Towards a Theory of Network Facilitation: A Microfoundations Perspective on the Antecedents, Practices and Outcomes of Network Facilitation
| Author | Elisabeth F. Mueller |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12470 |
| Published date | 01 January 2021 |
| Date | 01 January 2021 |
British Journal of Management, Vol. 32, 80–96 (2021)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12470
Towards a Theory of Network Facilitation:
A Microfoundations Perspective on the
Antecedents, Practices and Outcomes of
Network Facilitation
Elisabeth F. Mueller
School of Business, Economics and Information Systems, University of Passau, Innstrasse 71, Passau, 94036,
Germany
Corresponding author email: elisabeth.mueller@uni-passau.de
Firms cooperate in inter-rm networks to foster their competitiveness and improve their
innovation outcomes. In many cases, network facilitators who are either embedded in
a lead rm or a third-party organization manage the cooperation among the network
rms. This qualitative study adopts a microfoundations perspective to investigate the
behavioural antecedents of the network facilitators, their facilitation practices and the
related network-level outcomes. Results show that lead-rm facilitators more strongly
invest in trust-building measures since they are considered decient in benevolence and
integrity. Without these investments, they run the risk that conicts of interest hinder
the stimulation of positive network-level outcomes. Third-party facilitators, by contrast,
enjoy certain credits of trust and focus on balancing rm interests from the network’sac-
tivation, but need to invest in enhancing their competencies and skills with regard to the
industry the rms operate in. The ndings contribute to developing a theory of network
facilitation by providing a nuanced understanding of how network-level outcomes can be
reduced to individual-level factors.
Introduction
Firms coordinate activities across organizations to
successfully cope with the challenges of today’s
business environments, such as rapid technologi-
cal changes, demand uncertainty and product ob-
solescence (Cravens, Piercy and Shipp, 1996; Lim,
Mak and Shen, 2017; Yusuf et al., 2014). Provan,
Sydow and Podsakoff (2017, p. 155) address this
phenomenon and state that ‘[m]anagingand work-
ing across organizations in a multi-organizational
network context has become a common practice’.
In recent years, the network metaphor has also
gained signicant importance in research on co-
operation and competition between rms (Ship-
ilov and Gawer, 2020). Networks are dened as ‘a
group of three or more organizations connected
in ways that facilitate achievement of a common
goal’ (Provan, Fish and Sydow, 2007, p. 482). Ear-
lier research agrees that rms cooperate but also
compete within networks to benet from network
externalities, such as technologicalinnovation, low
transaction costs and access to complementary re-
sources or high-skilled employees (Gnyawali and
Park, 2011; Lavie, 2006; Powell, Koputand Smith-
Doerr,1996; Ritala, 2012). Due to complex knowl-
edge exchange processesamong network rms (e.g.
Easterby-Smith, Lyles andTsang, 2008), inter-rm
networks are equipped with a network facilita-
tor, who is in charge of setting up network struc-
tures, orchestrating network activities and coordi-
nating knowledge transfer (e.g. Dagnino, Levanti
and Li Destri, 2016; Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006;
Mesquita, 2007; Paquin and Howard-Grenville,
2013). The purpose of this study is to advance our
understanding of how these network facilitators
© 2021 The Authors.British Journal of Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Academy
of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Li-
cense, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-
commercial and no modications or adaptations are made.
Towards a Theory of Network Facilitation 81
actually manage inter-rm networks, with a par-
ticular emphasis on investigatingtheir abilities and
motivations,their facilitation practices and the as-
sociated network-level outcomes.
It is well established that network facilitators
are embedded either in a lead rm of the network
or in a third-party organization (Bell, Tracey and
Heide, 2009; Human and Provan, 2000; Provan
and Kenis, 2008). In a network governed by a
lead rm, the lead rm usually sets the agenda
concerning relevant markets and technologies and
dominates the network’s strategy (Dhanaraj and
Parkhe, 2006; Jarillo, 1988; Provan and Kenis,
2008; Sanou, Le Roy and Gnyawali, 2016). For
example, the automotive company Daimler is the
lead rm of the automotive network near Stuttgart
in southern Germany. For many years, the re-
sponsible managers at Daimler, the lead-rm net-
work facilitators, have assembled the main sup-
pliers, complementors and research institutions in
their network and dominated the further develop-
ment of the network, enabling them to inuence
not only the lead rm’s but also the other network
rms’ strategic alignment. In a network governed
by a third party, which can be an institution like a
governmental agencyor a business association, the
network facilitators employed by the third party
help to bring transaction partners together and
provide supportive network services, such as con-
sultancy services or legitimacy-building activities
(Howells, 2006; Human and Provan, 2000; Kirkels
and Duysters, 2010; Mesquita, 2007; Moretti and
Zirpoli, 2016). For example, the Pacic North-
west Aerospace Alliance, located in Redmond,
WA, is a third-party organization whose employ-
ees, the network facilitators, promote the growth
of the aerospace industry in the northwest region
of the United States. Toaccomplish this goal, they
provide networkingopportunities, conduct educa-
tional seminars and inform rms about business
opportunities in emerging markets.
While prior research has created profound in-
sights into networks as an organizational form
(e.g. Cravens, Piercy and Shipp, 1996; Dyer, 1996;
Williamson, 1991), we lack knowledge of how
network externalities can be further reduced to
individual-level, behavioural antecedents of the
network facilitators and social interactions within
the network (Ahuja, Soda and Zaheer, 2012;
Müller-Seitz, 2012; Paquin and Howard-Grenville,
2013). Thus, we are ‘left with an understanding
of why networks may be a superior mode of gov-
ernance but not of how they are themselves gov-
erned’ (Provan, Fish and Sydow, 2007, p. 504).
However, understanding how networks are man-
aged (i.e. understanding the abilities and moti-
vations of network facilitators and the practices
that aggregate individual actions into network-
level outcomes) is important for establishing effec-
tive networks that foster positive externalities, and
for efciently allocating public network subsidies
(e.g. Kenis and Provan, 2009; Wincent, Thorgren
and Anokhin, 2013).
To ll this void, this paper adopts a microfoun-
dations perspective to develop a theory of net-
work facilitation that explains how network-level
outcomes can be understood in terms of the be-
havioural antecedents of different types of net-
work facilitators, the perceptions of trust that are
built upon these antecedents and the related prac-
tices of the facilitators. The microfoundations lens
provides a powerful analytical basis for this inves-
tigation, since it promotes our understanding of
how macro-outcomes, in this case network-level
outcomes, relate to the characteristics, actions and
interactions of micro-level entities, in this case net-
work facilitators (e.g. Contractor et al., 2019; Fe-
lin, Foss and Ployhart, 2015). Drawing on argu-
ments from agency and networktheory and on the
analysis of 85 qualitative interviews with network
facilitators in ve countries, I carve out the be-
havioural antecedents for both the lead-rm and
the third-party network facilitators, the associated
facilitation practices and the network-level out-
comes, and develop propositions aimed at con-
densing the ndings to a theoretical model of net-
work facilitation.
This study contributes to research on network
facilitation in several ways. First, it uses the cur-
rent body of knowledge on the complexity of
knowledge transfer processes within networks
(e.g. Easterby-Smith, Lyles and Tsang, 2008) as
a motivation to shift the focus on those actors
that initiate,coordinate and support such complex
processes: the network facilitators. The results
foster a more comprehensive and at the same time
more nuanced understanding of the microfounda-
tions underlying the network facilitators’ practices
to stimulate the creation of positive network-
level outcomes in inter-rm networks. Using the
microfoundations perspective (e.g. Contractor
et al., 2019; Felin, Foss and Ployhart, 2015),
this investigation of the network facilitators’
practices answers a call for a more elaborated
© 2021 The Authors.British Journal of Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British
Academy of Management.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting