Leading in a Connected World:

How Effective Leaders Drive ResultsThrough Networks

ROB CROSS AMANDA COWENLISA VERTUCCI ROBERT J. THOMAS

I t was the end of a long day at one of the world’sleading banks, when former president Bill Clinton

began his keynote remarks on the importance of net-works. The 300 bankers in the room were tired – theyhad been together for 12 hours straight. Yet, you couldhave heard a pin drop as Clinton described how net-works had been critical to his success. Early in hiscareer, Clinton had used his connections with othergovernors to learn how to excel in that role. Later, aspresident of the United States, networks proved vitalto managing the give-and-take of demands and con-cessions among the world’s power brokers. His reflec-tions offered an inside view of the central role thatClinton’s network had played throughout his career.They also gave a personal voice to 20 years of researchdemonstrating that leaders who make targeted invest-ments in relationships outperform those who simplybuild ever-larger networks, or ignore the importanceof connections altogether.

The bank had invited us, as well as the formerpresident, to speak as part of a program for its topperformers at the vice president and senior vice pre-sident level. This particular event, held early in 2007,was a reunion of sorts for these top performers. Overthe course of the preceding year, all of them hadparticipated in a development program designed toidentify their managerial competencies, improve theircapacity to work in non-hierarchical teams, andexpand their knowledge of the firm’s businesses. Thisprogram had two primary goals. First, the bank hopedto increase retention of its top-performing vice pre-sidents, who tended to depart at a higher rate thanthose at more senior levels. Second, senior leaderssought to form lateral networks across divisions andregions so the firm could better serve clients andexecute on its ‘‘one firm’’ strategy.

Too often, the rising stars at the bank would do wellfor a while but then fade when the demands of theirjobs required more than individual expertise and thewillingness to work just a little harder. As a result, alarge part of our work with these high performers was

focused on how they could build personal networksthat would extend their individual competencies. Ofcourse investment bankers are a tough sell on some ofthese ‘‘softer’’ skills, so our first job was to illustratehow more-productive networks would yield key busi-ness and career outcomes. Our audience was com-posed of vice presidents (VPs) and newly promotedsenior vice presidents (SVPs). Given the rise in statusthat accompanies promotion at an investment bank,the newly minted SVPs were the envy of the room.When we described how these SVPs had qualitativelydifferent networks from the VPs, we had everyone’sattention.

The message was simple but powerful: your net-work determines, in part, the size of your paycheck. Butit is not just a big network that enables high perfor-mance. Instead, what distinguished the highest perfor-mers was a set of connections that bridged theorganization in important ways. For example, the SVPs’networks were more likely than those of the VPs toinclude people in different divisions, those with uniqueindustry or product expertise, and those in differenttenure groupings – people who had spent either lesstime or more time at the bank. And the professionalswho were promoted to SVP most quickly were also theones most likely to reach out to people in differentregions as well as to people in the categories mentionedabove. These and other insights on the networks of highperformers at the bank helped our audience plan howbest to build networks that would enable their contin-ued success.

We also showed the group that these rising starswere not only high producers, but also critical inintegrating the bank’s divisions and regions in waysthat helped deliver more holistic solutions to keyclients. The bank needed many more of these well-positioned employees in order to execute on its strat-egy to bring the very best of the firm to each majoraccount. Our Organizational Network Analysis (ONA)covered sales-oriented product groups from a varietyof locations that catered to corporate, government, and

Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 93–105, 2009 ISSN 0090-2616/$ – see frontmatter

� 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.02.006

www.elsevier.com/locate/orgdyn

93

individual clients. Unfortunately, there were substan-tial breakdowns across product groups serving thesame clients; often less than 1% of possible ties existedbetween such groups. In fact, our ONA made it clearthat even within divisions and locations – points in theorganization where you would expect people to bewell connected – there were still opportunities for VPsand SVPs to better leverage best practices, client leads,and the expertise of their peers. For example, com-pared with an ideal level of 33%, in one key businessonly 8% of possible ties existed; in another, that figurewas just slightly higher, at 12%. A visual representationof collaborations among this group revealed howmore-productive networks throughout the SVP/VPpopulation would yield three benefits: (1) bettercross-selling and delivery of top-end solutions to cli-ents; (2) greater individual productivity as the highperformers extended their effectiveness; and (3)improved retention of key players at a level in theorganization where the bank often lost professionalsto competing firms.

This last point is subtle, but critical. Too oftenexecutives do not understand the network disruptionthat occurs when well-connected high performersleave the organization. In this case, losing just thetop 5% of employees with the most ties bridgingfunctional lines resulted in a 31% decrease in cross-functional ties. The ONA quickly alerted the bank to agroup of professionals whose departures could dra-matically affect revenue production and the ability toexecute its strategy. Armed with these insights, lea-ders were able to focus attention on some people thatthey did not initially recognize as being central to firmperformance. In addition, the ONA results also helpedleaders show these individuals the extent to whichtheir networks, which required years of effort to build,were critical enablers of their success. This revealed ahidden cost of changing jobs – the efforts required torebuild one’s network at a new firm – which persuadedmany high performers to stay at the bank despite thehigher compensation other banks offered.

When we revisited this group at year’s end, welearned that retention rates had improved and, in fact,were much better for these high performers than forthe broader employee population. More important,however, was the fact that those who did leave turnedout to be on the periphery of the network, and so hadonly a minimal effect on the collaborations that gen-erated sales – their departures reduced revenue-pro-ducing collaborations by just 3%. By contrast, if theorganization had lost the same number of the mostcentral people in the revenue network, revenue-gen-erating collaborations would have decreased by 17%,and information flow throughout the firm would havebeen seriously disrupted. The bank’s network perspec-tive clearly had substantial and quantifiable payoffs forthe organization – payoffs that had remained invisible

when the firm had considered its top talent as indivi-dual experts instead of as crucial contributors to thelarger network.

D R I V I N G R E S U L T S T H R O U G H E F F E C T I V EN E T W O R K S

Most leaders are desperately seeking a multipliereffect – a way to get more from their organization’stalent. But after a decade when almost every largeorganization in the world adopted some form ofmatrix structure, applied yet another technologyenabling employees to instantaneously connect, oradopted a cultural change program urging more col-laboration, we have little to show for it other thanoverloaded organizations and employees. Some lead-ing organizations are now finding that they canimprove performance without overwhelming employ-ees by taking a network perspective.

For the past 10 years, we have conducted networkanalyses and tracked the success of various leaders andtheir groups at over 100 organizations. We have foundthat leaders who continue to excel over time are utiliz-ing networks in distinctive ways to compensate forweaknesses in formal structures and to ensure thattheir units are obtaining a multiplier effect on keytalent and expertise. In the remainder of this article,we will describe how such leaders deliver innovationand high performance through networks. Throughoutwe will also show how the investment bank describedabove has driven network ideas deep into the organi-zation through five principles:

� Managing the center: Minimizing bottlenecksand protecting hidden stars.

� Leveraging the periphery: Rapidly integratingnewcomers and re-engaging underutilized high per-formers.

� Selectively bridging collaborative silos: Tar-geting key intersections in the network and leveragingbrokers.

� Developing the ability to surge: Ensuring thatthe best expertise in a network is brought to bear onnew problems and opportunities.

� Minimizing insularity: Managing targetedrelations with key clients and sources of expertise.

P r i n c i p l e # 1 : M a n a g i n g t h e C e n t e r

We generally find that 3–5% of the people in anetwork account for 20–35% of the value-added ties– the collaborations that generate sales, efficiencygains, key innovations, or other forms of value. As aresult, prominent players in these networks have asubstantial and quantifiable impact on an organiza-tion’s performance; however, often they are not man-aged or leveraged any differently than the individuals

94 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

who do not enable their colleagues to be more effective.Unfortunately, in groups of any size or geographic dis-persion, leaders are often unable to accurately identifythese valuable individuals. When asked to name keyplayers in advance of a network analysis, leaders areusually only about 50% correct. Identifying and focusingon two types of employees at the center of networks –bottlenecks and hidden stars – can have an immediateand dramatic effect on an organization’s performance.

Consider a network analysis of the top 600 client-facing managing directors (MDs) at the investmentbank mentioned earlier. This cross-functional and geo-graphically dispersed network represented a criticalrevenue engine for the bank and a major point ofstrategic advantage in mobilizing its best industryand product experts in client sales and execution sce-narios. Senior managers were extremely interested inbetter understanding the collaborations among thesekey personnel. To their surprise and concern, theylearned that a very small number of people played adisproportionately important role in revenue-generat-ing collaborations. As shown in Exhibit 1, 5% of themanaging directors accounted for 29% of interactionsgenerating revenue, while 10% accounted for 43% ofthese collaborations. Some of these well-connectedpeople could be identified either by their reputationor position in the hierarchy, but senior leaders weresurprised to learn that many employees in critical posi-tions did not have as many revenue-producing connec-tions as they should have. The insights that emergedfrom the ONA were not trivial; strategic decisions werebeing made that affected these employees, but leadersdid not always have a clear view of people’s networksand the central way that they impacted, for better or

worse, the productivity of many others. To this end, theONA helped leaders identify and work through twostrategically important groups at the center of the net-work: bottlenecks and hidden stars.

Bottlenecks. The first category of highly connectedMDs the bank cared about were those who had, forone reason or another, become bottlenecks – theywere so overloaded with demands and requests thatcolleagues who needed their help to be effective sim-ply could not get it. Of course just being well connectedin a network does not necessarily mean that someoneis a bottleneck. The individuals we were most con-cerned about were those who were already central inthe revenue-producing network and also had a largenumber of other people claiming they needed evenmore access to them in order to do their jobs.

There are various reasons why otherwise highlyeffective people become bottlenecks. Leaders may betoo accessible and create excessive reliance on them-selves. They may fail to help others develop industry orproduct knowledge. Formal roles can rapidly becomebottlenecks. And, of course, we all know and havesuffered from people who intentionally hoard infor-mation. Each of these obstacles requires a differentsolution, but the first step is to determine if these keyplayers are central owing to their position in theformal structure (people are drawn to them by virtueof the information they hold, the decisions they make,and the resources they dole out) or because of theirexpertise and leadership qualities (people are drawnto them by virtue of their expertise, institutionalknowledge, industry contacts, or general approach-ability). As shown in Exhibit 2, there were some highly

95

EXHIBIT 1 LOCATING KEY PLAYERS IN THE REVENUE-PRODUCING NETWORK

influential MDs at the bank who tended to be soughtout for both role and personal reasons.

If people have become bottlenecks because of theirroles, leaders can make structural adjustments byshifting decision-rights, information access andresponsibilities to others. In the right instances thiscan be extremely effective in reducing a bottleneckwhile simultaneously developing a high potentialemployee that becomes a ‘‘go-to’’ person. It also ismuch easier to manage a restructuring around thosewho are central largely for role purposes, becauseothers with similar expertise can step in and be effec-tive. Fundamentally different tactics are required ifpeople are sought out due to personal characteristics– for example, their expertise, industry contacts or ahistory of trust they have developed. In those cases,focusing on mentoring, hiring for specific competen-cies and staffing people to develop trusted ties aroundthese key players can have the desired effect.

The investment bank recognized that some roles –for instance, those that spanned divisions – automa-tically enabled a person to be well connected andoften put them at risk of being overloaded, so leadersfocused on reassessing role assignments and struc-ture. For example, Strategic Relationship Managers,who are charged with particular client relationships,come into contact with all businesses that servicea given client. Our analysis revealed that manypeople could not get to these key players in timeto capitalize on opportunities. To alleviate this bot-tleneck, leaders created more Strategic RelationshipManagers and shared this job amongst others tosystematically reduce network overload aroundkey employees.

The bank also found that well-connected MDs hadfrequently worked in many parts of the organizationand had built strong and trusted cross-division andcross-region ties. As a result, they had become ‘‘go-to’’

people for those who needed to tap into their broadnetworks. To alleviate the demands on these man-agers, the firm began to offer boundary-spanningexperiences to more junior professionals. For example,programs were put in place that gave rising stars thechance to capitalize on the potential of cross-divisionalroles. Broadly, the bank’s talent initiatives began toemphasize the importance of mobility and to incorpo-rate international or cross-functional experience intoemployees’ development plans.

Finally, as seen in Exhibit 2, some highly valued andproductive employees had become bottlenecksbecause of their expertise or leadership qualities.The bank believed that many of these qualities – theability to mentor junior employees and generate novelfinancial solutions, for instance – were more widelydistributed than people realized. To assist these lea-ders, the bank put in place initiatives to make sure thatall managers’ expertise and personal strengths wereidentified and broadly communicated. Coachesworked with some of the most overloaded leaders inthis category to define their contributions outside oftheir role (for example, an ability to generate alter-native solutions to problems, coach people throughperplexing situations, make introductions to clients, orsimply listen to people who needed to vent). Oncepeople identified the strengths the network soughtfrom them, plans were put in place to build thesecapabilities in others. The ONA helped individual lea-ders identify the specific strengths that had turnedthem into bottlenecks as well as people well posi-tioned in the network who could develop thesestrengths and thus share the load.

Hidden stars. A second group of employees theinvestment bank needed to identify and attend toare those we call hidden stars – employees who helptheir colleagues be more productive but, for one rea-

96 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

EXHIBIT 2 WORKING THROUGH KEY PLAYERS IN THE REVENUE-PRODUCING NETWORK

son or another, have not themselves been recognizedas high performers or top talent. Hidden stars remainhidden for various reasons. In some cases, talent man-agement processes were too focused on individualproductivity measures. In others, employees werenot developing ties up the hierarchy (and so are notwell known to their superiors) but were incrediblysupportive of their colleagues. And in still others,individuals developed reputations as specialists thatcaused their other contributions – such as spanningdivisional boundaries or developing junior colleagues– to become less visible as the strategy of the bankchanged.

Regardless of the root cause, hidden stars oftenrepresent overlooked and underappreciated assetsfor the organization. We have found that there is onlya 25–40% overlap between the individuals classified as‘‘top talent’’ by the organization and those who arerevealed in a network analysis to be critical enablers ofothers. Invariably, a number of well-connectedemployees contribute substantially to the effective-ness of others, yet have become disaffected becausetheir contributions are not acknowledged with promo-tions or compensation increases. Too frequently, thesepeople tend to be among the most likely to leave theorganization, resulting in substantial business impactthat goes unrecognized. Even more problematic is thefact that other high performers often follow hiddenstars out the door. When an organization loses ahidden star, not only is there an immediate hit tonetwork connectivity, but also there are often addi-tional departures 6, 12, and even 18 months later.

The network analysis of the investment bank’s MDsoffered a number of surprising insights into hiddenstars. For example, one senior leader was renowned forthe sheer number of relationships he had developedwith clients over the years. What was not clear prior tothe analysis, however, was the revenue-producingcapacity of these relationships. Because he was notthe individual associated with completing deals, thework he did to introduce the right people from thebank to the right people at the client was hard toquantify. The ONA demonstrated the value of ‘‘makingthe assist’’ and prompted a strategic discussion aboutexpanding the number of senior executives focusedsolely on fostering relationships between the firm andkey clients.

The ONA also led to revised succession-planningprocesses. Although geographic and functional bound-aries often limit networks, the analysis revealed oneMD working in a key overseas market who had con-nections to every business division in that market aswell as to the U.S. headquarters. Yet none of his directreports was sufficiently networked to replace him. As aresult, the bank developed a plan to fill this particulargap. In another example, a young product specialistwho was viewed as just that – a specialist with limited

leadership potential – was revealed by the networkanalysis to have formed an astonishing number of tieswith people across business divisions. Furthermore,the quality of those ties indicated that he did indeedhave leadership ability. In myriad cases like these, theONA results helped senior leaders develop talent inmarkedly different ways than they had in the past.

P r i n c i p l e # 2 : L e v e r a g i n g t h e P e r i p h e r y

Just as we always find overly connected people in anetwork, we also find employees who are less con-nected than we would hope. Of course not all indivi-duals on the periphery are of equal concern.Sometimes low connectivity indicates poor perfor-mance or cultural misfit, issues that may be resolvedonly through an employee’s departure. Or there maybe a group on the fringe that the organization isactively trying to protect, such as high-end scientistswith a great deal of external ties or highly valuedemployees managing work/life issues. Forcing eitherof these groups to expand their internal networks mayincrease the odds of their leaving or diminish the veryqualities that made them successful in the first place.Rather than targeting all peripheral employees, suc-cessful leaders hone in on two types: newcomers andhigh performers who have drifted to the fringe of thenetwork.

Rapidly integrating newcomers. Most organizationshave a difficult time integrating newcomers. The turn-over rate among this group is high, and their produc-tivity is always low while they make the transition intothe organization. In general, our work suggests that ittakes 12–18 months for new employees to becomewell integrated and productive. At firms with highlyrelational cultures (such as J.C. Penney Co. Inc., AlcoaInc. and Johnson & Johnson) it tends to take closer tothree years. Yet some leaders are able to managenetworks strategically to accelerate newcomers’ inno-vation and productivity. The key is to focus not just onhiring criteria but also on the appropriate placement ofnew hires in the organization’s network.

Leaders who are especially effective at this createinitial assignments and encourage behaviors that helpintegrate people into existing networks more rapidly.As an example, one assessment we did of the invest-ment bank’s Managing Directors profiled what wecalled ‘‘fast movers’’ – MDs who had become con-nected more quickly than their longer-tenured collea-gues (see Exhibit 3). We learned two things from thesefast connectors. First were the structural aspects thathelped build effective networks. On-boarding prac-tices, initial staffing, rotation efforts, and even variousforms of mentoring can slingshot people into produc-tive network positions. Second were the behaviors ofthe fast movers themselves – the degree to which they

97

reached out, offered help, and made their expertisevisible. These behaviors can be encouraged among allnewcomers in order to generate more rapid innovationand performance from them.

The bank knew that integrating senior lateral hiresinto the firm was especially challenging and that fail-ing to do so was costly. Historically, over 50% of senior,experienced hires had left the firm after three years,typically because they could not decipher the culture,not because they lacked technical competence. Effortsto integrate lateral hires needed to focus on helpingthem behave in ways that were consistent with thefirm’s cultural norms and on connecting them to peo-ple who had a vested interest in their success andcould serve as role models during the transition per-iod. An experienced member of the leadership teamcreated and piloted a highly successful process forintegrating senior hires that addressed both the cul-tural and business ingredients necessary for thriving atthe firm.

The program began with a one-day event for senioremployees who had been at the bank between six andnine months. Small groups of employees performedcultural assessments of the firm and were instructedthat no topic was off-limits. The groups were encour-

aged to discuss ‘‘unspoken’’ totems and taboos as wellas those that were openly stated. Following this dis-cussion, senior leaders addressed the employees andspoke about all aspects of the firm’s culture, strategy,and business divisions. The second component of thisprogram was one-on-one coaching with individualnew hires. In advance of these sessions, developmentprofessionals identified and interviewed 5–10 of thenew MD’s stakeholders. The interviews sought touncover the stakeholders’ expectations of the MD,the key challenges they thought he or she would face,and how the stakeholders hoped to communicate withthe new MD. The interviews also revealed peopleoutside the immediate network that the MD neededto meet. All of this information was fed back to newhires in order to help them better understand theirroles and to accelerate their ability to form importantties. This information proved invaluable to newco-mers. As one MD noted, ‘‘I had no idea I needed tomeet these people; this saved me months of wastedtime.’’ The program was so successful that it has beenrolled out to lateral hires at the SVP level as well.

It is important to note that efforts to better integrateperipheral members should not be based on building alot of ties indiscriminately, but on strategically building

98 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

EXHIBIT 3 LOCATING ‘‘FAST MOVERS’’

networks that will improve performance over time.Designing talent processes to identify and build net-works of high performers throughout an organization –whether through leadership programs, career manage-ment processes, staffing efforts, on-boarding processes,or mentoring relationships – yields a critical perfor-mance lever for leaders. Over the years, research hasshown that high performers’ networks are often not thatlarge. In fact, many times there is a statistically signifi-cant performance detriment associated with having alarge network. Instead, high performers tend to distin-guish themselves by building networks in three ways.

The first is structural: High performers have a ten-dency to position themselves at points in a networkthat bridge otherwise disconnected clusters of people.As a result, they fight off the insularity that diminishesinnovation over time and are better able to see andtake action on opportunities that exist in the ‘‘whitespace’’ of the organization. The second is relational:High performers tend to invest in relationships thatextend their expertise and help them avoid learningbiases and decision traps. The high performers wehave studied were no different from average or lowperformers in terms of the number, or strength, of tiesto those with different demographic characteristics.Rather, they were distinguished by having people intheir network who provided complementary (ratherthan similar) expertise and created bridges acrossaspects of formal structure – particularly across func-tional lines and hierarchical levels. The third is beha-

vioral. High performers engage in behaviors that leadto high-quality relationships – not just big networks.Rather than display the superficial behaviors advo-cated by most self-help networking books, high per-formers do the opposite by building strongrelationships before they are needed.

To learn how senior leaders use their networks, theinvestment bank surveyed its most highly compen-sated MDs. Not surprisingly, these professionals had,on average, nearly 20% more ties than lower perfor-mers. They also had significantly more ties thatspanned divisional and geographic regions and, as

illustrated in Exhibit 4, connections that served avariety of purposes. MDs used their relationships totap into expertise, make decisions, and solve problems.Individual network profiles were created for each MDand then used in a range of development activities. Forexample, the aggregate data were presented in groupsessions to demonstrate the importance of networks insenior roles and their connection to career outcomes;individual profiles were used as the basis of one-on-one coaching sessions.

For the most senior people, executive committeemembers and their direct reports, these coaching ses-sions were designed to raise awareness about howthey were spending their time. Each profile had to beinterpreted differently. For one MD, having lots ofdecision-making ties might be perfectly acceptable;for another, it might indicate the need to delegatemore aggressively. Regardless, the profiles allowedsenior leaders to make more deliberate choices abouthow to manage their time and their networks. Forslightly less senior people, the profiles let them seehow their networks compared with those of the lea-ders above them. They could then use this data tochange their network profile in strategic ways – forexample, by developing connections across regions orfunctions.

Re-engaging underutilized high performers.Throughout our work, we have found that more suc-cessful leaders tend to have far fewer high performerswho are on the periphery of the network. Of courseevery leader wants the whole of the organization to begreater than the sum of its parts. However, this canhappen only when high performers use their expertiseto help others be more effective than they could be ontheir own. Our typical benchmark is to find thatroughly 30% of the employees considered as top talent– those on high performer lists or in the top 20%performance category – have migrated to the fringeof the network.

We found a subset of MDs who had become per-ipheral and were not allowing the organization to get

99

EXHIBIT 4 PROFILING HIGH-PERFORMING MANAGING DIRECTORS

sufficient leverage from their abilities and contacts.While their individual metrics looked great, these MDswere not utilizing the network around them to allowtheir contribution to be delivered broadly. This clearlyconcerned leaders. We found that the reasons thatthese top performers had migrated to the peripherywere very idiosyncratic and had to be addressed on acase-by-case basis. Some were new to their currentrole and had not had enough time to build their net-works. In these instances, simply facilitating theappropriate introductions was helpful. One MD lackedtime-management skills and another had becomeoverloaded with paperwork; as a result, both hadcut back on their interactions with others. Delegationand scheduling strategies helped re-engage these pro-fessionals. Still other remedies included clear discus-sions about performance issues, moving the person toanother division where the network would be easier toengage, and counseling the individual on how to buildan effective network.

P r i n c i p l e # 3 : S e l e c t i v e l y B r i d g i n gC o l l a b o r a t i v e S i l o s

One of the root causes of most organizations’ col-laborative failures is the underpinning philosophy thatmore collaboration is the solution. Of course most of usare already overloaded, and the last thing we need isanother meeting, telephone call, or technology thatcan make us more accessible to everyone else. Thestrength of the network idea at a unit level is that itallows us to see more precisely how to connect noteverybody – but only the four, five, or six juncturesthat can allow the organization to differentiate itselfstrategically. We generally find breakdowns acrossfour aspects of organizational structure that almostalways divide networks at points that affect perfor-mance: (1) functional or divisional boundaries; (2)physical distance (even floors in a building); (3) hier-archical levels; and (4) project or key account teamlines.

Breakdowns across geographic regions were parti-cularly noticeable. Professionals working in the samebusiness and with the same clients, but located indifferent regions, often had few connections to oneanother. These breakdowns had several origins. Thefirst was a shift in the relative importance of overseasmarkets. Historically, the majority of the bank’s clientsand expertise had been based in the U.S. As a result,U.S.-based professionals often did not find it necessaryto form close ties with their colleagues in foreignlocations. Over time, however, regions such as Europeand Asia had grown in importance, and more of thefirm’s top talent was working internationally. Never-theless, patterns in behavior and communication hadbeen slow to adjust, with many U.S. professionalsdepending excessively on domestic ties. Trust was

another key barrier. Professionals devoted a tremen-dous amount of time and effort to building and main-taining client relationships. Even though a colleague inanother part of the world might possess helpful exper-tise, people were often concerned about exposing theirclients to colleagues they did not know well for fear ofjeopardizing a hard-won relationship. Finally, somemeasures that could have arguably improved informa-tion flow, such as comprehensive client databases,were simply not feasible given regulatory restrictions.For many of these same reasons, connections acrossfunctions were often sparse as well.

