Critical leadership tasks in a mature network:
The case of the Netherlands Water Partnership.
Bart Overgoor
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc BA Strategic Innovation Management
June 2015
Supervisor: R. A. van der Eijk Co-assessor: dr. J. D. van der Bij
Zonnelaan 337 9742 BJ, Groningen b.l.overgoor@student.rug.nl Student Number: s2028093
Abstract
In current literature a wide variety of leadership tasks for networks can be distinguished. However, literature explaining how important these tasks actually are is scarce. In addition, because networks are said to change over time, it is expected that the importance of leadership tasks will change as well. This has not been confirmed by research. This study will try to address these gaps by discovering the important leadership tasks for a mature network governed by a Network Administrative Organisation (NAO). By performing interviews and distributing a questionnaire at a Dutch NAO, this study found that the most important leadership tasks in a mature network governed by an NAO were to create a shared vision and a shared purpose, and to achieve cooperation between network participants. Furthermore, results show that as the network matures, mobilising becomes an increasingly important activity for the network leader. The results were then compared with contemporary literature and six propositions were developed to represent the main findings of this study. These should be confirmed in future research.
Key words: Inter-organisational network, NAO, leadership tasks
Acknowledgements
Executive summary
Inter-organizational networks are said to be the solution to complex problems that no single organisation can solve on their own. By combining the skills and resources of organisations, networks can tackle these problems in an effective manner. However, when organisations come together, they also bring their own interests, which might differ from the other organisations or from the interests of the network as a whole. Therefore, a person or organisation needs to take the lead and govern the activities of the network to make sure network goals can be achieved. To do so, the network leader makes use of leadership tasks. In some networks, an organisation is established specifically for that purpose. Such an organisation is a called a Network Administrative Organisation (NAO).
Current literature has managed to distinguish between the different leadership tasks that these organisations engage in. However, a major shortcoming is that literature delineating which of these tasks are actually the most important is scarce. Furthermore, because these networks are said to change as they mature, it is expected that the importance of specific tasks change as well. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to discover which of these leadership tasks are regarded as the most important for a mature network governed by an NAO. These results can then be compared with literature concerning other stages in the life of an NAO.
In the introduction of this paper, the research setting will be presented as well as the research questions and the significance of this study. Then the relevant literature regarding this topic will be discussed. It is in this section that the recognized leadership tasks, which are scattered among a multitude of articles, will be combined into a comprehensive list. The research was performed at a Dutch NAO, where several interviews were performed and a questionnaire was distributed. In addition to a contextual and descriptive analysis, nonparametric tests were performed to process the collected data.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 5
1.1. Research Setting ... 6
1.2. Significance of the Study ... 7
1.3. Research Question ... 7
1.4. Scope and Domain ... 7
1.5. Structure of Thesis ... 8 1.6. Summary ... 8 2. Literature Review ... 9 2.1. Inter-organisational network ... 9 2.2. Leadership ... 11 2.3. Summary ... 13 3. Methodology ... 15 3.1. Research Strategy ... 15 3.2. Sample ... 16 3.3. Data Collection ... 17 3.4. Data Analysis ... 17 3.5. Quality criteria ... 18 3.6. Summary ... 19 4. Results ... 19
4.1. Network life cycle ... 20
4.2. Interview data matrix ... 20
4.3. Contextual analysis ... 25 4.4. Questionnaire ... 28 4.5. Summary ... 32 5. Discussion ... 33 5.1. Summary ... 38 6. Conclusion ... 38 7. Bibliography ... 41 8. Appendix ... 45
8.1. Appendix A: Leadership tasks ... 45
8.2. Appendix B: Interview Guide ... 46
1. Introduction
Networks are said to follow the logic of a biological life cycle (D'Aunno & Zuckerman, 1987). Although not much is known about the natural life cycle of a network, Popp et al. (2014) describe four stages of network evolution that apply to those networks that are deliberately formed: 1) formation, 2) development and growth, 3) maturity, sustainability, and resilience, and 4) death and transformation. The network undergoes considerable changes as it moves through time. Consequently, network leaders are responsible for guiding the network through these life cycle stages and, therefore, they need to adapt their way of operating. This could include the leadership tasks they perform.
In their article, Popp et al. (2014) hint at the idea that the tasks network leaders perform to govern the network differ depending on the stage in which the network resides. However, this has not been confirmed by current literature. Research on leadership in network settings is scarce, and the wrong assumption that networks, pooled, rather than hierarchical authority systems, are “leaderless” has made it a neglected research topic (Cepiku, Mussari, Poggesi, & Reichard, 2014). Therefore, the goal of this study is to contribute to the current understanding of network leadership by investigating how the stage in the life cycle of an NAO influences the importance of specific leadership tasks. Specifically, the leadership tasks that are critical for an NAO in the mature stage of the life cycle.
1.1. Research Setting
1.2. Significance of the Study
From a practical perspective this paper adds value by identifying the most important leadership tasks for a mature network governed by an NAO. These can then be consulted and utilized by other network leaders to adjust their focus to more accurately govern their network. Furthermore, from the results it can also be seen which leadership tasks are the least important, and which tasks network leaders should avoid.
From a theoretical perspective this paper adds value by filling an existing gap in network leadership literature. Furthermore, it continues on the work of Hoflund (2012), who investigated the critical leadership tasks necessary during the formative stages of a network. By adding the findings of this study regarding the mature stage in a network’s life cycle, it can be seen that the tasks vary depending on the stage of the life cycle a network is in.
This research is important to those academics in the field of network leadership and to those people who are currently involved in the governance of a network. Current research can only tell us which leadership tasks exist in general. Therefore, the most significant benefits from this study will be a first insight into what leadership tasks are actually the most important and how these tasks change depending on the network life cycle.
1.3. Research Question
The goal of this study is to discover how the stage of the network life cycle influences the importance of specific leadership tasks for an NAO. Therefore, the research question this study aims to answer is as follows:
How does the importance of specific leadership tasks change as a network governed by an NAO matures?
To help guide the research on the main question several sub-questions have been developed:
1) What are leadership tasks for networks?
2) In what stage of the network life cycle is the NWP? 3) Which leadership tasks are seen as critical in the NWP?
4) Which leadership tasks are seen as the least important in the NWP?
1.4. Scope and Domain
Furthermore, the research will take place at a Dutch NAO. Therefore, the scope of this research will be limited to the Netherlands and cultural differences will not be taken into account.
Finally, data will be collected from the employees of the NWP-bureau and the networkers. Networkers are not employed by the NWP-bureau, but are contractors who work for the NWP-bureau on an occasional basis. The networkers provide support to the activities of the NWP-bureau in specific countries or in specific programs. Consequently, the members of the network will not be taken into account during this research.
1.5. Structure of Thesis
This paper will be structured as follows. In section 2, I will present the literature review by analysing contemporary literature regarding inter-organisational networks and leadership. Section 3 explains the methodology and provides justification for the chosen methods. It also presents the sample and quality criteria that were utilized. Section 4 contains the results from the interviews and questionnaire. In chapter 5, these results will be discussed by comparing the results from the research with existing literature. I will also provide reasons why the results might have turned out the way they did. Section 6 provides the answer to the main research question. Furthermore, this section presents the implications, limitations, and possible areas for future research.
1.6. Summary
2. Literature Review
While there is some research on network management in general (Håkansson & Snehota, 2006; Dooley & O'Sullivan, 2007; Batterink, Wubben, Klerkx, & Omta, 2010; Henneberg, Naudé, & Mouzas, 2010; Agranoff & McGuire, 2001), academics and researchers have mentioned the need for more research in this area (Landsperger, Spieth, & Heidenreich, 2012) to improve the rigor and reliability of empirical network research (Marsden, 1990). Ojasalo (2008) states: “[…] the knowledge of management methods in inter-organisational networks is still scarce”. Over the past years, researchers have tried to identify roles for network leaders and network managers. However, the outcomes of these studies have varied significantly and have only been applicable to specific types of networks. As Müller-Seitz (2012) explained: “Leadership in inter-organisational networks has been addressed in a variety of disciplines […]. Unsurprisingly, these different disciplinary approaches have targeted different facets of this topic and have used heterogeneous concepts to analyse leadership-related aspects and forms of network” (Müller-Seitz, 2012).
The current study continues on the work of Hoflund (2012), who investigated the critical leadership tasks that are necessary in the formative stages of an NAO’s network. Hoflund (2012) offers lessons for scholars and practitioners on how to activate and mobilize individuals to participate in the NAO. In the conclusion, Hoflund (2012) requests further research into the critical leadership tasks at each stage of an NAO’s life cycle. This paper will address this shortcoming of contemporary literature by investigating the critical leadership tasks in the mature stage of an NAO’s life cycle. Before I could commence the research, it is important to get a clear understanding of the relevant terms and concepts. Therefore, in the upcoming part I will present a review of the literature that is available on this topic. Section 2.1 describes the relevant aspects of the inter-organisational network and section 2.2. describes the relevant aspects of leadership.
2.1. Inter-organisational network
2.1.1. Network definition. It is not always clear what the term ‘network’ refers to when scholars or people in practice use it. Even the term network is not always used. As Provan, Fish, and Sydow (2007) state: “many who study business, community, and other organisational networks prefer to talk about partnerships, strategic alliances, inter-organisational relationships, coalitions, cooperative agreements, or collaborative agreements”. In this paper the term network is used and it describes an inter-organisational phenomenon where three or more organisations are working together toward a common purpose (Popp et al., 2014).
