Building trust in public sector networks: The role of rhetoric and persuasion

• Author: Mariafrancesca Sicilia,Georgios Kominis,Adina Iulia Dudau,Alvise Favotto
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12229
• Date: 01 May 2020

Received: 20 August 2018 Revised: 26 November2019 Accepted: 27 November 2019

DOI: 10.1111/faam.12229

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Building trust in public sector networks: The role

of rhetoric and persuasion

Adina Iulia Dudau1Alvise Favotto1Georgios Kominis1

Mariafrancesca Sicilia2

1Adam Smith Business School, University of

Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

2Department of Management, Economics and

Quantitative Methods, Universityof Bergamo,

Bergamo, Italy

Correspondence

AdinaIulia Dudau, Adam Smith Business School,

Universityof Glasgow, Gilbert Scott Building,

UniversityAvenue, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.

Email:adina.dudau@glasgow.ac.uk

Fundinginformation

CharteredInstitute of Management Accountants

Abstract

This study investigates how rhetoric is used to generate trust in

public sector inter-organisational networks. Drawing on evidence

from a Local Safeguarding Children Board in England, where formal

control systems were recognised to be insufficient to deal with the

uncertainty inherent in the particular policy area, we explore how

trustworthiness is negotiated amongst network partners through

network leaders’ use of persuasive rhetoric. The main contribution

that we bring to the existing literature is providing a description

of the processes through which trust is generated in a public sec-

tor multi-partner setting. Our findings suggest that these are estab-

lished within a feedforward control framework within the given net-

work setting.

KEYWORDS

control, networks, persuasion, rhetoric, trust

1INTRODUCTION

This is the third baby in the last 18 months who has died with an unascertained cause of death in a

neglectful household. […] The Chair felt that if some of the lessons learned from the previous cases had

been fully embedded, this may possibly have made a difference to this little boy.(Local Safeguarding Chil-

dren Board[LSCB], Meeting Minutes, April 2011)

This excerpt comes from the minutes of an inter-agency partnership meeting, where partners from different child

protection agencies discussed organisational alignment which could potentially be more effective in keeping children

andfamilies safe. Setting up inter-organisational networks in response to adverse events, which could not be prevented

bythe actions of any one agency, is not rare, and many are mandated by governments(Provan & Kenis, 2008; Rodriguez,

Langley, & Béland, 2007). Attempts from mandating governments to coordinate previously isolated organisational

efforts have been referred to in the literature as inter-organisational control mechanisms (Kominis & Dudau, 2012).

134 c

2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faam FinancialAcc & Man. 2020;36:134–150.

DUDAUET AL.135

They are meant to gather and use information aimed at evaluating performance, adjusting strategic direction when

required, strengthening collaboration and avoiding opportunistic behaviours. In this article, we report findings from

onesuch network, the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), introduced in England and Wales in 2005, in response

to numerous adverse events with child victims. Little has actually changed in terms of the number of such events and

child deaths since the creation of the LSCBs, which prompts questions about the effectiveness of this sophisticated

system of controls.

As there seem to be as many cases of inter-organisational network failure as there are successes, we argue con-

trol is exerciseddifferently in some than in others. In this paper, we draw evidence from one LSCB, which has not seen

any notable practice failures, to investigate how professionals working in inter-organisational networks can be ‘per-

suaded’ to engage effectively with one other and with the formal control mechanisms across traditional organisational

boundaries.

Inter-organisational networks are constellations of organisations that come together through the establishment of

social agreements and/orbinding contracts (Barringer & Harrison, 2000) to achieve commonly agreed goals. They are

viewed as vehicles to address complexsocial problems by taking advantage of a broader set of resources and increased

capacity (see, for example, Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006). Given their prominence in tackling policy complexity in

areas of public sector which are typically characterised by high level of uncertainty and unpredictability (Huxham &

Macdonald, 1992), inter-organisational networks have attracted the attention of some management control scholars

investigating the use of control mechanisms to manage network outcomes in such dynamic contexts (Caglio& Ditillo,

2008). Termedin the literature as inter-organisational control mechanisms (Kominis & Dudau, 2012), these systems

are meant to gather and provide information for performance evaluation, adjusting strategic direction if and when

required, strengthening collaboration and discouraging opportunistic behaviour.In practice, these systems are found

to take a variety of forms, ranging from well-defined, formal mechanisms of a diagnostic nature (Simons, 1994),

which are designed to measure partner performance and evaluate ex post the achievement of results against pre-set

targets, to more informal forms of control, of a more enabling nature, which aim at facilitating interactivity across

the partner network and increase trust among network partners for the achievement of the network’s objectives

(Cäker,2008; Dekker, 2004; Dudau & Kominis, 2013; Free, 2008; Langfield-Smith, 2008; Mouritsen & Thrane, 2006;

Van der Meer-Kooistra& Vosselman, 2000, 2006). The choice between the former and the latter patterns of control

is said to largely depend on the type of environment in which the network operates (Langfield-Smith & Smith, 2003;

Sartorius & Kirsten, 2005; van der Meer-Kooistra& Vosselman, 2000). In environments characterised by clarity about

the key success factors and their cause-effect relationships, and therefore of high task programmability and output

measurability,more mechanistic, ‘bureaucratic’ patterns of control appear more suitable. In contrast, in environments

where future contingencies are unknown, and therefore task variability is high and output measurability is low,

patterns of control based on social relationships (Ouchi, 1980), rather than rigid control systems, appear more

prevalent.

Inter-personal trust has been identified as a form of control of the latter type (see, for example, Das & Teng,1998).

Trust is arguably particularly relevant to the successful operation of networks and the achievement of their stated

objectives,as it is seen as a means of managing uncertainties associated with inter-organisational relations (Das & Teng,

2001; Sako,1992). Indeed, inter-organisational networks, similarly to other forms of inter-organisational relationships

(joint-ventures, alliances, buyer–supplier relations), are exposed to two types of uncertainties: uncertainties relating

to unknown factors that can adversely affect the successful achievement of the goals of the inter-organisational rela-

tionship (performance uncertainties), and uncertainties relating the possibility that not all the organisations involved

in the partnership will cooperate fully (relational uncertainties) (Das & Teng 1996). Although mechanistic manage-

ment control systems can tackle these uncertainties through rewards for desirablebehaviours and measurable results,

thereby motivating partners to act in the network’s best interests, the development of inter-personal trust among

network partners has been found to act as an alternative uncertainty-reduction strategy,capable of mitigating these

risks through the fostering of inter-organisational relations (Dekker, 2004, 2008; Tomkins, 2001; Vélez, Sánchez, &

Álvarez-Dardet, 2008).