Article · August 2026 · 7 min read

Six structural aspects: the anatomy of a community or network

By Roel Ottens

When we talk about community or network design, we often start with purpose, people and trust. But once a community exists, it also has a structure. And that structure is not just the org chart or the governance model. It is the pattern of relationships that actually connects the people in it.

I read that structure through six aspects. None of them is good or bad in itself. A high score on one aspect can be exactly what you need in one context, and a limitation in another. What matters is whether the structure fits the ambition of the community or network.

The anatomy of the community or network, never judged as good or bad in itself.

01 Network centrality

Some communities revolve around a clear centre. One person, one organisation or one hub coordinates the conversations, sets the rhythm and connects most of the participants. Other communities are more distributed. Relationships are spread across many nodes, and no single actor holds the network together.

A central structure can be efficient and decisive. A distributed structure can be more resilient and easier to scale. The question is not which is better, but which matches the work the community is trying to do.

Does the community need a single heartbeat, or a rhythm that is carried by many?

02 Size of the network

Size changes almost everything. A small community of thirty people can sustain deep trust, frequent interaction and shared accountability. A large network of thousands may rely more on subgroups, digital infrastructure and lighter forms of participation.

But bigger is not always stronger. A large network with weak connections can feel empty. A small community with the right people can generate extraordinary momentum. The relevant question is what size the ambition requires.

How many people are needed, and in what kind of relationship, to achieve the goal?

03 Quality of relations: cohesive vs bridging ties

Cohesive ties connect people who already know and trust each other. They create safety, speed and shared identity. Bridging ties connect people from different backgrounds, organisations or worldviews. They create access to new ideas, resources and opportunities.

A community that is too cohesive can become inward-looking and resistant to change. A community that is too focused on bridging can feel shallow and lack the trust needed for real collaboration. Most healthy communities deliberately balance both.

Does the community need stronger bonds on the inside, or more bridges to the outside?

04 Relative strength of connections: strong vs weak ties

Strong ties are relationships with history, trust and repeated interaction. Weak ties are lighter acquaintances and occasional contacts. Both are essential.

Strong ties carry the heavy work: collaboration, commitment, conflict resolution. Weak ties are often where new information and unexpected opportunities enter the system. A community that only has strong ties may miss what is happening outside. A community that only has weak ties may never get anything done together.

Where do we need depth, and where do we need breadth?

05 Network efficiency

Efficiency is about how directly and usefully information, resources and opportunities flow through the network. In a highly efficient network, the right people find each other quickly, knowledge travels and collaboration is not blocked by friction.

But efficiency is not the same as control. Over-optimised networks can feel transactional and lose the social texture that makes people want to stay. Under-structured networks can waste energy and attention.

How do we make the network useful without making it feel mechanical?

06 Quality of the network composition

Composition is about who is in the room. A network can be technically strong but still fail because it lacks the right mix of roles, perspectives, skills or levels of influence.

Sometimes the missing piece is a connector. Sometimes it is a decision-maker, an implementer, a sceptic or an outsider who asks the uncomfortable question. Good composition is rarely accidental. It is a design choice.

Do we have the right people, and are they in the right relationship to each other?

How we use this in our analyses

In our Community Baseline studies, we look at a community or network through these six structural aspects. But we do not score them against a universal ideal. We read them against the ambition of the community or network.

A community that wants to influence national policy may need strong bridging ties, clear centrality and a composition that includes decision-makers. A community that wants to support peer learning among local entrepreneurs may need cohesive ties, small groupings and a composition that reflects the local ecosystem.

That is why the first lens in our baseline is always ambition and goals. Only when we know what the community is trying to achieve can we ask whether its structure is helping or hindering that purpose.

Each aspect is read in relation to what the community or network is trying to achieve. A strong structure in one context may be a limitation in another.