Enhancing Local Service Effectiveness Through Purpose-Oriented Networks: The Role of Network Leadership and Structure

• DOI: 10.1177/02750740221084336
• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Date: 01 May 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Enhancing Local Service Effectiveness

Through Purpose-Oriented Networks:

The Role of Network Leadership and

Structure

Anna Uster

1

, Dana Vashdi

2

and Itai Beeri

2

Abstract

The public administration literature has demonstrated that the manner in which a network is led is related to its effectiveness.

However, why this relationship occurs and whether it is dependent on external circumstances remain unclear. Relying on

Provan and Milward’s framework of interorganizational network effectiveness and the neo-institutional approach to local lead-

ership, we propose that the manner in which the local authority leads the local network is related to the network’s structure,

which, in turn, influences its effectiveness. We also propose that this association is contingent on the characteristics of the

local authority in which the network exists. Using a sample of 586 network participants from 68 Israeli networks, we dem-

onstrate that the degree to which the local authority is centralized explains the link between the network’s leadership and its

effectiveness, but only in local authorities with a high socioeconomic status (SES). In addition, we find that in Israeli Arab

municipalities such centralization is counterproductive, impeding the network’s effectiveness. We discuss the theoretical

and practical implications of these findings.

Keywords

network leadership, network effectiveness, centralization, local context, ethnicity

Introduction

As the conceptualization of local authorities moves from

local government to local governance, interorganizational

networks are increasingly viewed as a leading mode of

public service delivery (Damgaard & Torfing, 2011;

O’Leary, Gerard, & Bingham, 2006). Such networks allow

the government to create strong partnerships with external

agencies and replace competition and contracts with cross-

sector collaborations (Blockson & Van Buren, 1999;

Graddy & Chen, 2006). The current study focuses on the

factors that enhance the effectiveness of such collaborations

in purpose-oriented networks designed to deliver services

in local authorities (Nowell & Kenis, 2019). According

to Carboni et al. (2019), a purpose-oriented network is

defined as “a network comprised of three or more autono-

mous actors who participate in a joint effort based on a

common purpose”(p. 210). The term “purpose-oriented”

networks (Berthod & Segato, 2019; Lemaire et al., 2019)

was proposed as an extension and clarification of the well-

known term “goal-directed networks.”According to this

line of research (Nowell & Kenis, 2019), “goal-directed”

implies that network members have identified and agreed

on a set of goals that guide the work of the network, which

in practice is often not necessarily true. The term

purpose-oriented networks thus take into consideration the

complexity of the relationship between the network

members as well as the environment in which they operate.

These networks highlight the collective purpose that is

“translated into actionable goals whose achievement can be

monitored”(Carboni et al., 2019, p. 15). Such networks are

regarded as a means of solving the “wicked problems”that

characterize service delivery in local authorities.

While public administration scholars have demonstrated a

relationship between the extent to which network leaders use

specific leadership behaviors to govern the network and its

effectiveness, it remains unclear why this relationship

occurs (Kenis & Provan, 2009; Provan & Kenis, 2008;

1

Department of Political Science, The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College,

Jezreel Valley of Israel

2

Division of Public Administration & Policy, School of Political Science,

University of Haifa

Corresponding Author:

Anna Uster, PhD, Department of Political Science, The Max Stern Yezreel

Valley College, Jezreel Valley of Israel.

Email: annau@yvc.ac.il

Article

American Review of Public Administration

2022, Vol. 52(4) 298–316

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740221084336

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Russell et al., 2015). Furthermore, given that not all studies

found such a relationship between network leadership

behaviors and effectiveness (O’Toole, 2015), it is impor-

tant to identify and test the conditions under which such

a relationship does occur. Such conditions are likely to

regard the specific context in which the network functions

(Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012; Romzek et al.,

2014), since a network-leadership behavior that is effec-

tive in one context might not be effective in another,

even if the networks have a similar purpose (Isett,

Mergel, LeRoux, Mischen & Rethemeyer, 2011).

