DETERMINANTS OF NETWORK OUTCOMES: THE IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12076 |
| Published date | 01 September 2014 |
| Date | 01 September 2014 |
doi: 10.1111/padm.12076
DETERMINANTS OF NETWORK OUTCOMES:
THE IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
TAMYKO YSA, VICENTA SIERRA AND MARC ESTEVE
The literature on network management is extensive. However, it generally explores network
structures, neglecting the impact of management strategies. In this article we assess the effect
of management strategies on network outcomes, providing empirical evidence from 119 urban
revitalization networks. We go beyond current work by testing a path model for the determinants of
network outcomes and considering the interactions between the constructs: management strategies,
trust, complexity, and facilitative leadership. Our results suggest that management strategies have
a strong effect on network outcomes and that they enhance the level of trust. We also found that
facilitative leadership has a positive impact on network management as well as on trust in the
network. Our findings also show that complexity has a negative impact on trust. A key finding of our
research is that managers may wield more influence on network dynamics than previously theorized.
INTRODUCTION
The literature on complex network management is extensive; however, it generally
explores network structures and their importance for public service delivery, neglecting
the role of network management (Walker et al. 2007). For instance, the impact of man-
agement on network effectiveness has been examined on only a few occasions (Meier
and O’Toole 2001; Klijn et al. 2010b). According to these authors, network management is
highly relevant in complex networks, in which public, private, and non-for-profit sectors
are involved.
This gap serves as our point of departure; ‘if networking is a measurable and identifiable
management practice, and if it appears in roughly similar forms in different countries,
it should be possible to estimate its impact on performance in a wide range of settings’
(O’Toole et al. 2007, p. 416). This article builds on this previous work and aims to answer
the following specific questions: (1) What are the effects of network management strategies
and trust on perceived outcomes? (2) Does active network management improve the level
of trust in networks? (3) How do facilitative leadership and (4) complexity influence
the relationships within networks? We based our questionnaire on an existing Dutch
survey on network management (see Klijn et al. 2010a, 2010b). Our aim is to produce more
evidence for their findings, from a country other than the USA or the Netherlands, where
most studies of networks originate.
In order to answer the questions, we carry out a systematic empirical examination of
one important policy sector: the urban revitalization of economically depressed areas. We
do so by incorporating data from a large number of cases on action networks (Agranoff
2007) in Catalonia, Spain. These policies address long-standing issues in which many
actors are involved. Our findings show that network management strategies have a
strong effect on perceived outcomes and that management strategies enhance the level
of trust. Our results also demonstrate that trust matters. The article offers an incremental
contribution to the literature on network management by testing a general model to
explain network performance.
Tamyko Ysa is at ESADE Business School-University Ramon Llull, Spain, and at the Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark. Vicenta Sierra is at ESADE Business School-University Ramon Llull, Spain. Marc Esteve is at University
College London, UK
Public Administration Vol. 92, No. 3, 2014 (636–655)
©2014 The Authors. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and
distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
NETWORK OUTCOMES: THE IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT 637
The next section outlines the state of current research on networks and public manage-
ment and develops some potential empirical expectations derived from earlier scholarship.
We then describe our research design and relevant data. The fourth section details the
results of our empirical study, and we discuss the data gathered. The final section outlines
the conclusions and implications of our study on network management.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The advantages of network coordination are considerable (Huxham and Vangen 2005;
Provan and Kenis 2008; Considine 2013; Lenferink et al. 2013): enhanced learning, more
efficient use of resources, an increased capacity to plan for and address complex problems,
greater competitiveness, and better services for clients and customers. Accordingly,
Agranoff and McGuire (2001, p. 323) expand this view by emphasizing that ‘as it is
now a core task of governance, network management must be placed up front as an
essential arena of examination in the fields of public management and administration’.
Embracing the view of these authors, we argue that the role of management is critical for
effective network outcomes. Specifically, we examine management efforts to work in an
interdependent setting to build support for programmes, attract partners in cooperative
endeavours, and overcome the challenges presented by other actors.
To analyse the impact of network management on network outcomes we adopt Provan
and Kenis’s (2008, p. 231) definition of networks as ‘groups of three or more legally
autonomous organizations that work together to achieve not only their own goals but also
a collective goal’, focusing on those networks that develop policies and convert them into
action. These networks are set up with a specific purpose, either by those who participate
in the network or through mandate, and evolve largely through conscious efforts to
enhance coordination.
Klijn et al. (2010b) recall that ‘the basic argument is usually that without adequate
network management strategies, it is very difficult, or even impossible, to achieve
interesting outcomes in these complex networks’. The assumption is that a satisfactory
outcome is often impossible without network management. However, in the network
management literature there are still more theoretical questions than actual empirical
research (Herranz 2008). Therefore, studies are needed to be able to measure network
outcomes and performance (Agranoff and McGuire 2001).
Moreover, in accordance with the network literature, we also examine trust in the
network. Management literature has widely recognized the existing link between trust
and network outcomes (see, among others, Lane and Bachmann 1998; Huxham and
Vangen 2005; Bachmann and Zaheer 2006). However, this stream of research has just
started to be applied to public administration. For instance, Klijn et al. (2010b) provide an
empirical study of networks and relate the levels of trust between network partners to
the outcomes achieved by those networks. According to these authors, there is a positive
relationship between trust among partners and network outcomes.
Another variable that we consider in our analysis is facilitative leadership. Ansell and
Gash (2007) would include under this term the initial conditions and empowerment that
serve as critical ingredients to bring the different parties to the table and to steer the
network. Ansell and Gash assume that, even when collaborative governance is mandated,
achieving ‘buy-in’ is still an essential aspect of the collaborative process.
Finally, we also examine complexity. O’Toole and Meier (1999) stress that networks
experience more complex environments and more internal complexity than hierarchies of
Public Administration Vol. 92, No. 3, 2014 (636–655)
©2014 The Authors. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial