1. Measuring the Intangible
How the National Braille Press Evaluated Culture,
Collaboration, Morale, Impact of Restructuring and More
There are many ways to evaluate culture, collaboration, employee morale, team performance,
and the impact of restructuring. But it’s difficult to measure all five at once without over-stressing
the organization. The National Braille Press successfully used organization network analysis to
evaluate its progress and identify simple but effective improvement actions.
The National Braille Press (www.nbp.org) is a objective, reliable way to measure the impact of the
Boston-based, nonprofit, braille publishing house. changes he had instituted.
Founded in 1927, its mission is to promote the
literacy of blind children. By printing over 15 million There are many ways to evaluate culture,
pages each year, NBP is a world leader in braille collaboration, employee morale, team performance,
publishing. and the impact of restructuring. It’s difficult to
measure all five at once without over-stressing the
After 31 years on the job, Bill Raeder decided to organization. MacDonald turned to organization
retire in 2007 as the Executive Director of NBP. He network analysis.
left a strong organization, but one that was used to
his style, process, and preferences. His successor, A Simple Technique for Complex Measurement
Brian MacDonald, sought to update and
Underneath the organization charts and process
professionalize the organization.
maps is a hidden web of relationships that people
MacDonald discovered some surprises upon taking use to improve processes, solve problems, and
on his new position. One member of his leadership complete work. All employees are connected
team, a long-term employee, has assumed through relationship networks. Network quality,
responsibilities that exceeded her skill set. Beloved shape, and strength affect how well organizations
in the organization, she had stayed on despite share knowledge, collaborate, learn, improve, and
several significant snafus. implement.
Another surprise was the degree of insularity in the These relationships collectively function as an
organization: people stuck to their functional areas organizational circulatory system. When the
and rarely collaborated with other functions. As a circulatory system isn’t healthy, companies lose
result, the organization failed to capitalize on several opportunities and experience performance
promising opportunities. problems. By assessing the organization network,
MacDonald would be able to gauge the health of
MacDonald took decisive and radical action. He NBP; measure culture, collaboration, morale,
encouraged the underperforming executive to leave performance, and impact of restructuring; and see if
the company. He lost a few solid employees who his changes had been effective.
refused to stay after her dismissal. He restructured
the organization, redefined departments, and In addition, the organization network analysis (ONA)
instituted a team-based structure. In what was, identifies three key positions—called critical
perhaps, his most counter-cultural move, he connectors—discovered by Dr. Karen Stephenson
promoted a low-profile director onto his leadership as a result of over 30 years of research into the
team. dynamics and behavior of organizational networks
(see Stephenson, 1998). The critical connectors
The changes seemed to be working, but MacDonald consist of:
didn’t want any more surprises. He wanted an
© 2010 Partnering Resources. www.partneringresources.com

2. NBP work netwo turned ou exactly as
P’s ork ut
MacDonald had h hoped (Figure 2). The diagram
e
clear shows sign
rly nificant activit between
ty
depaartments and within depart tments.
By lo
ooking at this diagram, MaacDonald had the
answ to one question: people were workin cross-
wer ng
functionally. Howeever, a deepe look at the network
er
Figure 1: Hubs, Gatekeepers,
G map revealed ch
ps hallenges and areas for
d
Pulsetakkers. imprrovement.
© NetForm. Used with permission.
• Hubs: Higghly and direc connected with many,
ctly d Figure 3 shows crross-functiona interactions
al s
Hubs commmunicate and disseminate knowledge
e undeertaken on a d
daily and wee basis in o
ekly order to
through th organizatio
he on. solve problems, s
e share expertis and innova It
se, ate.
• Gatekeep pers: Links be
etween people e, exclu
udes the routine exchange shown on F
es Figure 2.
departments, and custo omers, Gatek keepers act
as informaation gateway and broker knowledge
ys r
exchange between crit
e tical parts of t
the
organizatiion.
• Pulsetake People who have maximum
ers:
influence using minimu number of direct
um f
contacts, Pulsetakers are often low profile, high
a
performer who implicitly understand and
rs
influence the organizattion.
Together, criti
T ical connectors comprise the culture
shapers of the organization They dispro
s e n. oportionately
in
nfluence the o
organization: they touch m most
in
nnovation, im
mprovement, decision making, and
d
strategy conve
s ersations in th organizatio Yet, only
he on.
10% of people in networks fill these role By
1 e es.
understanding the topology of NBP’s ne
u g y etwork map— —
and
a location o the three cr
of ritical connect
tors on it—
MacDonald w
M would be able to measure th he
organization’s culture and intervene in o
o s i order to
maximize its e
m effectiveness..
Figure 2: The work network.
k
Culture, Com
C mmunication, & Collabora
, ation
The diagram shows each of the six departments in its own
s s
separate box. T points withi each box rep
s The in present
Culture was M
C MacDonald’s first area of in
f nterest. He indiv
viduals. For exa
ample, there is only one point within the
t
wanted to sha a collabor
w ape rative, team-bbased culture stems box (top left) since ther is only one e
Sys re employee
in which peop communicated freely ac
n ple cross assigned to Sys
a stems. The Prooduction box (b
bottom)
boundaries, shared informa
b ation, and sollved inc
cludes over 20 points since there are 20+ emmployees
working in tha department. B
at Blue lines repre
esent
problems toge
p ether. exxchanges that occur within a department. Red lines
represent cross-function exchanges.
nal
To
T understand NBP’s cultu we looked first at how
d ure, d
work gets don These exc
w ne. changes, colle ectively Throough this lens NBP appears to interact less
s,
called the “wo network,” represent the resting
c ork r e frequ
uently across departmenta lines. Devel
al lopment
pulse of the organization and depict routine traffic
p show few ties to other departments. Upon further
ws
within the orga
w anization: who goes to whom to invesstigation, the reasons for this gap became clear:
exchange info
e ormation in or
rder to get a jo done.
ob Deve elopment was more focuse on the exte
s ed ernal
world of funders a grant makers than the world
d and
© 2010 Partnering Resources. ww
ww.partneringres
sources.com

3. in
nside NBP. W
While it was Development’s job to
D s This picture was a wake-up ca Action was needed
all. s
connect externally, some opportunities w
c o were missed. in orrder to protect and sustain organizationa culture
t al
The
T stories that Developme needed in order to
ent n and collaboration. Both critical connectors n needed to
raise support for the organization came from
r mentor others in o order to exten their know
nd wledge
Education Sal and Public
E les cation Service
es—yet and share their cu ultural shaping activities. T
The
Development was disconne
D ected from those areas. Exec cutive Directo needed to m
or make sure tha the
at
critic connectors were happy in their jobs and not
cal s y
Another gap h formed be
A had etween Public cation planning to leave— least not at the same time.
—at t
Services and Production. These two dep
S T partments Finally, departments needed c cross-functional goals
needed to work together in order to align products
n n n in orrder to force c
collaboration.
with
w customer needs. Yet, there were no innovation,
r o
expertise, or improvement exchanges between the
e
tw departments.
wo
Fig
gure 4: The sam cross-func
me ctional exchan as in
nge
Figure 3 but without two c ctors
critical connec
Team Performan
m nce
Figure 3: Cro
oss-functional interactions p
performed to
innovate, solve problem and share expertise
ms, MacDonald introd duced cross-functional team into
ms
the o
organization in order to enc
courage colla aboration,
A third red flag arose in relation to two c
g critical
communication, a better per
and rformance. Th ONA
he
connectors. Figure 4 shows all cross-fun
c nctional
looke at how we those cross
ed ell s-functional te
eams
exchanges as does Figure 3, but remov the two
e s ves
functioned.
critical connec
c ctors: one in Education Sales, the other
E r
in Systems. W
n Without these individuals, in
nteractions The first team, the Business to Business tea is
e o am,
between areas erode dram
b matically: ponsible for fo
resp orging connec ctions among NBP,
custoomers, and ppartners. The ONA clearly s showed
• Developm ment exchanges information only with
that this team was still forming. It had not ye gelled.
s et
Administraation—no oth departmen
her nts.
• Publicatio Services an Developm
on nd ment connects The integrated ma of Busines to Business team
ap ss
only throu the Execu
ugh utive Director.
.
ractions—disp
inter playing how th team work
he ked,
• Publicatio Services an Production connects
on nd n innovated, shared expertise, socialized, solved
d
only throu Education Sales.
ugh n probblems, and ma decisions
ade s—showed a limited
amo ount of traffic b
between team members (F
m Figure 5).
In essence, w
without these two critical co
t onnectors,
Each member inte
h eracted with o
only two othe team
er
NBP loses the cross-functional glue that holds it
N e t
mem mbers. Key int teractions we missing: E
ere Elise and
to
ogether.
© 2010 Partnering Resources. ww
ww.partneringres
sources.com

4. Betty weren’t linked, nor we David and Carl (not
B ere d Figure 7 shows in nteractions on the leadersh team.
n hip
their real nam
mes). Clearly, work was nee
w eded to The executive’s d departure did not seem to leave a
transform the B2B team int a functionin entity.
to ng lastin scar: all m
ng members were well connect
e ted, with
one exception. Th exception was Carl, the new
hat e
mem mber of the tea Often, ne members show
am. ew
fewe connections because it t
er s takes time for them to
r
integ
grate into the team. Was C Carl’s lack of
connnection due to his newness Or was it in
o s? ndicative
of sk gaps, low p
kill performance, or exclusion from the
,
leadership team?
Figure 5: Bu
usiness to Business team innteractions
related to rou
utine work, social exchange innovation,
e,
expertise, and improvement
e t
The
T other group, the Cente for Braille In
er nnovation
Team, was in better shape (Figure 6). T ONA
T The
showed robus interactions among team members,
s st s m
particularly in innovation an improveme
p nd ent—just the
is
ssues that tea needed to tackle. Ther was one
am o re Figure 7: L
Leadership team interaction
ns
in
nteresting dyn namic: the tea seemed to have
am
formed a core group consis
fo e sting of Alice, Allie, Amy,
, To a
answer this qu uestion, we lo
ooked at Carl’s
Carl, and Dav Those ind
C vid. dividuals were responsible
e placeement across all of the org
s ganization’s nnetworks:
for
fo the majorit of informati
ty ional, creative and
e, work social, inno
k, ovation, experrtise, improvement,
problem solvin activities on the team. T other
p ng o The and decision mak king. Carl emeerged as a
members seemed to serve more as bys
m e standers than pulseetaker—one o the three c
of critical connecctors—in
active particip
a pants. ever network. In addition, he served as a
ry
gatekeeper in the work, improv
e vement, and d decision
making networks. His role as a critical conn
. nector,
speccifically as a p
pulsetaker, sig
gnified that he is
e
deep trusted and respected b his colleag
ply by gues in
the o
organization.
Pulsetakers often serve as info
n ormal leaders behind-
s,
scenes influen
the-s ncers, and hig potentials. In this
gh .
case MacDonald saw Carl for what he was
e, d r s—a
trust
ted, respected informal lea
d, ader—and did the right
d
thing by promoting him. In time Carl would be
g e,
integ
grated into the leadership t
e team.
Mora & the Imp
ale pact of Restr
ructuring
Figure 6: Center for Braille Innovation team The ONA showed MacDonald much of wha he
d at
interactions in relation to innovation, ex
i xpertise, and need to know:
ded
improvvement
• People were working cross
P s-functionally
y.
The
T Leadersh Team
hip
However, the organization was over-rel
H e n liant on
One
O of MacDo onald’s most significant ac
ctions upon two individuals who did mu to sustain
t uch n
arriving at NBP was to repl
a lace one long g-term collaboration.
c .
member with one of her dir
m rect reports. H wanted to
He • Teams were f
T forming—as h
hoped—yet m more work
know how this change had impacted the leadership
k s e was
w needed i order to tra
in ansform them into high
team. functioning te
f eams.
© 2010 Partnering Resources. ww
ww.partneringres
sources.com

5. • His leadership team wa collaborating and
as (Gallup, 2006). If the organizat
tion continued down
d
communic cating. It had not been hur by the
rt this p
path, work at NBP ran the risk of becomming
executive’s absence. Although the n
A new member druddgery.
had not ye integrated into the executive team,
et
all signs p
pointed to his success sinc he was
ce Luck this situat
kily, tion had not p
progressed fa enough
ar
highly trus
sted and resp pected in the o
organization. to be a problem a the solutio was a hap one:
e and on ppy
sponnsor events designed to he people relax, build
elp
In other words the change he had imp
s, es plemented ties, and rememb that work c be fun.
ber can
were starting t work. But what about th broader
w to w he
im
mpact of thos changes? Had morale s
se suffered? In th End
he
To
T answer this question, we looked at th social
w he It too just 20 min
ok nutes of staff t
time, 3 execuutive
network. This network repr
n resents social connections
l direc meetings and one exe
ctor s, ecutive team meeting
within the orga
w anization and identifies wh people
d ho to obbtain the answ
wers to MacD Donald’s ques stions.
seek out when they want to know what’s going on. It
s n o s Usin organizatio network an
ng on nalysis, he too the
ok
serves as a sh
s hock absorbe for stress and provides
er pulse of the organ
e nization; meaasured intangible
an
a outlet for p
people to exprress concern and diffuse issue such as cu
es ulture, morale and impact of
e,
tension. restrructuring; and identified sim
d mple yet potent next
steps.
Strong social networks are not always p
S positive; they
can
c mean that people are doing more ch
d hatting than Orga
anization Netw
work Analysis Tools
working. However, NBP’s social network presented
w s k
the opposite c
challenge. People weren’t connecting Numerous tools are available for t
e those wishing t conduct
to
a rob
bust, quantifiable, reliable orga
anization network
frequently (Fig
f gure 8).
analyysis. A directory of network an
y nalysis freewar exists
re
on W
Wikipedia. Most of these tools require statistical
expeertise.
Seve tools have been created s
eral specifically for
busin
nesses and non nprofit organiza
ations. All figur in this
res
document were created using the NetForm™ Co onnectors
methhodology and software. The C Connectors tool contains
l
proprrietary algorithm developed over 30+ years of
ms s
resea
arch and study with a variety of organization These
y ns.
algor
rithms identify hhubs, gatekeep pers, and pulse etakers.
Connnectors is available only to lice
ensed, certified d,
profe
essional consul ltants. For more information a
e about
NetForm™ and Con nnectors, see wwww.netform.c com or
wwww.partneringreso ources.com.
Refe
erences
Harte J.K., & Wag
er, gner, R. (2006). 12: The Elem
ments of
Grreat Managing. Gallup Press.
Stephhenson, K. (19
998). “Networks CRC Handb
s.” book of
Te
echnology Mana agement.
About the Author
A
Figure 8: The social network
F s k Maya Townsend founder and principal
M d,
consultant at Pa
c artnering Resources,
builds aligned, f
b focused organizations
MacDonald in
M nterpreted this to mean that, after the
s
th achieve the goals more e
hat eir effectively.
tumult of the last few years people had turned
s, For
F more inform mation, visit
nward. The danger of this coping mechanism was
in www.partneringr
w resources.com.
that NBP didn have much of a buffer against stress.
n’t h .
Additionally, p
A people withou friendships at work are
ut
more likely to be dissatisfie and under productive
m ed
© 2010 Partnering Resources. ww
ww.partneringres
sources.com