What Are Networks Good For? A Global Conversation That Took Me Back to the Basics

Not long ago, I was invited to record a short video about the value of networks for a program named the Global Environmental Education Partnership (GEEP). The North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) is the Secretariat for this program. They’ve been running a learning network for more than a decade, connecting leaders in environmental education from across the world. Their advisory board was meeting soon, and they wanted to kick off the discussion with a few reflections on what makes networks work, and why they matter now more than ever.

At first, it seemed like a simple task. I talk about networks every day. But as I sat down to prepare, I realized something: this was an opportunity to revisit the fundamentals. A chance to step back and ask the bigger question behind the request.

What are networks actually good for?

That one question, and the preparation it sparked, pulled me back into the core ideas that have shaped my work over the past 26 years. It also reminded me how critical it is to keep these ideas in motion, not frozen in documents. So in this post, I want to share some of the thinking that came out of that conversation, what it re-surfaced for me, and how we’re evolving some of our core tools, including the Field Guide for Network Managers, to better serve network leaders around the world.

The Network Reality Check

Most of us intuitively understand that people-powered networks are powerful. But we don’t always know how, or why, they work. It’s easy to default to treating a network like a listserv or a coalition with looser boundaries. But when we do that, we risk missing the real power of what networks can offer.

Here’s how I think about it:

Human networks, whether formal or informal, online or offline, excel at a set of collective capabilities that no single organization or individual can match. I first heard this framed clearly in a panel conversation with Tate Hausman, an organizer and strategist who’s spent years thinking about how movements scale. We talked about the things networks are uniquely good at. The list that emerged stuck with me. It went something like this:

• Trust Building: Networks build and reinforce trust between people. That trust lowers transaction costs and increases the willingness to take risks together.
• Sensing: With many nodes close to the ground, networks can detect weak signals and emerging trends early. Far earlier than top-down systems.
• Distribution of Ideas: When networks are healthy, ideas and practices move quickly and across boundaries. Memes, methods, and stories can spread in ways that formal systems can’t replicate.
• Sense-Making: Networks help people make sense of complex, ambiguous situations by triangulating across diverse experiences.
• Coordination and Mobilization: They align people and resources fast, whether for a flash action or a sustained campaign.
• Learning and Recombination: Peer learning and experimentation flourish in networked environments. New solutions emerge when people remix each other’s ideas.
• Resilience: Decentralized structures allow networks to adapt, reroute, and self-heal under pressure.
• Collective Intelligence: By tapping into distributed expertise, networks often outperform centralized institutions on complex problems.

These aren’t theoretical benefits. I’ve seen every one of these play out in practice.

For instance, in our Halt the Harm Network, we watched local anti-fracking activists in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado and many other areas of the country, share rapid intelligence about industry activity that helped neighbors prepare legal defenses and community responses before drill sites went live.

In democracy work, civic tech communities from Eastern Europe to Southeast Asia have coordinated real-time monitoring and fact-checking efforts, using loosely coupled networks of coders, journalists, and local volunteers.

And in the environmental space, we’ve seen cross-border cooperation between Indigenous organizers and scientists advance climate data tracking that governments were too slow (or unwilling) to prioritize.

What makes these examples powerful isn’t just speed or reach. It’s the fact that they emerged from peer-to-peer connections rooted in trust. Not controlled from the top, but driven from the edge. That’s the power of networked strategy.

The conversation with GEEP brought these capacities into sharp focus. They aren’t peripheral to network strategy; they are the strategy. Designing around them is what makes networks effective.

And importantly, this work feels especially urgent now, not just because the problems are big, but because the civic environment itself is becoming harder to operate in. Fragmentation, disconnection, and distrust are flooding the public space. At Netcentric Campaigns, we’ve started calling this civic pollution. A breakdown in the systems that help people understand each other, act together, and solve problems at scale.

In that context, networks aren’t just useful. They’re protective. They help rebuild the connective tissue of civic life. They let people find signal in the noise, share knowledge that travels farther than falsehoods, and coordinate in ways institutions can’t always manage. When things start to fray, networks are one of the few places where trust and agency can still grow.

Revisiting the Field Guide

One of the tools I shared with Judy and her team was our Field Guide for Network Managers. We published it many years ago as a practical framework for building and strengthening advocacy networks. It’s not a how-to manual for running a platform. It’s a guide for understanding the core mechanics of network effectiveness.

