Nineteen members mapped their working relationships this spring. The structure underneath is the subject of this report: where it already holds, and where a small, specific move could strengthen it further.
About one in four possible connections between people in this network actually exists. Spread across thirteen cities, that figure sits well above what distributed networks usually reach. Most land below one in ten.
Each respondent named and rated their working relationships across five dimensions: trust, energy, support, creativity, and how well they know the other person's work. The picture that emerges is not a popularity ranking. It is closer to a map of where effort already flows, and where it does not yet.
Density alone does not say whether a network is healthy. It says whether the wiring is there for things to move through it. At 0.229, the wiring is there.
0.05–0.10 is typical for a distributed network. 0.10–0.20 marks an active, well-maintained one. This network sits at 0.229. Above 0.50 starts to look like a tight team rather than a network at all.
Three clusters emerged from the relationship data itself, not from geography or org chart. Color marks the group; position shows the pull toward people each person actually named.
Edges inside a cluster are drawn in that cluster's color. Edges that cross between clusters are drawn in indigo at low opacity, present but quieter, since the story here is the grouping, not every individual tie.
People in the same city often land in different groups. Something other than location is shaping who connects with whom; shared work, shared history, or simply who came up together.
The boundary worth asking about is not where each group ends. It is who already stands between two of them.
Fifty-one percent of connections have reached Cooperation or Collaboration. People are not just aware of each other; they are building something together. The other half sit at Awareness or Connection, which is not a deficit so much as a list.
A relationship at Awareness already has a foothold. What it is missing is occasion, not trust.
Which relationship feels closest to leveling up, from knowing someone to actually building with them? What's the one thing standing in the way?
Among the 76 relationships that have reached Cooperation or Collaboration, here is how people describe them.
Trust and energy are the clear strengths. Support is worth a second look: not because something is wrong, but because a small shift here would likely lift several relationships at once.
Among the connections people described, 87% happen monthly or less. Only 16 out of 123 are weekly or more. And 56% are roughly balanced; the rest lean more in one direction than the other.
A thirty-minute monthly peer call. A shared channel with one standing prompt. A quarterly pairing check-in. Any of these would activate trust and energy that already exist between gatherings, without asking anyone to add a major commitment.
Some members sit on more of the paths between others than anyone else. Reaching someone in a different part of the network often runs through one of them.
Two people were named by far more of the network than anyone else, a clear marker of trust and visibility:
These relationships are a real reason the network holds together. It is worth checking with each of them directly: what would make it easier to keep doing this, or for the connective work to be shared more widely?
Asked who they'd call if they hit a hard problem, a clear pattern showed up. Different names than who people simply work with day to day.
This is informal influence that an org chart would never show. Naming it out loud, and asking what would make that role sustainable, costs little and returns a lot.
Several respondents named specific people they want a deeper relationship with. Not a general wish; an actual list.
A facilitated round of introductions, paired against this exact list, could move several relationships from Connection to Cooperation in a single gathering. This is not a cold start. The data already shows which pairs to prioritize.
Augsburg University and Parish Collective are named more than any other organization, with Black Mountain School of Theology close behind. Real load-bearing institutions, quietly anchoring a lot of the relational infrastructure here.
Worth asking whether that load sits evenly across the network's full range of work, or concentrates more than it needs to.
A third of the network is the only member in its city. That makes the ties crossing cluster lines carry more weight than they might elsewhere.
Alyssa Ruch and Ashley Wilson have not yet been named back by anyone else in the network. That is unlikely to mean they are not contributing. It more likely means the right introduction has not happened yet, or their work overlaps with people who have not yet taken the survey.
A couple of specific, warm one-on-one introductions, matched on shared interest or geography, would likely close this quickly. Small effort, clear return.
Referrals, funding, and governance ties are present but small. These tend to be the highest-trust, highest-commitment relationship types, which is exactly why there is headroom here.
Thinking together is the foundation that building together gets built on. The network appears to be exactly where that sequence would predict.
Stacy Brungardt, Tim Soerens, Kristina Fruge, and Keri Burns carry a disproportionate share of the connective load. Ask each of them directly what would make it easier, or how that load could be shared more widely.
People have already named who they want to build with. A facilitated pairing session could turn that list into real working relationships in one gathering.
A monthly call or a channel with a standing prompt would activate trust and energy that's currently dormant between convenings.
A small, specific effort to connect Alyssa Ruch and Ashley Wilson into the rest of the network closes the one clear gap this data shows.