Managing Collaborative Effort: How Simmelian Ties Advance Public Sector Networks

• Author: Robin H. Lemaire,Keith G. Provan
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017700722
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017700722

American Review of Public Administration

2018, Vol. 48(5) 379 –394

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0275074017700722

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

A core assumption in practice and in much of the public man-

agement literature over the past two decades has been that

addressing “wicked” problems requires a multiorganiza-

tional strategy (Kettl, 2008; O’Toole, 1997, 2015). As a con-

sequence, interorganizational networks have played an

increasingly important role in the delivery of public and pub-

licly funded services. Publicly funded, goal-oriented net-

works are the building blocks of many government programs

in the 21st century. Provan, Fish, and Sydow (2007) charac-

terized these types of goal-oriented interorganizational net-

works as “whole networks” and defined them as “a group of

three or more organizations connected in ways that facilitate

achievement of a common goal” (p. 482).

Early research offered evidence that whole networks have

positive effects (see, for example, Lehman, Postrado, Roth,

McNary, & Goldman, 1994; Provan & Milward, 1995), but it

has also been demonstrated that collaboration among organiza-

tions is not easy and often results in its own set of problems

(Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Though the study of whole net-

works is becoming more prevalent (Isett, Mergel, LeRoux,

Mischen, & Rethemeyer, 2011; O’Toole, 2015), there is still a

great deal we do not know about how to achieve the collabora-

tive advantage assumed from the formal, goal-directed network

approach. How leaders can effectively align multiple players

across messy boundaries of action has been an enduring ques-

tion in research and practice for the past decade (Kettl, 2008).

To achieve the collective action inherent in making a

whole network approach work, securing effort from various

organizations, often with different organizational goals and

technologies, is essential. A distinguishing characteristic of

the “whole network” is the pursuit of the common goal;

unlike “serendipitous” networks, goal-directed networks are

intended to build coordination around a specific common

purpose (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003). The common purpose around

which the autonomous organizations are deliberately orga-

nizing themselves is one that is difficult for any one organi-

zation to achieve on its own, such as serious mental illness

(Provan & Milward, 1995), unemployment and workforce

development (Herranz, 2008), emergency response

(Moynihan, 2009), and social change (Saz-Carranza &

Ospina, 2011). Thus, the collective action inherent in goal-

directed whole networks is reliant on member organizations

contributing effort toward the network goal and not just their

own organizational goal.

700722ARPXXX10.1177/0275074017700722American Review of Public AdministrationLemaire and Provan

research-article2017

1Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA

2The University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

†Deceased

Corresponding Author:

Robin H. Lemaire, Center for Public Administration & Policy, Virginia

Tech, 104 Draper Road, SW (0520) Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA.

Email: rlemaire@vt.edu

Managing Collaborative Effort:

How Simmelian Ties Advance

Public Sector Networks

Robin H. Lemaire1 and Keith G. Provan2†

Abstract

The research reported here is a structural analysis of the significance of ties to network leaders in securing the essential

effort necessary to whole, goal-directed network functioning. Drawing on the work of Chester Barnard, we focus on one

of Barnard’s three functions of the executive, securing essential effort and then examine the importance of certain network

ties for securing effort in a goal-directed network. We specifically focus on Simmelian or mutual third-party ties to network

leaders and the conditions under which those Simmelian ties are of greater significance for securing effort. Our study examines

the Southern Alberta Child and Youth Network (SACYHN), a multisector publicly funded network that worked to facilitate

interorganizational connections to improve child and youth health and well-being. Data were collected via an organizational

questionnaire and elite interviews and were analyzed using Multiple Regression Quadratic Assignment Procedure (MRQAP).

Implications are discussed for network management and leadership, for both theory and practice, focusing especially on the

role of ties to network leaders in facilitating connections among member organizations working in different domains.

Keywords

network management, goal-directed ‘whole’ networks, securing effort, network analysis

380 American Review of Public Administration 48(5)

Securing effort in a network setting is complex, however,

because of the voluntary nature of most of network work.

There are very few direct incentives for an autonomous

organization to contribute to a voluntary network and few

direct penalties if it chooses not to. Even if an organization

wishes to contribute to action, actually doing so may not be

so simple since any contribution to network action by a net-

work member is often in addition to organizational demands.