At the heart of the Field Guide is a simple idea: networks are built by people, not technology. And there are seven core elements that help a network move from a loose affiliation to a functional, resilient system. We call these the seven elements of an effective advocacy network:

1. Building Social Ties: Trust doesn’t appear out of nowhere. Networks need intentional strategies, both online and offline, to help people build and maintain meaningful relationships.
2. Creating a Communication Grid: Channels matter. The way people communicate affects their ability to collaborate and align. A robust communication grid connects the network and supports shared identity.
3. Developing a Common Language: Language shapes culture. Shared terms, metaphors, and reference points help networks reduce friction and resolve conflicts.
4. Defining a Clear Vision: People need to know what the network is for. A clear, compelling vision helps focus energy and reinforces the value of participation.
5. Pooling Shared Resources: When members can exchange tools, talent, funding, or time, they save effort and build solidarity. Resource-sharing creates value that keeps people engaged.
6. Supporting Network Leaders: Every network has key actors who push things forward. Identifying and supporting those drivers keeps energy flowing.
7. Providing Feedback Mechanisms: Feedback loops help networks learn. Whether through dashboards, check-ins, or surveys, networks need ways to see themselves, track progress, and adapt.

These elements might sound simple, but they’re often overlooked. In fact, many network leaders we work with recognize these dynamics only in hindsight, after they’ve experienced frustration with drop-off, unclear engagement, or missed opportunities for collaboration.

That’s why we’re now investing in a more interactive, accessible version of the Field Guide. Instead of a static PDF, the updated version will include real-time network assessment tools, decision support prompts, and a guided walkthrough for designing and refining your network’s structure, roles, and protocols.

We’re building it to be modular, so that whether you’re launching a new effort or trying to rejuvenate a decade-old coalition, you can focus on the element that needs your attention most. And we’re testing it with real-world network leaders who’ve faced the same questions Judy raised in our GEEP conversation: How do we keep people engaged when there’s no budget? How do we document peer value that happens beyond our view? How do we scale without losing the personal touch that makes the network work?

The Questions That Matter

In the GEEP conversation, we talked about what makes a network feel like a network. Not just in structure, but in practice. And we landed on two deceptively simple diagnostic questions:

1. In the past month, has anyone in your network helped someone else in the network without going through you?
2. Are people using the network to advance their own priorities, not just responding to yours?

If the answer to both is yes, you have a real network. If not, you might have an audience, or a hub-and-spoke model with limited network behavior.

We’ve started using these questions in more of our training and evaluations. They help surface the invisible value networks create. And they open the door to better stories about what’s actually happening between people, not just at the center.

What We’re Building Toward

Across issue areas, from environmental education to democracy to public health, more leaders are recognizing that networks are not just nice to have. They are essential. When the terrain is uncertain, when institutions are brittle, when speed and adaptability matter, networks offer something rare: collective capacity without central control.

That doesn’t mean networks are easy. They’re messy. They require care, coordination, and constant investment. But they’re also more durable than many of the systems we’ve relied on in the past. And they’re often the only thing holding movements together when the pressure is on.

At Netcentric Campaigns, our goal is to keep sharpening the tools and insights that make this work easier. That’s why we’re updating the Field Guide. That’s why we’re building out more network assessment tools. And that’s why we’re asking network leaders to share their own stories.

Share Your Network Story

Here’s a prompt: Think of a moment when being part of a network allowed you to do something you couldn’t have done alone. What happened? Who was involved? What did the network make possible?

Or try this one: What’s been the most surprising benefit of being in a network? Something you didn’t expect going in?

We’d love to hear your answers. These stories help all of us learn. They also help illuminate what strong networks actually do, and why they matter.

We’re collecting short reflections like these as part of our upcoming Field Guide relaunch. If you’ve got a story or want to talk more about your network, reach out.

Because at the end of the day, networks aren’t just about systems. They’re about people. And the more we invest in the people at the heart of our networks, the stronger our capacity to meet this moment together.

We’re going to keep exploring these questions in our work, in our writing, and with the network builders we support. If this resonates with what you’re seeing in your own efforts, we’d love for you to follow along. You can sign up for our newsletter to get future updates, reflections, and tools as we dig deeper into civic pollution, trust, and the evolving role of networks. And if you’re building something and want to talk, reach out. We’re always eager to learn from the field.