Myers Briggs for Network Weavers
Networks and network weavers are quickly becoming the hottest terms in Jewish life (and elsewhere). Deborah Fishman’s been doing a series of interviews with ‘network weavers’ on eJewishPhilanthropy, The AVI CHAI Foundation, The Schusterman Foundation, The Jim Joseph Foundation and others have been making big investments in not only developing their own network strategies, but also in help their grantees and fields of interest start to work in more networked ways.
Last night I gave one of the first ELI Talks at the North American Jewish Day School Conference (NAJDS). As I sought a “network” image for my presentation, I noticed how different the shapes of these maps can be. In a fascinating discussion with Deborah Fishman we explored different types of skills and personalities in network weaving – those who have deep connections with a modest network. Those who have tentacles that reach far and wide. Those who are nodes, connecting people to one another.
I’m going to hypothesize – I don’t have data on this, and I’d be interested to know if it exists – that different styles of network weavers (personality, skills, training, preferred tools, strategic objectives) will produce different patterns of network maps. For example, compare the structure of the following:
I hypothesize that we could codify these types in some way akin to a Myers Briggs Type Indicator evaluation to better clarify network weaver types. Further, I think that organizations, if they are able to clarify what they want from a network weaver, would have a preferred “type” of network weaver.
In our challenge to develop excellent network weavers, and encourage more organizations to effectively use them, could this sort of “type indicator” help organizations clarify what they are looking for, and help match-make employers and employees more effectively?
I wonder to what degree these types are influenced by personality, training and/or experience? Can you train or assign someone to be a type of network weaver, or are they predisposed to certain styles because of their personality?
I welcome input, research, challenges here – I’d love your help in refining these ideas.
Yes! It was amazing talking over this fascinating idea – as I postulate on my blog (http://hachavaya.blogspot.com/2011/12/aftermath-roles-of-hubs.html), I do believe there are different roles in a network with different shapes. It would be awesome to do more research on this – with enough social networks to analyze, I’m sure we’d get some fascinating results.
I like this!
It’s good to recognize that there is no one optimal kind of network weaver. I’d like to be the Jack Black of network weavers. All the people I know – you’ve never heard of ‘em. You aren’t cool enough….
Michael Novack, who I met when I was in the St. Louis Jewish community, runs a company called Kiosity which does psychometric testing for companies to match prospective employers with the right candidates (based on particular personality traits required for the specific position). I wonder if the tool could be tweaked to identify the network weaving personality types. Here’s the link, check it out http://www.kiosite.com/news.html.
This was just posted this morning on the Congregational Resource Guide e-newsletter, check it out! “Personality Type and Congregations” http://congregationalresources.org/resources/personality-type-and-congregations?utm_source=Congregational+Resource+Guide+-+CRG+News&utm_campaign=0b2faf77d6-CRG_News_3_3_blendedfamilies_01_17_2012&utm_medium=email
Malcolm Gladwell in the Tipping Point posits 3 types relevant to the network effect: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesman. All play a role in information dissemination. There are all kinds of assessments–the online world has made them much more readily available. For example, in addition to Myers Briggs (http://www.myersbriggs.org) there’s DISC (stands for Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Compliance), which is used more heavily in workplace settings and focuses more on behavioral characteristics within the context of a particular environment (http://www.onlinediscprofile.com/) and Caliper (www.calipercorp.com) which also focuses on workplace behavior.
We’ve used all of them; none is perfect–in any given assessment we can always identify at least one variable in which the assessment is substantially off. But they do indicate places to probe, and we use Caliper for all new hires.
Lisa, this is pure genius! I love the bigger picture of looking at Network Weavers and developing a job-skills/personality trait assessment. I think viewing the pictures of the different kinds of networks gives us an idea as well. I appreciate David Behrman’s reference to Gladwell’s 3 types of folks who move information. I think that a Network Weaver actually has to own a bit of all three. Maybe that’s a difference here. I’m not sure a Network Weaver is solely focused on moving information or idea dissemination. The job flows in and out – meaning externally focused and then back to internally focused – an ebb and flow kind of a feel. One has to be externally focused and expanding to be able to be a “Maven” and keep receiving info inputs, but then one has to also nurture the existing network – making connections, connecting folks and ideas. The last piece, the salesperson – I believe that is one of the traits I’ve seen fantastic network weavers own – whatever they’re talking about, whether it’s a person, an idea, an organization, they are equally excited about each idea and excited to share it out to their network. They live in this temporal space, in my experience – totally present in that idea/person/organization at that moment and excited about it and about sharing it out, and then when they move onto the next idea/person/organization, they’re equally excited about it. As an independent as well as organizational Network Weaver, I’m keen to continue this conversation!