How Organizational Network Holes Hinder RFP Progress
Understanding how internal networks influence RFP success is crucial for organizational leaders aiming to improve proposal outcomes and internal cohesion.
When a vendor loses an RFP competition, the instinct is often to revise the proposal, refine language, or adjust pricing. While these tactical improvements are necessary, they usually miss the underlying cause of the loss. The loss is a symptom of a structural disease: gaps within the vendor organization that prevent coherent communication, shared understanding, and consistent execution. These internal gaps, known as structural holes, predict RFP outcomes long before a submission is drafted because organizations are only as strong as their internal networks.
Ronald S. Burt describes structural holes as the invisible spaces between teams or individuals where knowledge and perspective do not fully travel (Burt, 2004). Within companies, structural holes emerge when product teams do not communicate regularly with implementation teams, when sales operate without alignment with instructional or research teams, or when compliance and legal processes remain disconnected from product updates. In other words, structural holes are organizational blind spots.
These blind spots quickly reveal themselves in the high-pressure environment of RFP development. A proposal reflects how well the organization understands its own work, how consistently teams interpret their responsibilities, and whether internal processes support accuracy, reliability, and coordinated messaging. When a proposal contains contradictions, outdated claims, vague timelines, or evidence that does not align with the narrative language, those inconsistencies signal internal fragmentation.
When an evaluator encounters inconsistencies in a vendor’s proposal, they will conclude that the organization lacks the internal coordination needed to serve its district reliably. This interpretation aligns with research in organizational behavior, which shows that inconsistencies in outward communication often reflect more profound operational instability (Nadler & Tushman, 1997).
The impact of structural holes becomes evident during high-stakes RFP cycles. As deadlines approach, proposal teams depend on the accuracy and timeliness of information from other departments. When internal networks are fragmented, essential information arrives late, arrives incomplete, or contradicts previously submitted content. The proposal becomes a patchwork of disconnected contributions rather than a unified representation of the company’s capabilities. This fragmentation becomes evident to evaluators, who associate it with future implementation risk.
The solution lies in strengthening internal networks before the proposal process begins. Vendors can use several techniques to uncover and close structural holes: cross-functional planning sessions, routine knowledge-sharing meetings, documentation reviews, internal compliance audits, and the adoption of shared repositories for product updates and implementation resources. These do not eliminate all gaps, but they reduce the number of unseen ones. Structural holes predict the company’s future ability to scale, and organizations that address them intentionally develop organizational coherence that extends beyond proposals.
Recommended TedTalks for Further Insight
The following talks offer valuable lenses into the network, behavioral, and organizational dynamics that underpin the ideas in this piece. Each provides a different angle on why structural holes matter and how internal connectivity influences performance.
Stanley McChrystal — “Listen, Learn… Then Lead” (TED)
McChrystal’s exploration of shared consciousness and networked leadership underscores how large organizations operate effectively only when information flows freely across teams. His emphasis on trust, transparency, and cross-functional communication parallels the conditions necessary to close structural holes within vendor organizations.
Margaret Heffernan — “Forget the Pecking Order at Work” (TED)
Heffernan critiques hierarchical, siloed cultures and highlights the importance of cooperation, relationship networks, and everyday communication patterns. Her distinction between individual performance and collective effectiveness speaks directly to the organizational challenges vendors face when preparing RFPs.
Amy Edmondson — “Building a Psychologically Safe Workplace” (TED)
Edmondson’s work on psychological safety provides insight into why structural holes persist. Organizations lacking open communication norms struggle to surface inconsistencies or internal risks early, which directly affects the accuracy and credibility of proposal development.
David Logan — “Tribal Leadership” (TED)
Logan’s cultural stages reveal how internal networks form and fracture. Understanding these stages helps readers feel insightful and better equipped to foster internal connectivity and alignment.
Taken together, these talks offer a multi-dimensional understanding of why structural holes are not merely informational gaps but reflections of deeper cultural, behavioral, and leadership dynamics that influence a vendor’s success in public-sector procurement.
Write Way Consulting
Your partner in research-based strategy, K–12 expertise, and sustainable organizational growth.
