By Pia Fuglsang Bach, Communitychef at CfL, maj 2025
Internal leadership networks can mobilize courage, engagement, and a sense of community.
In any organization, that is already a huge advantage – but when you add both personal and leadership development on top, you create a unique space for learning and growth.
This is how Dorte Adamsen, Senior Leadership Consultant and network leader at CfL, puts it. Right now, she sees a growing interest in cross-organizational internal leadership networks – and with good reason.
Unpredictability and geopolitical unrest make it difficult for many leaders to navigate. They face sharper demands and rising complexity, and in a busy workday, it is often reflection, peer feedback, and professional immersion that disappear first.
This makes the leadership role more lonely and decisions heavier to carry alone – which in turn impacts leaders’ mental health.
This is highlighted in CfL’s 2024 survey, where one of the key conclusions is that leadership feedback and development are among the things leaders miss the most.
That’s where internal leadership networks come into play.
We asked Dorte Adamsen 9 questions to better understand the benefits and methods of working with cross-organizational leadership networks.
“There are many well-functioning leadership teams out there, but when we talk to leaders, we hear again and again that these groups come with built-in limitations.
A leadership team must work toward a shared purpose, but each member also has their own area of responsibility and results to deliver on.
You can absolutely have good collaboration and genuinely like each other in a leadership team, but it’s often difficult to speak openly about more personal leadership dilemmas—because the agenda and organizational roles take up so much space.
If there’s a director at the head of the table, there’s also an element of positioning and power involved. It may be conscious or unconscious, but many leaders find it hard to show vulnerability in that type of forum.
In some leadership teams, the atmosphere is supportive and constructive; in others, it’s marked by competition and more subtle power struggles.
A cross-functional internal leadership network offers something different. It’s not a decision-making arena. It’s a space for reflection. A place where you can share what’s on your mind—without it having to serve an immediate purpose. That creates a different kind of freedom and depth in the dialogue.”
“The special thing about internal networks is that participants come from the same organization – and therefore share a common context and culture. This creates a unique opportunity to work with the leadership culture, because there is an inherent familiarity.
You understand each other quickly. You don’t need to explain yourself as much. There is already a framework to build on.
The downside, however, can be that you share the same blind spots and the same operational focus, which means the network may unintentionally revolve around the familiar instead of the innovative.
But the network can actually be used to push a shared development of the leadership culture.
When many leaders participate, and when you create a safe and open space where you can challenge each other and share experiences, real change can happen. You begin to talk about what leadership means here with us. What we expect from each other. What we aspire to – and what we want to leave behind.”
The article continues below the box, where you can read about the facilitation of internal leadership networks.
She is a Senior Leadership Consultant and Network Facilitator at CfL. For several years, she worked as an independent Business Psychologist and Leadership Consultant. Previously, she held Leadership Consultant roles at, among others, Danish Technologal Institute, Mannaz, and Tryg Forsikring.
Dorte Adamsen holds a Master’s degree in Psychology as well as an international degree in Business Economics.
The red thread throughout Dorte’s career has been building bridges between the psychological and the business-strategic. She has personal experience with entrepreneurship and leadership and has helped a substantial number of leaders find their footing in the leadership role. She also teaches on CfL’s leadership courses.
“Courses are often linear and goal-oriented in their learning approach. You’re expected to learn a curriculum or new skills, practice them, and ultimately implement your new knowledge in your own organization.
Networks, on the other hand, are about reflection, perspective, and community. It’s not about learning a new model you have to implement tomorrow.
In a network, you get the time and space to step away from daily operations and look at your own leadership from a higher perspective: What is it that I actually do? What works – and what doesn’t? What’s on my mind, and why?
That kind of reflection requires time, safety, and courage. You have to dare to be imperfect. Dare to doubt. Dare to be challenged. And that’s exactly what a network offers. It creates a community where you mirror yourself in other leaders who are also finding their way. Sometimes you’ll be inspired by their insights – other times you’ll be provoked. Both create movement.”
