{"id":3778,"date":"2016-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-03-03T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.carnegiefoundation.org\/?p=3778"},"modified":"2026-02-09T10:40:20","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T18:40:20","slug":"orienting-in-and-orienting-out-the-political-context-of-leading-and-managing-nics-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.carnegiefoundation.org\/orienting-in-and-orienting-out-the-political-context-of-leading-and-managing-nics-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Orienting In and Orienting Out: The Political Context of Leading and Managing NICs"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\n

This blog is part of a series<\/a> that identifies and discusses practical issues that arise in initiating networked improvement communities (NICs). Contributors to this series have largely oriented in<\/em> to the core work of NICs, in an effort to provide practical guidance to those seeking to launch networks. Their understandings are well represented in the five-point NIC Initiation Framework<\/a>, in the first-hand accounts of those who have initiated NICs, and in different analytic perspectives that can be used to make sense of these exciting but unfamiliar enterprises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, it is equally important that those leading and managing NICs also develop the dispositions, knowledge, and capabilities to orient out<\/em> to the environments in which these networks emerge and operate. By \u201cenvironments,\u201d I mean policy, political, and economic environments at the local, state, and national levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My central point is this: If NICs are at all like other large-scale educational improvement strategies, these environments can do much to enable, constrain, and complicate their work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If NICs are at all like other large-scale educational improvement strategies, these environments can do much to enable, constrain, and complicate their work.Twitter<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, these environments provide much of the funding needed to initiate NICs, often in the form of competitive grants. They legitimate and privilege particular educational problems as needing attention, such as early reading, behavioral supports, and college and career readiness. They often establish at least some of the terms of success, both through evaluation requirements tied to competitive grants and state-level accountability systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, while the work of initiating and sustaining NICs benefits from stability and patience, the environments in which they operate are famously fragmented, uncoordinated, and unstable and, thus, a tremendous source of uncertainty. Expectations and resources for educational improvement are in a constant state of flux at all levels of government (local, state, and national) and beyond the bounds of government (among activists, researchers, professional organizations, non-profit and for-profit organizations, and philanthropists).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of this places demands on network leaders to scan, interpret, and selectively address potentially-salient activity as it plays out both within and beyond the K-12 governance structure. The longer a network operates \u2014 the larger the scale and the broader the geographic distribution \u2014 the more challenging this work becomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the preceding follows the need for an uncommon sort of ambidexterity. On the one hand, network leaders must orient in<\/em> and focus on establishing and coordinating capabilities for continuous learning and improvement among participants in the network. On the other hand, managers must orient out<\/em> so as not be passive recipients of their environments, but rather proactive and strategic in engaging their environments in ways that maintain the performance and viability of their networks. In the words of educational researchers Meredith Honig and Thomas Hatch, managers must selectively bridge<\/em> (or embrace) environmental activity that advances the network\u2019s mission and buffer<\/em> (or shield) environmental activity that complicates the network\u2019s mission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As they begin to orient out, it is particularly important for network leaders to track system-level infrastructure supporting the development of large-scale educational innovations. By \u201cinfrastructure,\u201d I mean political and policy supports for educational innovation, along with the philanthropic, private, and professional supports that emerge in response to these.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As they begin to orient out, it is particularly important for network leaders to track system-level infrastructure supporting the development of large-scale educational innovations.Twitter<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Network leaders must recognize that these environments are not yet entirely NIC-friendly. The past 20 years has seen the emergence and rapid maturation of an \u201cimpact infrastructure\u201d supporting effective, scalable innovations able to quickly demonstrate positive program impact through rigorous evaluations. This infrastructure includes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n