Accordingly, our goal is to answer the question of why

and when different leadership behaviors influence the

effectiveness of lead organization-governed purpose-

oriented networks. To begin answering this question, we

focus on two specific contextual characteristics, that is,

the socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnicity of the local

authority in which the network operates. This focus

aligns with the recent literature on network governance,

which underscores the fact that variations in such context

characteristics affect policy processes, including the effec-

tiveness of service provision (Emerson, Nabatchi, &

Balogh, 2012; Osborne et al., 2013).

The study draws on Provan and Milward’s (1995) model of

interorganizational network effectiveness, which emphasizes

the importance of the network’s structure and context when

explaining its effectiveness. It also relies on Sørenson and

Torfing’s (2009) framework of democratic network governance,

which maintains that the use of four meta-governance tools, by

leaders, can enhance network effectiveness: network design,

network framing, network management, and network participa-

tion. These tools translate into leadership behaviors which

include deciding on the network’s composition, setting goals

and implementing procedures to achieve these goals, resolving

conflicts between the network actors, and providing them with

the needed resources.

This study`s main contribution addresses the theory of

network effectiveness in the context of local governance.

We emphasize the importance of social-cultural and polit-

ical factors in the local arena, demonstrating that network

leadership behaviors are related to network effectiveness

only under certain conditions. This is especially important

since when considering such cultural diversity contingen-

cies as minorities and political factors, previous research

has been inconclusive (Pollitt, 2013). From a practical

perspective, as more and more local services are provided

through interorganizational networks, in which the

government must operate in horizontal and collaborative

structures while simultaneously being accountable for

the satisfactory provision of public services (Menachem

& Stein, 2013), it is important for network leaders to be

aware of the most appropriate leadership behaviors that

are likely to enhance effectiveness.

To answer the research question presented above, we

examined 68 purpose-oriented networks that are part of a

national program aimed at improving the lives of young

people at risk in Israel. Purpose-oriented networks usually

include local authority representatives, local nonprofit orga-

nizations, private companies, and the citizenry. The idea

behind such networks is that by combining the different

actors’capabilities, skills, and resources, the network’s out-

comes are improved (Prahalad & Krishnan, 2008). In this

purpose-oriented network one lead organization, the local

authority, coordinates activities and decisions, and also

selects the other network partners (Provan & Kenis, 2008).

The program is conducted under the auspices of the

Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services and in collab-

oration with five other government agencies. The local

authority is the lead organization that integrates and

manages all collaborations. It is responsible for designing

the networks, while the Ministry of Social Affairs and the

other government agencies are responsible for the formula-

tion of the strategic policy. This policy requires all munic-

ipalities to convene round tables where the local

representatives are key actors in shaping and implement-

ing the program. In each network, we examined the out-

comes of the network in terms of improvement in the

average risk level of the children in the program. In addi-

tion, each network member assessed the frequency of the

lead organization, that is, the local authority, used specific

network leadership behaviors and reported regarding the

network’s structure. As for the leadership behaviors, we

focused on frequency, that is, the intensity and consis-

tency, with which local network leaders used a selected

set of leadership practices, as we were interested in exam-

ining the extent to which the lead organization uses the dif-

ferent leadership behaviors and not simply whether it is

capable of such use (Cepiku & Mastrodascio, 2021;

Leithwood, 2019; Leithwood & Azah, 2016; McGuire &

Silvia, 2009; Silvia & McGuire, 2010).

The Research Context: Local Governance in Israel

Israel is a unitary state. Traditionally, the central government

has taken a centralist and conservative approach toward local

authorities. As such, the power and strategic authority given

to local authorities are not aligned with the level of responsi-

bility it has toward the public.

The local government system in Israel is comprised of 257

local authorities. Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics classi-

fies these local authorities into 10 clusters based on their res-

idents’socioeconomic level, ranked from 1 (lowest) to 10

(highest). The criteria for the clustering are based on

various measures including the residents’standard of

living, need for governmental grants, level of education,

employment, unemployment, and percentage of pensioners

and new immigrants. Municipalities with a low socioeco-

nomic score are subject to more interventions from the

national government. Indeed, in such municipalities,

Uster et al. 299