Despite these challenges, the bank undertook anumber of initiatives to improve connectivity acrossregions and functions. For example, Strategic Relation-ship Managers began to play an increasingly importantrole in bridging divisions. After network analysesrevealed the way in which these pivotal roles inte-grated the firm, senior leadership set out to leveragethese roles by filling them with top performers. Topromote collaborative ties across boundaries, devel-opment events began to include employees fromdiverse businesses and regions. Databases were alsodeveloped to centralize information so that it could beshared more easily across divisions.

Individual leaders also became champions ofimproving connectivity across their business units.For example, the head of one product group, whowas particularly well-connected even before heassumed this leadership position, sought to betterleverage his own network, as well as the networksof those on his team, by addressing breakdowns notonly across geographic boundaries but also betweensubgroups operating in the same location. Further, thisleader’s direct reports were far less connected than hewas, raising concerns about succession planning. Justthe awareness of these issues stimulated many profes-sionals to take action; however, this MD also modeledthe techniques that had enabled him to develop hisnetwork at the firm. In particular, he emphasized theimportance of traveling to attend international meet-ings and being available and responsive to colleaguesthroughout the firm.

Other initiatives to manage the ‘‘white space’’between divisions are still in their infancy but areviewed as critical to serving clients that require inte-grated, global solutions. Network analyses have beenundertaken to show unit heads how they are con-nected across regional and product groups. The objec-tive is to provoke thinking about whether thebreakdown of relationships with other divisions iscongruent with an MD’s view of his business andhow it generates revenue. Similar conversations havebeen started at even higher levels of the firm. Forexample, a network analysis of the firm’s regionalCEOs indicated that all three spent a disproportionateamount of their time interacting with professionals in

100 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

one division – yet that division produced relativelylittle of the firm’s revenue. This was one of severalexamples where the CEOs needed to reallocate theirtime in order to be more effective at identifying andbrokering opportunities across all of the divisions forwhich they were responsible.

Recent findings about the value of cross-unit col-laboration are also slowly changing the way the firmthinks about job assignments and rotations. To date,positions have been filled largely on the basis of rev-enue-generating capabilities rather than interpersonalcompetencies. However, the ONA revealed the rela-tionship between networks and revenue generation, aswell as the disruptions to both that are associated witha move to a different product or regional group. Thebank’s initial response has been to offer one-on-onecoaching, similar to that given to lateral hires, toexecutives new to their positions. For example, thebank has found that when executives are assigned to aposition in a new geographic market, they continue torely heavily on the network they developed in theirformer division. Using network analysis, executivescan be shown how to replicate important ties (suchas to other product groups) in their new location.Similarly, there may be individuals outside of anexecutive’s immediate network who are critical tohis or her success in a new assignment. The bankhas found that by explicitly highlighting the impor-tance of such ties, executives can more quickly move todevelop and strengthen them.

Gradually, the ability to build and maintain broadnetworks is being considered alongside other criteriawhen matching executives to their positions. This wascertainly true when selecting an MD for a key overseasassignment. The bank’s leadership realized from theoutset how critical a diverse network would be ineffectively managing this region’s rapidly changingbusiness. As a result, they picked an executive whohad a track record of building relationships acrossregional and functional lines. More attention has alsobeen given to assigning individuals with these skills topositions that bridge divisions. These positions natu-rally facilitate cross-boundary networks, and the firmwants to see the individuals best able to capitalize onsuch relationships given these powerful assignments.In the future, the bank hopes to be even more strategicby, for example, moving top performers with specificnetwork profiles from one division to another inresponse to client demands for solutions that bridgethose product groups.

Finally, recognizing the value of cross-divisionalties has raised questions about whether the bankshould do more to create a culture of mobility andinstill in even junior employees the expectation thatsuccess depends on serving in multiple regions orfunctional areas. A ‘‘mobility team’’ has recently beencreated to spearhead this initiative. Its efforts to date

have focused on internal recruiting to fill key positionsand on creating incentives for managers to encouragejunior employees to seek positions in other parts of thefirm.

P r i n c i p l e # 4 : D e v e l o p i n g t h e A b i l i t y t oS u r g e

When we assess information-seeking networks, wetypically get a snapshot of collaboration, a sense ofwho is connected to whom based on the current set ofprojects. In dynamic settings, such as professionalservices, software development, or health care, infor-mation-seeking networks should shift when new pro-jects demand different kinds of information andexpertise. Ideally, these networks are able to ‘‘surge:’’to sense opportunities or problems in one pocket of anetwork and rapidly tap into the expertise of others inthe network to coordinate an effective response. This isnot accomplished by pushing information ontoemployees. Rather, as new opportunities arise,employees need to know who has relevant expertisethat can be helpful; they need to have a sense of whoknows what in the network.

The bank took a number of steps to build thisawareness of expertise as a distinct enabler of theone-firm culture. One example was the workshopwe held leading up to Bill Clinton’s keynote. In mostall-hands meetings like this, each person would comein and sit with those whom they already know,thereby entrenching networks. But armed with thenetwork results, we did things dramatically differentlyto help spur connections and an understanding of theexpertise of functionally and geographically dispersedcolleagues.

For example, tables were staffed, and breakouts runthroughout the day, in ways that paired people whohad unique opportunities to integrate on client andproduct solutions. Similarly, each table included one ofthe top brokers in the network, thereby rapidlyenabling people to connect with those who best inte-grated the whole network. We even outfitted eachperson with an electronic nametag that communi-cated with every other tag in the room. As peoplemilled about and passed by people they did not knowand who were working on complementary offerings orwho had contacts at similar clients, their tags wouldbroker that introduction. This simple technologyhelped generate sales with existing clients that simplywould not have materialized if people had not becomeaware of each other’s contacts and expertise in thistargeted fashion.

Overall, the bank’s decision to include participantsfrom various business units in all developmental pro-grams fostered relationships and awareness of others’expertise. At the MD level, this approach has producedstrategic, career, and financial benefits for participants

101

and the firm as a whole. For example, a senior managerfrom the U.S. was assigned to lead a cross-divisionalinitiative in an overseas market. Aligning the two unitsrequired working closely with the existing leadershipto produce rapid changes and therefore could havebeen politically difficult. As it turned out, the seniormanager had already met one of the unit heads at adevelopment event earlier in the year, and they hadparticipated in a breakout session together. Eventhough they were from different areas of the firm, thisexperience created a foundation of mutual respect andtrust that greatly facilitated both their speed andeffectiveness in executing the strategic realignmentinitiative.

This foundation of trust has also encouraged col-leagues from different units to make client introduc-tions, a behavior that can be difficult to achieve sinceprofessionals are highly protective of these hard-wonrelationships. Following one development program, asenior executive was invited on a client sales call bycolleagues in another division. This initial client con-tact led to a stream of business that the bank wouldotherwise not have received. Connections formed atdevelopment events have also yielded career benefits.One senior manager moved into a different businessgroup after learning of the opening from colleagues hemet at a networking session. The opportunity to buildsuch connections creates awareness of expertisethroughout the firm and thereby allows employees’interests, contacts, and skills to be more fully engaged.

P r i n c i p l e # 5 : M i n i m i z i n g I n s u l a r i t y

Of course critical networks do not simply stop atthe edge of the organization, but continue externally toclients, sources of expertise, and resources. For orga-nizations to innovate effectively and efficiently, it is nolonger possible to own all competencies and technicalexpertise. A network perspective allows managementto identify gaps or inefficiencies in sourcing strategies.

In professional services, understanding touchpoints with key customers is a critical network view.We typically find that the difference between high-and low-performing account teams in an organizationis not a result of product knowledge, sales behaviors,or more traditional account planning practices. Whileindividual competency and training can keep teamsfrom landing in the bottom 20% of performers, it isalmost always networks that turn out to be key pre-dictors in distinguishing the top 20%. In most organi-zations, key account teams have the same training andavail themselves of the same technologies. As a result,team-building or sales-training interventions oftenpale in comparison to the improvement potentialuncovered by visualizing network drivers of accountteam success. In general, three kinds of connectionsdistinguish high from low performers:

1) Quality of relationships between theaccount team and client. The appropriate level ofhigh-quality client connections across relevant teammembers allows for better client service, discovery ofcross-selling opportunities, and decreased susceptibil-ity to the departure of key individuals on both sides ofthe relationship.

2) Quality of relationships within the accountteam. A team fluidly connecting key expertise androles is much more efficient and effective in identify-ing and capitalizing on sales and delivery opportu-nities.

3) Quality of relationships connecting theteam with the host organization. A broad networkof connections back into the organization allows anaccount team to leverage scale in a large organizationand so materialize the right products, services, andexpertise for clients in a timely and efficient fashion.

The investment bank in this case has always prideditself on its client focus, and senior leaders considerthis capability to be at the heart of their business. As aresult, forging new client relationships and strength-ening existing ones is a top priority. External connec-tivity is emphasized through formal relationship-management programs and the firm’s incentives andstructure. One notable program, rolled out to over3,500 client-facing professionals, focused on the rela-tional aspects of the sales process. Over several days,managers attended a variety of sessions that addressedhow to establish relationships and build trust with keyclients. Data on each professional’s level of client focuswere also collected during the firm’s annual 360-degree review process, providing additional opportu-nities for follow-up feedback and coaching.

The bank’s incentive structure also seeks to rewardthese behaviors by tying compensation directly to theamount of revenue a manager generates. However,this system is imperfect because while many peoplecontribute to efforts to service clients and win newbusiness, generally only one individual is credited withthe resulting revenue. Believing that such contribu-tions needed to be more broadly rewarded, the banktried several ways of identifying individuals working‘‘behind the scenes.’’ For a number of years, there wasan incentive scheme designed to reward executivesthat facilitated client introductions. To receive‘‘credit,’’ professionals were required to submit formalproposals outlining their cross-selling activities.Unfortunately, these reports proved cumbersome toprocess and evaluate. More recently, network analysishas made it easier for the senior leadership to identifyand reward individuals who participate indirectly inrevenue generation. A new competency model has alsobeen developed that outlines and evaluates specificcustomer-focused behaviors across professionallevels.

102 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

Databases are yet another tool the firm uses topromote external connectivity by building awarenessof the many points of contact with a single client.Historically, these databases have existed within divi-sions, but more recent efforts have focused on devel-oping databases that provide information across units.Despite these efforts, the bank has still found thatpersonal networks are most often employed in search-ing for expertise or avenues to connect with a parti-cular client. As a result, Senior Relationship Managers,professionals responsible for a given set of client rela-tionships, continue to play a vital role in brokeringconnections across divisions and regions. The bank hasfound this role to be so successful in building strongexternal connections that there is talk of expandingthe number of positions even further.

