Three interpersonal processes that support the
creation of a network with the intention of
co-exploration.
Investigating the role of relational embeddedness, shared vision and a
network identity
.
Master thesis Entrepreneurship & Innovation. Business Administration. University of Amsterdam By Daan van Diepen (10168974)
Supervisor: dr. Wietze van der Aa.
Statement of originality
This document is written by Daan van Diepen who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text
and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources
other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been
used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is
responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not
Abstract.
In this paper we investigated the research question: which interpersonal processes can strengthen the creation of a new network with the intention of co-exploration? Co-exploration can result into radical innovations and firm growth, but it is also a tricky-one (Birkinshaw et al., 2007). Multiple barriers for cooperation like a high degree of uncertainty about the outcome of the network have to be taking care of. In this research we analysed three interpersonal variables that can help overcome the barriers associated with co-exploration. These variables are a network identity, relational embeddedness and a shared vision. By analysing the case of the NGO Commonland, which was in the middle of the creation of a new network, we tested the proposed theoretical model. Results of the online survey indicated that these three variables significantly contributed to co-exploration. Inter-organizational trust and knowledge sharing were mediators that explained the relation between network identity and co-exploration. Results from semi-structured interviews support the results from the online survey but also show that the three variables should focus even better on co-exploration. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION. ... 5
2.THEORETICAL BACKGROUND. ... 8
2.1 Co-exploration discussed. ... 8
2.2 Social Capital to stimulate Co-exploration ... 10
3.0THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 15
3.1 A network identity. ... 15
3.2 Relational embeddedness ... 16
3.3 A Shared Vision. ... 17
3.4 Knowledge sharing & Inter-organizational Trust ... 17
3.5 Trust, Knowledge and Co-exploration ... 18
4.0METHOD ... 20
4.1 Research context ... 20
4.2 Design and participants. ... 21
4.3 Unit of Analysis ... 22
4.4 Quantitative research. Online survey. ... 23
4.5 Qualitative research. Semi-structured interviews. ... 24
4.6 Process ... 25
5.0 RESULTS ... 26
5.1 Results Online Survey ... 26
5.2 Results of the semi-structured interviews. ... 32
5.2.1 Building trust through relational embeddedness. ... 32
5.2.2 Creating empowerment using a network identity. ... 34
5.2.3. An shared challenge instead of a shared vision. ... 36
5.2.4. Speak the same language. The role of knowledge sharing. ... 37
5.2.5. Tension between co-exploration and co-exploitation. ... 38
6.0 DISCUSSION &CONCLUSION ... 41
6.1 Conclusion & Discussion ... 41
6.2 Limitations of the research. ... 45
6.3 Managerial implications. ... 46
7.0 WRAP UP ... 47
REFERENCES ... 49
APPENDIX A.SURVEY (DUTCH) ... 55
APPENDIX B.SEMI-STRUCTRED INTERVIEW (DUTCH) ... 57
APPENDIX C.LIST OF INTERVIEWEES. ... 59
APPENDIX D.MINDMAP INTERVIEWS. ... 60
“How to convince a farmer to
work with insects instead of cows?”
1. INTRODUCTION.
“The ties that bind may become the ties that blind (Cohen & Prusak, 2001), or as Birkinshaw et al. (2007, p. 67) says: “the strength of an existing web of
relationships is itself a fundamental obstacle to change”. The message behind these
statements is that if your organisation wants to innovate, it should start to find and work with new people or organisations (Birkinshaw et al., 2007). Starting to collaborate with new parties can offer your organisation new insights, resources and capabilities (Laursen & Salter, 2006). When parties start collaborating to learn and innovate, this is called co-exploration. Co-exploration is “a cooperative relationship
between players to create new knowledge, tasks, functions or activities. Its focus is on new knowledge and its main function is learning and innovation” (Parmigiani &
Rivera-Santos, 2011, p 1122).
When multiple organisations decide to co-explore, it can contribute to realizing growth in sectors where market mechanisms aren’t able to realise innovation performance (Asheim & Isaksen, 2002; Leven et al., 2013).
Firms are struggling to form new collaborations for co-exploration due to different barriers (Birkinshaw, et al., 2007). These barriers can be geographical, technological, institutional, ideological, demographic or ethnic. For example, because of the different backgrounds, organisations got their own way of working and framework they use to make sense of the world around them (Knoben & Oerlemans, 2006; Nooteboom, Van Haverbeke, Duysters, Gilsing, & Van den Oord, 2007). These differences make it difficult to start working together. People struggle to understand how other organizations can benefit from each other, struggle with cultural differences and need time to understand the language of another organization (Birkinshaw et al., 2007).
In this paper we look at the case of the NGO Commonland. Commonland is setting up a new network of farmers, water boards, investors, companies and government institutions to develop new business models for farmers. Networks are goal-directed and are the existence of multiple, intertwined partners with a many-to-many structure (Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011, p1119). By using the diverse set of skills and capabilities within the network, Commonland hopes to restore the degraded landscape around Amsterdam. Commonland is dealing with the same kind of challenges building the network as mentioned earlier. First of all, because of the
different backgrounds of the organisations, it is difficult to create a common language. Commonland state it takes time and effort before organisations understand each other. Next to that, because the outcome of the network is unclear, it is hard to convince every party to contribute their resources for the network. Last, because the initiative was subsidised by the government, there was also a time issue, because within a year the first initiatives of the network had to become clear. For instance, directions of the new network had to be reported to the government within one year.
Birkinshaw et al. (2007) state that finding, forming and performing are three important steps of building new networks for co-exploration. Finding refers to the fact how easy it is to find new, attractive organisations for the network. Forming refers to how likely it is, a party is willing to cooperate with the network initiator. Performing refers to when the relationship is build, if the relation can be converted into high performing partnership. Within this research, we focus mainly on forming a network. As stated by Birkinshaw et al (2007, p. 69) “many other researchers have examined
the roles of networks in building an innovation system, but their focus has typically been on building and maintaining an existing network rather than on the challenge of creating a new set of relationships that might complement or even supplant the existing ones”.
Most of the research until now has been focused on why organizations form new networks for co-exploration (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011; Schepker, Oh, Martynov & Poppo, 2014). Transaction cost economics (TCE), the resource-based view (RBV) and organisational theory all describe why firms participate in inter-organizational relationships. Other researchers have focused on how current networks can be managed (Levén, Holmström & Mathiassen, 2014; Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa & Bagherzadeh, 2014; Kaupilla, 2015). There is only limited research on how completely new networks are created (Birkinshaw et al., 2007). Earlier research shows that for forming inter-organisational relationships with the intention of co-exploration, human and interpersonal processes are important (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011; Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006; Chen et al., 2014). Until now there has been limited empirical research that test if and how these interpersonal processes can support the creation of a completely new network as well. This is important because bringing new people together in a network setting with co-exploration as outcome,
can lead to the creation of new knowledge or innovative outcomes (Asheim & Isaksen, 2002; Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Leven et al., 2013).
The challenges of the case of Commonland, and the limited research about the creation of completely new networks that enable co-exploration were the initial starting points for this research. This resulted in the following research question:
Which interpersonal processes can strengthen the creation of a new network with the intention of co-exploration?
First, by finding answers for this question we hoped to support Commonland with their challenges associated with the creation of the new network. Second, we contribute with this research to the field of inter-organisational relationships (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011) and network creation (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006). In the following sections we look at the theoretical foundation for the factors that can possible strengthen the creation of a new network. Next, we describe our research method within Commonland. Then we present our results and discuss implications of these results. We end this paper with implications for further research and practical implications.
2.THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.
2.1 Co-exploration discussed.
No organization can survive on it’s own. But why do organizations form new relationships with other organizations? The past decades multiple theories have been developed to describe the reasons organizations do not operate in a vacuum. An important research stream, organization theory, states that “organizations partner with
others to more effectively accomplish tasks and to reinforce inter-organizational and interpersonal relationships” (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011, p 1114). Because
organizations have developed such interpersonal relationships they gain important allies (Hillman, Withers & Collins, 2009), they improve their status or legitimacy (Laplume, Sonpar & Litz, 2008) or they improve their access to important social capital (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). Social capital is seen as the importance and quality of an interpersonal relationship. The stronger and more relationships an organization has, the more access it will have to knowledge (Chen et al., 2014) and other important resources (Borgatti & Foster, 2003).
Organizations build relationships in different kind of forms. Lead user groups, cross-industry alliances, networks, supplier networks, open innovation networks or communities of practice, for example (Birkinshaw et al., 2007). The definitions about each form are vague and scholars aren’t consistent in which form and definition they use. What is more important is that not the type of the formation but the intention of the formation is the most important (Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011). Each organizational formation will always combine elements of exploration and co-exploitation. Co-exploration is “a cooperative relationship between players to create
new knowledge, tasks, functions or activities. Its focus is on new knowledge and its main function is learning and innovation”. Co-exploitation is defined as “a strategically important, cooperative relationship to execute existing knowledge with expansion as the main activity” (both citations from Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos,
2011, p 1122). Sometimes an organizational formation will focus mainly on co-exploration whereas sometimes co-exploitation will be the main intention of the inter-organizational relationship.
The aim of the network that is described and analysed in this paper, is to explore new opportunities and business models for farmers. We state that in this case we look at the formation of a network with the main intention of co-exploration.
Organizations choose the intention of co-exploration for a formation for different reasons. Organisations choose co-exploration because they ‘gain legitimacy in an
environment characterized by new or underdeveloped institutions’ (Parmigiani and
Rivera-Santos, 2011, p 1126). An organization joins the network for co-exploration because it wants to develop a better reputation (Laplume, Sonpar & Litz, 2008), or an organization joins the network to exchange knowledge because it wants to learn and innovate (Chen et al., 2014; Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011).
Based on this “co-exploration intention” of the network, a specific approach for successful developing the network is necessary. Co-exploration is associated with a lot of uncertainty (Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011). When parties choose to learn and innovate, the outcomes of that innovation at the beginning of the new network are unclear. People don’t want to take the risk to put their effort in a project without knowing if it will succeed or not (Grassmann et al., 2010). To deal with this uncertainty, organisations have to trust each other that every network participant will be committed to the network for a longer period of time (Birkinshaw et al, 2007; Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos (2011) state that because of this uncertainty, intangible, human-specific assets will likely be more relevant for forming networks that emphasize exploration than networks that emphasize co-exploitation.
In figure 1 the most distinctive traits of co-exploration and co-exploitation are presented. It gives a good overview of the differences between the two intentions that are relevant for inter-organizational formations.
Figure 1. The differences between co-exploration and co-exploitation
(Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011)
2.2 Social Capital to stimulate Co-exploration
The work of Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos (2011) and Dhanaraj & Parkhe, (2006) offers a good first insight in the importance of the interpersonal processes that can help organizations to create a new network that enables for co-exploration. But their work was mainly based on literature reviews and missed empirical evidence. In a case study, a network innovation project in Northern Sweden by Leven et al. (2013), the theoretical foundation of both articles was empirical tested. The main conclusion of this case study was that managing the challenges associated with creating new networks depends on the fact if managers were able to “successfully increase the social and relational capital of the network” (p. 164). These conclusions were based on interviews and observations. Therefore the causality of their conclusion is negotiable. But, their results are in line with previous research (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006)
The social capital theory is often used to explain the importance of human relationships for building inter-organisational formations (Yang & Farn, 2009; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Chen et al., 2014). In the work of Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) social capital is divided in three dimensions: structural social capital, relational social capital and cognitive social capital. Structural social capital is seen as the extent to which actors in a social network are connected. In practice this means, who knows who? Relational social capital is the asset or ‘goodwill’ that is achieved by the relations an actor has built. In practice this means, what knowledge or resources can I achieve because I have build an on-going relationship with someone else? Cognitive social capital is especially important for building networks for co-exploration. Cognitive social capital is seen as the shared language that is created by actors in a network. Because of that shared language that is created, knowledge sharing and learning between organisations becomes easier (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). Social capital is especially important during the creation of a new network because it can positively stimulate inter-organizational trust and knowledge sharing (Chen et al., 2014; Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). These are two factors that play an important role within network creation (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006) and for co-exploration (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos (2011).
First, the goal of co-exploration is to share knowledge between multiple parties to be able to innovate (Asheim et al., 2007). Namely, we see knowledge sharing as an “interactive process through which organisations accumulate and
develop new knowledge” (Chen et al., 2014, p 571) and “the ease with which knowledge is shared, acquired and deployed within the network” (Dhanaraj and
Parkhe, 2006, p. 660). Next, knowledge sharing can reduce the amount of uncertainty that is associated with the network (Enkel & Gassman, 2010). So, knowledge sharing between organisations in the network needs to be stimulated. Second, because of the high amount of uncertainty associated with co-exploration, trust between parties is necessary to establish long-term commitment for the network (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Delbufalo, 2012). Therefore inter-organizational trust between both organisations is necessary for creating a network with co-exploration as intention. Inter-organizational trust is not a form of behaviour (for example collaboration) or a choice (taking risk) but we see inter-organizational trust as the underlying psychological mechanism that can cause such behaviour or is the result of a collaboration process (MacDuffie,
2011). Inter-organizational trust is seen as the confidence of a participant in the network, that other organizations in the network won’t harm the participant in a negative way.
Still, the question remains how the social capital within a new network is stimulated so that the creation of network becomes easier. The work of Chen et al. (2014) is one of the few researches that did quantitative research in how to stimulate the social capital within an inter-organizational relationship. But within this research, the intention of the inter-organizational relationship was exploitation instead of co-exploration. In figure 2 the theoretical model and the findings based on the work of Chen et al. (2014) is shown. This research showed how raising the social capital of organisations in a supply chain leads to knowledge sharing and more collaboration within the network trough inter-organizational trust. Although this research was conducted using solely questionnaires and was done in a different setting, the foundation of the model is still relevant; this work is also based on the social capital theory and showed how three variables, shared goals, relational embeddedness and an influence strategy positively stimulated inter-organizational trust. Therefore, we see this model as a foundation for raising the social capital within an inter-organizational relationship.
Figure 2. Theoretical model from Chen et al. (2014).
The model of Chen et al. (2014) is based on a co-exploitation setting. As shown before in figure 1, there are some substantive differences between exploration and exploitation. Because within this research we look at a co-exploration setting, we propose four changes into the theoretical model from Chen et al. (2014) based on previous literature regarding barriers (uncertainty and reluctant to
collaborate) for co-exploration (Birkinshaw et al., 2007). This results in a new theoretical model, which is shown in figure 3.
Figure 3. Theoretical model within this research based on Chen et al. (2014).
First of all, we propose that collaboration should be renamed into co-exploration since this research focuses on a different intention of the network namely co-exploration instead of co-exploitation. Within the model of Chen et al. (2014), collaboration was defined based on the definition of Hill et al (2009, p. 188) “interactive and relational behaviours that occur between members of a working
group and that are directed at task achievement”. In this research we use the
definition of Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos (2011, p1112): co-exploration is “a
cooperative relationship between players to create new knowledge, tasks, functions or activities. Its focus is on new knowledge and its main function is learning and innovation”. Within this research, co-exploration is seen as a willingness to cooperate
between organisations. This terminology is chosen because there is no official network yet. Parties’ can only state they are willing to cooperate within a network with the aim of co-exploration. This is in line with the forming definition of Birkinshaw et al. (2007). Forming relates to how willing organisations are to work together with the initiator of the network.
Because the outcome of the model is quite different, the implications for the rest of the model change as well. For instance we propose that for building networks that enable co-exploration, knowledge sharing should be a mediator instead of an
outcome when building a network. By sharing knowledge across different organisations, uncertainty about the new network can be reduced (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). It gives insights how firms can help each other, especially in a co-exploration setting. The more knowledge can be distributed among organisations within the network, the higher the chance organisations can learn and innovate (co-exploration)(Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006; Leven et al., 2013). Therefore we see knowledge sharing as a predictor for co-exploration and not as an outcome of the network itself. We see knowledge sharing as a condition for co-exploration (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011).
Third, we propose that influence strategy is less important in network formation with a co-exploration intention. Within Chen et al. (2014) an influence strategy is seen as a method in which organisations can use their power to motivate people to join a supply chain formation. Within networks that enable co-exploration, there is no clear dominant party that can use his power to convince another organisation to participate within the network (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006). Therefore, we propose that an influence strategy is less relevant when building networks. Instead, we propose the variable network identity to replace influence strategy within the model. A network identity can create a positive group feeling and can increase the social capital of a network (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006; Leven et al., 2013) In the next paragraph we describe in more detail the definition and relations of this variable.
Last, we state that a shared goal should change into a shared vision. Since the setting of Chen et al. (2014) was focused on co-exploitation, the goals and outcomes of the inter-organisational relationship were clear. Within this paper we state that a vision is a better term for the setting of co-exploration. Without a clear outcome of the network, there can only be a vision about what the role of the network should be. A goal is too specific for co-exploration.
3.0THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Until now research is focused mainly on managing a network (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Leven et al., 2013). But, before a network is set-up someone has to create such a new network. By testing this theoretical framework, we contribute to the current literature of how new inter-organizational relationships are created (Birkinshaw et al., 2007). We do this by showing how the three interpersonal variables relational embeddedness, a network identity and a shared vision can stimulate the creation of a new network. We propose that these three variables are especially important, because they deal with the barriers that are associated with setting up new networks as described in (Birkinshaw et al., 2007). Within this paragraph we describe and explain why and how these variables can overcome the mentioned barriers (uncertainty and reluctant to collaborate).
3.1 A network identity.
A network identity can positively influence knowledge mobilization and inter-organizational trust within the network (Björkman, Stahl & Vaara, 2007; Dierdorff, Bell & Belohlav, 2011; Leven et al., 2014). A network identity can be a story, a website or official institution that represents the network. It should include a logo, story and shared values, which have been determined by the network itself (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Drori et al., 2013). A high network identity promotes the social capital of a network (Leven et al., 2013). This can be explained by the social identity theory (Turner, 1982). This theory states that every individual has multiple identities. For instance, someone has the identity of a father, a good football player, an IT-specialist and a member of a good IT organisation. The more important an identity is for you, the more energy you will put into keeping this positive identity. People receive their status and self-worth from their identity (Tuner, 1982; Drori et al., 2013). As soon as their identity is attacked or harmed, for instance, their organization is negatively mentioned in the media, they will try to fix their identity, as long as the identity is important for them. When they are part of a group of people with a high status, they will perceive more status themselves. This is also in line with organizational theory (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011), which states that organisations collaborate with other parties to raise the status of their own organisation.
The more important a network identity is for every organisation, the more they will cooperate (co-explore) within that network (Tyler and Blade, 2001). Organizations are always more likely to work closely with organizations that look like each other (Birkinshaw et al., 2007). This same line of reasoning leads to the fact that we feel safer and trust the partner when it has the same shared identity (Drori et al., 2013). And by sharing information with participants with the same identity we feel that we helping ourselves; by sharing information you help your own group (Turner, 1982; Drori et al., 2013; Bonner et al., 2013). A network identity can also lead to“ a
logic of confidence and good faith” (Meyer and Rowan, 1977, cited from Leven et al.,
2014, p 159). This reduces the uncertainty that about which innovations will turn up and when they will turn up. Therefore we assume that, the better the network identity is perceived by new participants within the network, the higher the chance they will share knowledge between players in the network and the higher the chance they will trust the players within the network.
3.2 Relational embeddedness
“Relational embeddedness…. is a strong social tie that significantly
influences the economic behaviour of the involved parties… Further, relational embeddedness is an informal, strong social relationship developed based on prior exchange experiences” (Chen et al., 2014, p 570). By involving in multiple social
exchange experiences like workshops, meetings or network events, people work on a relation. Because of the multiple meetings, people get to know each other and learn more about the values, goals and background of other organisations. Relational embeddedness increases the cognitive social capital. By sharing the language of their own industry, over time different parties can create an own language (jargon) within the network. This makes it easier for both parties to share knowledge and raises the trust between parties (Chen et al., 2014).
Relational embeddedness creates trust between parties, which lowers the chance they will experience troubles with the barriers associated with co-exploration (uncertainty and reluctant to collaborate, Uzzi & Lancaster, 2003). Next to that, relational embeddedness is associated with a high amount of social capital within the network (Leven et al., 2014). Participants are more likely to “engage in non-opportunistic behaviours” (Chen et al., 2014, p 571). This means organisations are
more likely to take a risk because there is trust within the network people will collaborate together for a longer period of time (Chen et al., 2014; Birkinshaw et al., 2007).
3.3 A Shared Vision.
A shared vision can reduce the high amount of uncertainty of a network, which is associated with co-exploration (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Morgen & Hunt, 1994). We define a shared vision based on the definition of Morgen & Hunt (p.25): “It is the extend to which partners have beliefs in common about what behaviours, goals and policies are important or unimportant, appropriate or inappropriate and right or wrong”. Although different organizations have different ways of working, their same passion for, for example restoring the nature in the Netherlands can be enough to start a collaborative relationship. Even when two parties are reluctant to work together, a shared vision can foster the chances that a participant is convinced to join a new network (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Grassmann et al., 2010; Enkel & Gassmann, 2010). The “higher good” reduces other processes or salient differences between organizations that were barriers for collaboration. Furthermore, in a network there will always be a many-to-many situation and values, goals will never be the same (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). A shared vision can create a common attribute that is attractive to work for (Birkinshaw et al., 2007; Kashyap & Sivadas, 2012). This makes it is less likely others organisations will affect you in a negative way (Schepker et al., 2013). A shared vision is related to a higher level of inter-organizational trust and information sharing (Salas, Sims & Burke, 2005). Information sharing becomes easier because with the same vision in mind, it is easier to find a “common language” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
3.4 Knowledge sharing & Inter-organizational Trust
Knowledge sharing contributes to the what, how and why of the new initiative (Rehm, Goel & Junglas, 2016). Within this framework we define knowledge sharing as “interactive process through which organisations accumulate and develop new knowledge” (Chen et al., 2014, p 571). We use a relatively general definition of knowledge sharing and see knowledge sharing as a first attempt to start co-exploring. By sharing information between organisations, new knowledge can be developed,
which is a core element of co-exploration (Chen et al., 2014). Knowledge sharing helps to make sense of the intention of the new network. It helps to make clear the role of each participant. It helps to know why it is so important to be involved within the network. Knowledge sharing creates trust between stakeholders because uncertainty is reduced (Chen et al., 2014). Information sharing also stimulates trust within a new formation of a network because people know what they can expect from al the different participants (Birkinshaw et al., 2007); the interest of each organisation is known.
But the relationship between knowledge sharing and inter-organizational trust also works the other way around. Because there is inter-organizational trust between participants, they feel free to share sensitive information with each other (Melkonian et al., 2011). Within this theoretical framework we see inter-organizational trust as not taking advantage of vulnerabilities (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). By this we mean that every organisation within the network feels free to do what is necessary for the network without parties taking advantage of this organisation in a negative way. This trust is based on earlier experience with the people from the network (MacDuffie, 2011). We see inter-organisational trust also as a positive attitude about the network and relevant participants. Therefore, we suspect a positive feedback loop between inter-organizational trust and knowledge sharing. Next, we propose that these two variables explain the relation between the three interpersonal factors and co-exploration (see paragraph 2.2).
3.5 Trust, Knowledge and Co-exploration
“Effective B2B interactions depend on the social relationship and trust levels developed between business partners” (Chen et al., 2014, p 569). When the amount of inter-organizational trust and knowledge mobilization is high, positive outcomes for the network are expected (Leven et al., 2014; Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). In this article we state that a positive outcome for the network will be a high amount of willingness to cooperate of each participant within the new network. We expect that participants in the network are only willing to contribute when they suspect their input will not be used against them (Schepker et al., 2014; Melkonian et al., 2011). Therefore, the higher the amounts of inter-organisational trust, the higher the willingness to cooperate within the network.
A high amount of knowledge sharing is just as important for each participant because the important knowledge can give participants a unique recourse in their own market (Asheim et al., 2007). Next to that, knowledge sharing is crucial for creating an innovative environment, which is typical for a network with a co-exploration intention (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006). Therefore, we state that the higher the amount of knowledge sharing within the network, the higher the willingness to cooperate within that network.
4.0METHOD
4.1 Research context
Currently the NGO Commonland has guided multiple successful projects in South-Africa, Australia and southern Spain. Commonland has built a framework that is used to restore degraded landscapes around the world (Four Returns Model, Ferwerda, 2015). The framework is used to create a common language between all the stakeholders that are involved in a specific degraded landscape. In the beginning of 2015, the Ministry of Economic Affairs offered the NGO Commonland a subsidy to use the same framework and method to improve the landscape in the Netherlands. Based on a first scan, the peat meadow around Amsterdam was identified as one of the most degraded landscapes within the Netherlands. Based on this conclusion, Commonland started to identify important stakeholders, which could participating in a new project.
For more than 30 years different government institutions and NGO’s had developed visions and plans to restore the peat meadow around Amsterdam. Until the beginning of 2015 none of those plans and visions had been realized. Most people stated that nothing has happened because too many institutions are interfering in the area. And, too many institutions have different interest. With the approach of Commonland the Ministry of Economic Affairs hoped to change this negative spiral.
Between November 2015 and May 2016 as many organizations as possible were identified and interviewed to understand the complexity of the situation. The goal was to find a group of most important participants to join a co-exploration workshop of two days mid June 2016 (See photo at front page). These were the participants that were the most willing to contribute to new business models for the farmers in the area. Commonland saw this co-exploration workshop as the beginning of a new network that should start changing the situation within the peat meadow around Amsterdam. Commonland had a role as hub orchestrator (Leven et al., 2013). The most important for Commonland was to bring different organisations together and to empower all the organizations to start working together on new solutions. The goal was to slowly step out the network and in the meanwhile motivate multiple organisations themselves to take care for the success of the network and the outcomes. This strategy was an important element of the Four Returns Model (Ferweda, 2015) of Commonland.
The approach of Commonland was seen as a last chance to save the peat meadow around Amsterdam. People hoped that by bringing all the organizations from different industries and backgrounds together, the challenges of the area could be resolved. Next to that, the situation in the Netherlands is very complex because so many people live on such a small piece of land.
4.2 Design and participants.
The design of this research was a single-case study (Eisenhardt, 1989). Also principles of the collaborative practice method applied, because the researcher contributed to building up the network during his internship (Mathiassen, 2002). We used the triangulation method for multiple sources of evidence. Therefore two research methods were used; semi-structured interviews online surveys. By using the results from the online survey, the proposed model was tested using quantitative data analysis. This leads to valuable insights about the directions and relations in the proposed theoretical model. The semi-structured interviews were used to enrich the data from the online survey. Since the theoretical model isn’t tested earlier, the insights from the semi-structured interviews can provide insides about missing variables in the theoretical model. The interviews can also be used to further explain why unexpected results from the online survey occur. Because we use two methods, there will be a lower chance of the well-known common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We can rule out some variance that is explained by method used in this research. The combination of both methods will result in a first valuable insight about the variables that can strengthen the creation of a new network.
In total 52 people participated within the research. There were 33 people who only filled in the online survey, 11 people who filled in the survey and participated in the semi-structured interview and four people who only conducted the semi-structured interview. The online survey was send to organizations and individuals who have had contact with people working for Commonland. These organizations and individuals were selected by the Commonland organization. Commonland selected the people based on what they thought the organizations could contribute to the new network or by the clear individual intrinsic motivation of an organization to contribute. Organizations could contribute to the network by delivering money, knowledge, manpower or political influence. These stakeholders included national banks,
government institutions (national and local), nature organizations, water boards and entrepreneurs. Independent if the participants eventually agreed to attend the co-exploration workshop, an online questionnaire was sent. This was done to represent the sample of Commonland case as good as possible.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders within the network. In total 15 interviews were conducted (See Appendix C). Of those 15 interviews, six of them were with people who had direct experience with building new networks. They had set-up a network themselves or were highly involved in setting up a network for co-exploration. These people were seen as real experts within the field of network formation. In total nine interviews were conducted with people who were highly involved within the new network the NGO Commonland was setting up. These people were participants within the network themselves or were potential participants for the new network. They had experienced the approach of Commonland for creating new networks (Four Returns Model approach, Ferwerda, 2015).
4.3 Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis within this research was the level of the individual. Within the research we look at motivations of organisation to collaborate within a network. But since this motivation to collaborate within networks is based on interpersonal contact and social exchange, this process occur at the level of the individual. Next to that, the size of this research is too small to represent the level of the organization. In the online survey sometimes a single respondent represents an organization with more 5,000 workers. Also the independent variables within this research (network identity, relational embeddedness and shared vision) are answered on the level of the individual.
4.4 Quantitative research. Online survey.
Every potential participant within the research received the same online survey. The survey consisted of 21 questions and it took participants about four minutes on average to fill in the survey. The aim of the online survey was to empirically test the theoretical model proposed in this research. It measured the constructs: shared vision, shared identity, relational embeddedness, knowledge sharing, inter-organizational trust and willingness to cooperate. For each of the items the same answer possibilities were used ranging form I Totally Disagree (1) to I Totally Agree (7). The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. The only demographic variable that was asked within the online survey was: what is the current organization you are working for?
To measure the construct inter-organizational trust the scale of Chen et al. (2014) is used. An example of an item within this scale is “ based on my experience are Commonland and Partners reliable and honest”. In total this scale consisted out of four items. The reliability of the scale within this research was α = .717.
To measure the construct knowledge sharing the scale of Chen et al. (2014) is used. An example of an item within this scale is “my organization works together with Commonland and Partners to learn from each other”. In total this scale consisted out of three items. The reliability of the scale within this research was α = .814.
To measure the construct network identity the scale of Meal and Ashfort (1992) is used. An example of an item within this scale is “The successes of Commonland and Partners are my successes”. In total this scale consisted out of four items. The reliability of the scale within this research was α = .850.
To measure the construct relational embeddedness the scale of Chen et al. (2014) is used. An example of an item within this scale is: “We build a relationship with Commonland and Partners based on trust and commitment”. In total this scale consisted out of four items. The reliability of the scale within this research was α = .776.
To measure the construct shared vision the scale of Chen et al. (2014) is used. An example of an item within this scale is “My organization and Commonland and Partners share the same vision”. In total this scale consisted out of two items. The reliability of the scale within this research was α = .790.
To measure the construct Co-exploration, a two-item scale that measures willingness to cooperate is used made by Melkonian, Monin, en Noorderhaven (2011). A third item is added to measure a more active form of willingness to collaborate. An example of an item within this scale is: “my organization is willing to participate within the network which Commonland and Partners are currently building”. In total this scale consisted out of three items. The reliability of the scale within this research was α = .764. Making a distinction between present or absent at the co-exploration workshop was the second method we operationalized the construct co-exploration. For Commonland, the co-exploration workshop was seen as the start of the new created network. Therefore we state that the first set-up of the network consists out of stakeholders who were attending the workshop.
4.5 Qualitative research. Semi-structured interviews.
The goal of the semi-structured interviews was two-fold. First, it was used to explain and discuss the proposed theoretical framework with relevant experts in the field. Input from the interviews should enrich the data from the online surveys with for example, missing variables within the theoretical framework. Second, the interviews were conducted to improve the relationships with network participants. The semi-structured interviews took one hour per stakeholder on average. The guidelines of the interview can be found in Appendix B. Based if an interviewee was an expert or relevant participant different approaches were used (see 4.2). When interviewing the experts, the topic of the interview was only regarding the theoretical model. When interviewing relevant participants for the network, the first 30 minutes were used to talk about the initiative of Commonland. After that, the core questions about the theoretical model were asked. Interviews were recorded when possible and if the interviewee agreed. One interview was conducted per telephone. One interview was conducted using the videoconference software Skype.
After each interview was conducted a summary of the conversation was made about the most important insights and conclusions of the interview. After all the interviews had been done, the mind mapping technique was used to analyse the results from the interviews. Mind mapping is seen as a useful way to make connections between problems and arguments, and often leads to creative solutions and insights (Kokotovich, 2008). One mind map was made (Appendix D). Within the
mind-map the six variables from the theoretical model were placed. Based on quotations and important insights from each of the interviews, the mind map was filled with concepts and quotes. After that, relationships between the concepts were searched for.
4.6 Process
The researcher was involved within the project from March 2016 till the end of June 2016. Within these months, the researcher did an internship within the NGO Commonland. The researcher was involved in helping to set up the network in collaboration with the colleagues of Commonland. This was done during meetings, workshops and by visiting networking events. During the research, other tasks for the Commonland organization were done as well. During these months the semi-structured interviews were conducted. Because the likelihood of people filling in an online survey is higher after personal contact, the online surveys were sent after an interview or meeting with an organization was conducted. After a week, a friendly reminder was sent by mail. The last online surveys were sent in the beginning of June. The collaboration between the researcher and Commonland ended the first of July 2016.
During a couple of the semi-structured interviews a colleague from Commonland was present. This was done when the relationship between Commonland and the network participant was fragile. When the researcher would share the wrong type of information about the situation regarding the network, this could result in miscommunication between the partners in the network. Next to that, by joining the interview, there was another opportunity for Commonland to inform the network participant about the progress Commonland had made.
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Results Online Survey
In total 55 people started the online survey. From those 55 people, 18 of the surveys had to be excluded from further analysis; participants did not complete the survey and were not usable for further analysis. To check whether the sample represented the participants within the case of the NGO Commonland, a non-response analysis has been conducted. First of all, Commonland approached 77 people from November 2015 till June 2016. In total the data from 37 participants could be used in the analysis. This means that 48.1% of the total 77 people were represented in this analysis. Within this sample, 20 participants (54.1% of the sample) were present at the co-exploration workshop. 17 participants (45.9% of the sample) were absent at the co-exploration workshop. Next, the 40 people who were approached by Commonland but who did not respond regarding the online survey were mostly farmers and entrepreneurs. Most of the time they stated they had no time to fill in the questionnaire. This specific missing group can lead into a non-response bias within the data.
Table 1. Means and descriptives of the sample of the online survey. Present at Workshop (N = 20) Absent at Workshop (N = 17) M SD M SD F p Network identity 4.15 1.35 3.72 .080 1.31 .260 Relational embeddedness 5.34 0.84 4.67 0.75 6.34 .017 Shared vision 5.37 0.95 4.73 0.84 4.53 .040 Knowledge sharing 5.85 0.76 4.88 0.64 17.0 0.00 Inter-organizational trust 4.90 0.90 4.50 0.69 2.43 .128 Co-exploration 5.55 0.85 4.98 0.79 4.38 .044
In Table 1 the most important results form the survey can be seen. There a clear differences between the two groups. The variable relational embeddedness, shared vision, knowledge sharing and co-exploration show higher scores for the group
who are present at the workshop versus the people who were absent at the workshop. This is in line with our assumption that people at the workshop are more motivated to participate in the new network. Next to that, the differences in the scores between the groups are a good indication for the internal validity of this research. They scales are distinctive enough and show results in line with the assumptions. When comparing the scores with earlier research (Chen et al., 2014, Melkonian, Monin, en Noorderhaven (2011), the results show comparable outcomes. We conclude that the data is of sufficient quality for further analysis.
In Table 2 and in Table 3 the correlation matrix and factor analysis can be seen. The correlations between al the variables were relatively high. The factor analysis was able to extract four components with an eigenvalue higher than 1. These components together explained 73.39% of the total shared variance. Coefficients lower .4 are left out the model. The uniqueness of each variable in the theoretical model therefore can be questioned because six components were expected (the questions in table 3 are in Dutch, translating the questions can result in misinterpretations).
Table 2. Correlation matrix including chronbach’s alfa
NI RE SV IOT KM COE NI .85 - - - - - RE .711** .77 - - - - SV .752** .609** .79 - - - IOT .632** .484** .804** .71 - - KM .841** .692** .806** .648** .81 - COE .869** .745** .872** .758** .865** .76 Note. ** = p < .001
Table 3. Rotated Component Matrix. Coefficients lower .4 are left out the model.
Questions in Dutch
1 2 3 4
COE1. Als het initiatief van Commonland en partners invloed op de
werkzaamheden van mijn organisatie heeft, doe wij ons best om deze samenwerking te laten slagen.
.611 .510
COE2. Mijn organisatie is bereid op zich intensief in te zetten voor het
nieuwe netwerk dat Commonland en partners momenteel opzetten.
.583 COE3. Mijn organisatie zoekt graag de samenwerking met
Commonland en partners op.
.547 .566 KM1. Mijn organisatie deelt nieuwe kennis en standpunten met
Commonland en partners
.795 KM2. Mijn organisatie werkt samen met Commonland en partners om
van elkaar te leren.
.622 .498 KM3. Mijn organisatie deelt waardevolle kennis met Commonland en
partners.
.764 IOT1. Gebaseerd op onze ervaringen, Commonland en partners zijn
betrouwbaar en eerlijk
.751 IOT2. Gebaseerd op onze ervaringen, Commonland en partners zijn
betrouwbaar en eerlijk
.751 IOT3. Mijn organisatie gelooft dat Commonland en partners hun
beloften waar zullen maken.
.683 .493 IOT4. Commonland en partners zullen altijd de belangen van mijn
organisatie beschermen.
.553 .487 .422 SV1. Mijn organisatie en Commonland en partners delen dezelfde
visie.
.415 .680
SV2. Mijn organisatie en Commonland en partners zijn enthousiast om
de gezamenlijke visie waar te maken.
.450 .658 .421 RE1. “Samenwerken ondanks de moeilijke uitdagingen in het
veenweide gebied” is een belangrijk uitgangspunt voor onze relatie met Commonland en partners.
.667
RE2. Wij bouwen een relatie met Commonland & Partners gebaseerd
op gezamenlijk vertrouwen en betrokkenheid.
.713 RE3 .Mijn organisatie probeert flexibel te blijven en probeert
Commonland en Partners te steunen wanneer dat mogelijk is.
.400 .707 RE4. Wanneer er onenigheid is in het netwerk van Commonland en
partners, proberen wij de feiten opnieuw te bekijken en een gezamenlijk compromis te sluiten.
.824
NI1. Wanneer iemand Commonland & Partners prijst voelt dit als een
persoonlijk compliment.
.834
NI2. De successen van Commonland & Partners, zijn mijn successen. .711 .535 NI3. Ik ben erg geïnteresseerd over wat andere denken over
Commonland & Partners.
.426 .616 NI4. Ik zou bijna elk type werk accepteren om met Commonland &
Partners te kunnen blijven werken.
Next, the theoretical model is analysed. This is done by performing multiple regression analysis and by using the bootstrapping method of Hayes (2013). First of all using a multiple regression, the additional explained variance by each of the three variables (network identity, shared vision, relational embeddedness) in relation with inter-organizational trust is analysed. The first model, which looked at the relationship between relational embeddedness and inter-organizational trust, was significant,
F(1,36) = 113,78, p < 0.001, R2
= .760, b = .872, t(37) = 10.6, p < .001. When adding the variable shared vision within the model, there is no significant difference in explained variance, ΔR2
= 0.018, F(1,35) = 1.61, p > 0.05, R2
= .770, b = .802, t(37) = 1.27, p > .050. But when adding the variable network identity, there is a significant difference in extra explained variances, ΔR2
= 0.084, F(1,34) = 9.29, p < .01, R2
= .820, b = .206, t(37) = 3.04, p < .01. Although each of the variables are significantly related with inter-organizational trust, both relational embeddedness and network identity seem to be the two most important influencers of inter-organizational trust.
The same method of analysis (multiple regression) is used to analyse the role of the three variables (network identity, shared vision, relational embeddedness) in relation with knowledge mobilization. The first model, which looked at the relationship between network identity and knowledge mobilization was significant,
F(1,35) = 10.68, p < 0.01, R2
= .212, b = .484, t(37) = 3.26, p < .01. When adding the variable shared vision within the model, there was a significant difference in explained variance, ΔR2
= 0.256, F(1,34) = 17.1, p < 0.001, R2
= 460, b = .617, t(37) = 4.13, p < .001. But the relation between network identity and knowledge sharing wasn’t significant anymore. When adding the third variable relational embeddedness within the model, there was another significant difference in extra explained variance, ΔR2
= 0.088, F(1,33) = 6.85, p < 0.05, R2
= 578, b = .228, t(37) = 2.61, p < .05. Within this third model, there was no significant relationship between network identity and knowledge sharing, and also no significant relationship between shared vision and knowledge sharing. Based on this analysis, we concluded that comparing the three variables, relational embeddedness was the most important predictor for knowledge sharing.
Again a multiple regression was used to analyse the role of inter-organizational trust and knowledge mobilization in relation with co-exploration. The first model, which looked at the relationship between knowledge mobilization and
co-exploration, was significant, F(1,35) = 35.7, p < 0.001, R2
= 505, b = .711, t(37) = 5.97, p < .001. In a second model, we added the variable inter-organizational trust, which explained a significant difference in extra explained variance, ΔR2
= 0.137,
F(1,34) = 13.0, p < 0.01, R2
= .643, b = .467, t(37) = 3.65, p < .01. Based on this analysis we conclude that both knowledge mobilization and inter-organizational trust are important predictors for the outcome of co-exploration.
In a following analysis we look at the potential role of inter-organizational trust as a mediator. We used the bootstrapping method of Hayes (2013). Based on this analysis, it showed that inter-organizational trust mediates the relation between network identity and co-exploration. The CI of the bootstrapping method showed values between .222 and .747 with an effect of .412. Using the same method, we found that knowledge mobilization also was a mediator between the relationship of network-identity and co-exploration. The CI of the bootstrapping method showed values between .083 and .419 with an effect of .207. Next, we found that knowledge mobilization is also a mediator between the relationship of shared vision and co-exploration. The CI of the bootstrapping method showed values between .006 and .407 with an effect of .174. Based on this analysis we conclude that both inter-organizational trust and knowledge sharing function as mediator. Inter-inter-organizational trust explains the relation between network identity and co-exploration. Knowledge sharing explains the relation between network identity and co-exploration and it explains the relation between shared vision and co-exploration.
A correlation analysis showed the positive significant relationship between knowledge sharing and inter-organizational trust r = .609, p < 0.001.
We’ve done an explorative analyse to further explore the interpersonal processes during the creation of a network. After using the bootstrapping method of Hayes (2013) it appears that knowledge sharing moderated the relation between network identity and inter-organizational trust, so that when knowledge sharing was high, the relationship between network identity and inter-organizational trust was stronger (see Figure 4). There appears to be a interaction effect between network identity and knowledge sharing, t(33) = 2.26, p < 0.05. The unstandardized line for knowledge sharing was one SD under the average with -.85, the unstandardized line for knowledge sharing around the SD was .00 and the unstandardized line for knowledge sharing one SD above the average was .85.
Figure 4. Knowledge sharing as a moderator in the relationship between network
identity and inter-organizational trust.
5.2 Results of the semi-structured interviews.
Based on 15 interviews the most important insights regarding the theoretical model are summarized in this paragraph. For each variable we discuss the most valuable insight and learning’s.
5.2.1 Building trust through relational embeddedness.
When talking about creating a new network, in every conversation, the role of trust was mentioned. “Building networks is like courtship. You have to build and maintain a relationship”. That trust is something very important for building networks is confirmed again. Answers to the question how to build trust in a many-to-many structure was more interesting. The role of relational embeddedness for building trust within networks became clearer based on the results from the interviews. It is a first important insight based on this second research method.
Building trust is something that takes a lot of time. And when you build a new network, most of the times you have to start from scratch. In multiple conversations over time, organizations (multiple people within a organisation) get to know each other. During the first meetings, social exchange takes place. People learn to understand each other language, and learn what the goal of the network will become. This is really important, especially when the strategic background (different industry) of both organizations is very different. It became clear that when you don’t take enough time for this process, people wont see why they should join a new network with their organization. There will be a lack of trust and no commitment for the network.
“Trust is the licence to operate within a network” – Relevant participant within the
network.
Within the case of Commonland, the fact that is hard to build relationships with a lot of new organizations at the same time became very clear. At the beginning of the network formation there were a lot of colleagues working part-time. All colleagues were talking to multiple organizations. But, all colleagues get the chance
to meet the organizations at different moments. This resulted in the fact people on the other side of the table had to meet new members of Commonland every meeting. Those people heard different kind of stories about the vision of Commonland. And they had to start over again with trusting the other organization when someone new was setting at the table. Also because someone new was joining the same information has to be shared again (introducing each other) which slows down the conversation and process of trust building.
Members of Commonland stated afterwards that this process of getting to know multiple organizations at the same time was a bad move:
“We wanted to do everything at the same time. Everyone wanted to talk to every potential organization for the network. This resulted in the fact that we didn’t knew what everyone was doing in our team while creating the new network. Because our internal organization wasn’t organised, our impression to other organizations wasn’t organised as well. It was not clear what we wanted from them. This resulted in a lost of interest or even trust of some very interesting partners for the network” –
Colleague of the Commonland organization.
We took two important learning’s from this quotation. First of al, the same people have to meet for multiple times before you built enough trust to start collaborating. Only than you learn about the way both organisations think, work and learn. Only than you will find out the real intention of both parties. Second, it is crucial that your message to the other party is clear. When you want to start a network with the aim to co-explore, you have to make sure that your message is that you want to co-explore. When you don’t have a clear message, the other party will have troubles in judging if it wants to collaborate with you in a new network. In a co-exploration setting it is crucial your message is right. You have to show that your intention for building the relation is to build a relation for the long term, and that you want to work on something special that changes the status quo.
Another important insight for building relations was that people need the right skills for building relationships. Take the following example within the case of
Commonland. After a first round of interviews was conducted with farmers in the area, a second round was planned to gather information about the size of the farms and other important numbers. While the first meeting was used to build a relationship with the farmers, the second meeting was used to gather statistical information. Different people compared to the first meeting conducted this second meeting. The farmers were quite surprised, first you wanted to talk about building relationships and in a next meeting you come with different people who want to have al the details about my company?
“We don’t think it was a bad thing to send people to gather information about the farms, it was the mind-set we had, sitting at the table. We should have seen that the farmers were surprised about the change of meeting style. A good reflection moment was needed before we could finish the second round of interviews with the farmers”. - Colleague of the Commonland organization.
This example showed how difficult it is to build relationships. One wrong move and trust between parties can disappear. When you want to build trust, sent someone who is sensitive enough to scan the emotions and intentions of the other party. Second, it should always be the same person.
5.2.2 Creating empowerment because of a network identity.
When building a network that is focused on co-exploration, people need something concrete to hold on until they can see what the advantage of the network will be in the long run. Creating a clear network identity is one way to do this. This can be a website, a business case, a story or another minimal viable product (MVP) (Ries, 2011). At the time of forming the new network, the Amsterdamse Kudde was tested as potential business case. It was a website, which was build as if it was an organization which already existed. In fact it was just a “fake” website to test whether customers were willing to buy such a product (Pay for their meat in advance, for a whole year). Although Commonland made clear it was just a concept and only one possible solution for the challenge within the peat meadow, some participants within
the network were very interested in the concept. This helped to convince participants to join the co-exploration workshop of Commonland.
“During our first meetings, I did not understand what Commonland was trying to do. But when you told me about the Amsterdamse Kudde it was clear right away”. –
Potential participant for the network.
A network identity can also be a business model. Commonland has developed their four returns model (Ferwerda, 2015). The outcomes of this potential business model are shown in a documentary of 50 minutes. Although this framework has no desired solution, it shows a clear story in how to restore nature within a timeframe of 20 years. The main idea is developing new business models with farmers. The documentary clearly shows the effects about when using this model. You see a piece of land in the south of Africa. Before, the land was dead and brown. After, the land was green and alive. How it happened did not matter. It was the effect of seeing things becoming alive again what convinced people to start working differently. Making something really visible helps to convince parties to start with co-exploration, even tough a lot of things about the network are unclear.
Before we knew how we were going to restore the land in the south of Spain, we had founded a co-operation. Within the co-operation there were only people who had to do the work for restoring the land. We as Commonland only facilitated that process. Because they owned that cooperation, they felt ownership for the process they were going to start. They were proud to be part of that co-operation – Colleague of
Commonland in Spain.
When talking about a similar process in Spain, the stakeholder mobilizer explained his way of forming a network identity. By creating a co-operation, including a name and logo, people started to feel ownership for that name. It created