In addition, the incentive to move forward with network

action may not always be ongoing, even if network mem-

bers are committed to the network, because the directions of

the collective may not always be where the members are

most committed.

This article is, therefore, an examination of the securing of

effort that is essential to achieving whole network goals and

the role that ties to network leaders may play in securing

effort. Using the categorization of leaders proposed by

Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006), we categorize network

leaders for the aim of this article as those formal and informal

champions who acted as individuals but who were affiliated

with a network member organization. Focusing specifically

on securing essential network effort, we examine whether and

when ties to network champions make a difference in secur-

ing effort from organizational members in a public goal-

directed network. Thus, our research is guided by two research

questions. First, are ties to network champions important in

securing effort from network members? And second, under

what conditions are their importance greatest?

To address these research questions, we examine the case

of the Southern Alberta Child and Youth Health Network

(SACYHN). SACYHN was a large, publicly funded goal-

directed network with a mission to improve child and youth

health and well-being. Understanding how a large, formal,

goal-directed network like SACYHN functioned is impor-

tant given the contemporary role of similar networks in a

variety of areas including health, human services, and disas-

ter management. We specifically analyze the underlying

structural patterns and the quality of the dyadic and triadic

relationships that comprise the whole network to propose

that certain types of relationship structures, such as

Simmelian ties to network champions, are important to

securing effort in voluntary, heterogeneous goal-directed

networks. A whole network is an aggregate of the dyadic

connections among member organizations. Examining the

dyadic and triadic structure underlying the network and how

ties to network champions fit into that structure is important

to understanding the tools available to achieve collaborative

advantage in a multiorganizational whole network context.

Securing Essential Effort in

Goal-Directed Networks

Leadership and management of goal-directed whole net-

works are important areas of study, as collaboration is not

easy and collaborative inertia is a major challenge

to overcome (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Overcoming the

frustrations of collaboration among organizations, though,

may not be completely different from overcoming challenges

to cooperation in organizations. After all, organizations are

entities of cooperative action and the role of management is

to overcome the challenges to cooperation (Barnard, 1938).

Thus, we believe that a consideration of the early ideas of

Barnard at the intraorganizational level has considerable

value for understanding interorganizational network func-

tioning more thoroughly.

One major reason we know comparatively little about

managing a network versus managing an organization is

because the mechanisms for managing in organizational set-

tings conflict with what defines a network, as for instance

hierarchy and the idea of networks as horizontal structures.

Though we have learned that networks do have some ele-

ments of hierarchy or other formal control elements found in

organizations (McGuire & Agranoff, 2011; Moynihan,

2009), networks as a unique form of organization are gov-

erned and managed in a different way (Provan & Kenis,

2008). For example, Agranoff (2006) argues that in networks

the principles of “soft guidance,” such as trust, common pur-

pose, mutual dependency, and leadership, function as

replacements for command and control. The idea that these

soft guidance principles function as replacements for com-

mand and control suggest that the aims of the mechanisms

are the same. Though the same mechanisms for the manage-

ment of an organization are not necessarily found in a net-

work, such as hierarchy or formal means of accountability,

these are only tools to achieve an end, which is overcoming

challenges to collective action. Overcoming these challenges

is a fundamental issue in networks, just as in organizations.

In this article, we will examine closely Barnard’s (1938)

executive function of securing effort, which we assess in

terms of network member relationship quality and strength.

Barnard (1938) defined the function of securing the essential

efforts as the work necessary to first bring persons into coop-

erative relationships with the organization and second, to

elicit services from that person. Barnard’s definition of

securing effort as a primary management task is consistent

with the activities proposed in the two dominant network

management frameworks. Of the four proposed network

manager activities by Agranoff and McGuire (2001), three of

these activities relate to securing essential effort as defined

by Barnard. Activating involves identifying network partici-

pants and tapping the resources those participants can bring

to the network, mobilizing is about securing commitment,

and synthesizing is working to make favorable conditions to

increase and improve the productivity of interactions among

network participants. Similarly, game management accord-

ing to Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan (1997) involves net-

work activation, arranging interaction, brokerage, facilitating

interaction, mediation, and arbitration.

While securing essential effort in a network setting

entails many components, we examine one aspect that is