C O N C L U S I O N

Effectively leveraging human capital is a key successfactor for virtually all organizations. Yet as businessesexpand, grow more complex or become geographicallydispersed, this task is increasingly difficult. Leaders

have struggled with how to tap into employees’ knowl-edge and skills, and ensure that they are deployed inways that drive innovation and organizational perfor-mance. Matrix structures and communication technol-ogies have been used to facilitate connections withinorganizations, but the result is often large, unwieldynetworks that overload employees and consume valu-able time. In this article we have shown how leaderswho are most successful in obtaining a multiplier effecton their organization’s talent manage networks in a farmore strategic way. Rather than simply focusing onbuilding ever-larger networks, they are targeted in theirefforts to develop productive networks. Like otherefforts to promote collaboration and communication,these efforts are not without cost. However, their tightcoupling to strategic goals and distinctive organiza-tional competencies means that they yield far superiorperformance payoffs.

103

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

For some of the more classic references to thisresearch, please see D. Brass, ‘‘Being in the Right Place:A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in anOrganization,’’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984,29, 518–539; R. Burt, Structural Holes (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1992); R. Burt, ‘‘The NetworkStructure of Social Capital,’’ in B. Staw & R. Sutton(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (New York:JAI Press, 2000, 345–423); M. Gargiulo and M. Benassi,‘‘Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Struc-tural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital,’’Organization Science, 2000, 11(2), 183–196; A. Mehra,M. Kilduff, and D. Brass, ‘‘The Social Networks of Highand Low Self Monitors: Implications for WorkplacePerformance,’’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 2001,46, 121–146; and J. Podolny and J. Baron, ‘‘Resources

and Relationships: Social Networks and Mobility in theWorkplace,’’ American Sociological Review, 1997, 62,673–693. Also see R. Cross and R. Thomas, ‘‘HowTop Talent Uses Networks and Where Rising StarsGet Trapped,’’ Organizational Dynamics, 2008, 37,165–180; and R. Cross, R. Thomas, A. Dutra, and C.Newberry, ‘‘Using Network Analysis to Build a NewBusiness, Organizational Dynamics, 2007, 36, 345–362.See C. Jarnagin and J. Slocum, ‘‘Creating CorporateCulture Through Mythopoetic Leadership,’’ Organiza-

tional Dynamics, 2007, 36, 288–302, for how culturescan afford strong or weak ties. See Malcolm Gladwell’sbook ‘‘The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a

Big Difference’’ (Back Bay Books, 2002), for a discussionof other network roles that can be identified andleveraged using the strategies described in this article.

Rob Cross is a professor of management at the University of Virginia, Research Directorof The Network Roundtable, a consortium of 75 organizations sponsoring research onnetwork applications to critical management issues, and Visiting Research Professor atGrenoble Ecole de Management. His research focuses on how relationships andinformal networks in organizations can be analyzed and improved to promotecompetitive advantage, innovation, customer retention and profitability, leadershipeffectiveness, talent management and quality of work life. In addition to top scholarlyoutlets, his work has been repeatedly published in Harvard Business Review, Sloan

Management Review, California Management Review, Academy of Management Executive

and Organizational Dynamics. His most recent book, ‘‘The Hidden Power of Social

Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations’’ (HarvardBusiness School Press), has been featured in venues such as Business Week, Fortune,

The Financial Times, Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CIO, Inc and Fast Company

(Tel.: +1 434 924 6475; e-mail: robcross@virginia.edu).

Amanda Cowen is an assistant professor of management at the University of Virginia’sMcIntire School of Commerce. Her research focuses on the social nature of economicmarkets and its implications for firms’ financial and competitive success. Her work hasappeared in academic outlets such as the Journal of Accounting and Economics, and hasbeen featured in The Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe. She holds an A.B. ineconomics from Dartmouth College and an M.B.A. and D.B.A. from the Harvard BusinessSchool.

Lisa Vertucci is a managing director at Barclays Capital. Previously, she was the globalhead of talent at Lehman Brothers and was responsible for the major initiatives aimed atdeveloping leadership and professional talent at the firm. Her focus was on building thecapacity of high potential individuals, sustaining leadership ability at all levels of theorganization, and working with client-facing employees to sharpen their relationshipskills. She was also an internal executive coach and co-chair of the Lehman Brothers Gay

104 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

and Lesbian network. Before joining Lehman Brothers in 2004, she had over 15 years ofexperience in training and leadership development at Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan. Shehas a solid foundation in investment banking having spent the first five years of hercareer in capital markets roles at JPMorgan. She now combines her understanding ofinvestment banking with her knowledge of leadership development to implementinterventions that impact business results.

Robert J. Thomas is executive director of Accenture’s Institute for High PerformanceBusiness and the John R. Galvin Visiting Professor of Leadership at the Fletcher School ofLaw and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Thomas specializes in leadership, organizationdesign and transformational change and is co-author with Warren Bennis of Geeks and

Geezers and the forthcoming book Crucibles of Leadership (both from Harvard BusinessSchool Press).

105