“Because facilitation plays a key role in every network.
Relationships and reflection don’t just arise on their own – not even among leaders who are used to navigating complex environments. Without clear structure and framing, the network risks turning into either small talk or silence.
An experienced, neutral facilitator can ensure both process and depth – and make the space something leaders actually look forward to stepping into.
That said, a network should eventually take on a life of its own.
In the beginning, it can be useful to suggest themes and working methods, but over time the leaders themselves should set the agenda.
This is where the true strength of a network lies: when topics grow out of real needs, and conversations are grounded in participants’ actual realities, the network becomes a driver of learning, reflection, and development.”
”Externals are neutral and come without history.
When we, as external network facilitators, step in, we have no prior relationships, no hidden agendas, and no organizational ties. That means we’re met with openness – and you can feel it right away. Participants dare to speak their minds from the very beginning.”
“We don’t know the participants beforehand. We don’t know who may have been difficult or hard to collaborate with. We meet everyone with curiosity and the expectation that there is something interesting to discover.”
“As internal HR, it’s a role that is not so easy to step out of – even if you are skilled and genuinely try. There may be old stories, issues of trust, or personal relationships that block open dialogue.”
“We have experienced how network meetings facilitated by internal HR resources can be marked by skepticism and reservation. Some participants sit with their arms crossed and hold back—because they are not entirely sure who might be listening, or what the underlying agenda may be.”
The article continues below the box, where you can read about the ideal size of a network.
“Not necessarily — but their foundation for it improves.
The strategic decisions made at the top level — especially in unpredictable times — certainly require courage, but that’s not the kind of courage we’re talking about here.
In networks, it’s about personal courage: the courage to open up, to show yourself as a person, not just as a leader, and to ask questions instead of always providing answers.
That kind of courage grows out of psychological safety — and ultimately benefits the entire organization, because it shapes collaboration, leadership style, and culture.
So yes, it can influence strategy — but it starts somewhere else.”
“Larger organizations — those with enough leaders to create networks across departments — tend to be the most successful. It’s also crucial to avoid having participants grouped with their own manager, as that creates an uneven dynamic. The network must be a safe and equal space.
In smaller organizations, it’s often more difficult to establish networks simply because there aren’t enough leaders to draw from.”
“In my experience, a group should consist of at least eight people to be sustainable. People get sick, go through busy periods, or drop out — and with fewer than eight, it quickly becomes too fragile.
On the other hand, you shouldn’t have too many either. Once you get above 14–15 participants, it becomes difficult to create closeness and a sense of community. Participants become anonymous, and it’s hard for relationships to unfold. The ideal size is somewhere between 10 and 14 people.”
“At CfL, we’ve spent years working with leadership networks — both as facilitators of open, cross-organizational networks and as partners for companies that want to build their own internal communities.
Our experience shows that networks can play a vital role in both development and well-being — when they are designed and led with care.
This is our area of expertise. It’s our core competency, and we continuously refine our understanding of what it means to facilitate a network.
For us, it’s not just about asking good questions or organizing group exercises. It’s about taking true leadership responsibility for the community — engaging everyone, creating psychological safety, reading the group’s energy, and addressing what happens in the room.
That requires both professional skill and experience — and CfL has both.”
More and more leaders are driving projects or processes without having formal staff responsibility. But how can you lead without authority? Here are four key competencies you need to master.
The extent of remote work should therefore be determined solely by company strategy — and if physical presence is necessary, individual preferences must yield, writes CfL’s CEO Thomas Hanssen.
The efforts focus primarily on two areas: self-leadership and support with administrative tasks. Read why in this interview with CCO Kristina Steenfeldt Madsen.
Before a top management team makes decisions about layoffs, it should conduct a comprehensive economic and cultural assesment, writes Thomas Hanssen.