems or opportunities; driving planned and emergent innovation; nurturing value-creating interactions; and engaging employees through community efforts.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. When employees leave an organization, they depart with more than what they know; they also leave with critical knowledge about who they know. Thus, the departure of key people can significantly affect the relationship structure and consequent functioning of an organization. In particular, companies should be aware of the unique knowledge held by three important types of employees: "central connectors" (those who are regularly asked for help, typically because they have a high level of expertise in one or more areas), "brokers" (those who act as bridges across subgroups) and "peripheral players" (those who reside on the boundaries of a network but could still possess valuable niche expertise and outside knowledge). Departure of an employee who filled any one of these roles presents knowledge-loss risks that need to be addressed. The departure of a handful of key brokers, for example, could fracture the social network of an organization into isolated subgroups. Thus companies need to take various measures to (1) identify key knowledge vulnerabilities by virtue of both what a person knows and how that individual's departure will affect a network and (2) address specific knowledge-loss issues based on the different roles that employees play in the network.

Saying that networks are important is stating the obvious. But harnessing the power of these seemingly invisible groups to achieve organizational goals is an elusive undertaking. Most efforts to promote collaboration are haphazard and built on the implicit philosophy that more connectivity is better. In truth, networks create relational demands that sap people's time and energy and can bog down entire organizations. It's crucial for executives to learn how to promote connectivity only where it benefits an organization or individual and to decrease unnecessary connections. In this article, the authors introduce three types of social networks, each of which delivers unique value. The customized response network excels at framing the ambiguous problems involved in innovation. Strategy consulting firms and new-product development groups rely on this format. By contrast, surgical teams and law firms rely mostly on the modular response network, which works best when components of the problem are known but the sequence of those components in the solution is unknown. And the routine response network is best suited for organizations like call centers, where the problems and solutions are fairly predictable but collaboration is still needed. Executives shouldn't simply hope that collaboration will spontaneously occur in the right places at the right times in their organizations. They need to develop a strategic, nuanced view of collaboration, and they must take steps to ensure that their companies support the types of social networks that best fit their goals. Drawing on examples from Novartis, the FAA, and Sallie Mae, the authors offer managers the tools they need to determine which network delivers the best results for their organizations and which strategic investments nurture the right degree of connectivity.