2.1.2. Network life cycle. As stated in the introduction, networks are said to follow the logic of a biological life cycle with a beginning, development, and decline stages (D'Aunno & Zuckerman, 1987). Popp et al. (2014) provide a more detailed description of this life cycle and explain four stages of network evolution. Stage one is called ‘formation’. In this stage the focus is on getting the people together and framing the issue. In this first stage it is important to develop the foundational relationships and common understanding of the network (Popp et al., 2014). The second stage, ‘development and growth’, describes the point in time where governance of the network becomes more formalized. During this stage, trust, power, positive deviance, and the difficulties in outcome attribution become important topics. ‘Maturity, sustainability, and resilience’ is stage three. Maintenance of legitimacy becomes an important aspect of the network. Both internal legitimacy (i.e. how the member of the network view the network’s value) and external legitimacy (i.e. how other stakeholders view the value of the network) require attention in this stage of the network life cycle. Stage four is called ‘death and transformation’ meaning that at this stage the network can go two ways, it can either cease to exist or transform and differentiate into other networks as the problems confronting it change (Popp et al., 2014). From their article it also becomes clear that they expect the tasks utilized by network leaders to vary considerably when a network moves through these stages. But what is a network leader?
when uncertainties arise, 5) accept responsibility for coordination of the network activities, and 6) have the decision-making power to represent the network externally. Several researchers have stated that leadership quite often does not refer to one person, but might be a characteristic of a group (Feyerherm, 1994) or a process (Mandell & Keast, 2009) as is the case in the current study. Here, the term leader does not refer to a single individual but rather to a group of people, namely the NWP-bureau.
2.2. Leadership
When studying leadership it is important to set boundaries and indicate which aspects of this phenomenon will be discussed. In this research I will not discuss the psychological aspects of leadership. The focus will be solely on leadership tasks.
2.2.1. Leadership definition. There are different interpretations of what leadership is, but most definitions are based around the concept of influence and authority. In this research, I will make use of the definition by Müller-Seitz (2012), who states that leadership is “the exertion of influence in order to make things happen despite a lack of formal authority.”
2.2.2. Leadership tasks. The management of organisations and the tasks necessary to do so have received considerable attention in literature. The tasks necessary for the management of organisations have been distilled into seven basic tasks, namely planning, organising, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Otherwise known as POSDCORB. Agranoff and McGuire (2001) set out to discover if there is an equivalent set of tasks that is applicable to the management of networks. In their article they describe several tasks divided into four basic classes: activation, framing, mobilising, and synthesising. The tasks and their respective class of behaviour can be found in appendix A.
influence of existing actors, and facilitating fluid leadership roles (Klijn E. H., 1996; O'Tool, 1988; Klijn & Teisman, 1997; Termeer & Koppenjan, 1997)
Framing is also a class of tasks that is apparent during the initial stages of network development and when network effectiveness diminishes (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Hoflund, 2012). It involves establishing network rules, procedures, norms, and values (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). Framing “gives shape to purposes, and […] has great influence in the alignment of various forms of engagement” (Stone, 1999).
Mobilising involves the tasks concerned with inducing individuals to make a commitment to the joint undertaking, and to keep that commitment. As said by Mandell (1988), mobilising “requires a view of the strategic whole and an ability to develop and achieve a set of common objectives based on this whole”. Important in this third class of behaviours is the human relations component, namely motivating, inspiring, and inducing commitment.
Synthesising refers to the steering of network processes and stimulating cooperation between network participants. Relationships and interactions that result in achievement of the network purpose are the aim of the network manager (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). By performing the tasks belonging to this class of behaviour, the network leader seeks to reduce the cost of interaction.
Agranoff and McGuire (2001) mention in their article that their grouping of network management behaviours is purely suggestive as a way to summarize the literature in a substantive way. This could mean that their list of leadership tasks is incomplete. Therefore, additional literature on network management was consulted to discover if there are more leadership tasks that are important in network settings.
important in the early network’s development and external legitimacy is more important later in the network’s life cycle.
Popp et al. (2014) also mentioned that as the network matures, the following tasks would seem to be important for network leaders: scanning of the context in which the network exists; revisiting of the network’s vision in order to respond to changes in the context; and monitoring and evaluation of the network’s processes and outcomes.
Finally, Holley (2012) describes four leadership roles that each comes with their respective task. The task of the connector catalyst is to bring together unconnected participants in the network. A project coordinator takes on the task of helping network members with their self-organized projects of interest. A leader in the role of network facilitator would be most concerned with helping the on-going development of network structures, activities and relationships. This task can also be found in the categorization made by Agranoff and McGuire (2001). The fourth role is the network guardian. The task when in this role is to put in place systems such as communications, training and resources to help the network function effectively as a whole. A complete overview of all the tasks that were found in the literature can be found in appendix A.
2.3. Summary
To conclude, I will summarise the main findings of the literature review, in which I investigated what is currently known about inter-organisational networks and leadership. A network is an inter-organisational phenomenon where three or more organisations are working together towards a common purpose (Popp et al., 2014). Furthermore, they are said to follow the logic of a biological life cycle (D'Aunno & Zuckerman, 1987), with several stages that the network will go through. Popp et al. (2014) describe the four stages, namely 1) formation, 2) development and growth, 3) maturity, sustainability, and resilience, and 4) death and transformation. In current literature, it is argued that the tasks performed by a network leader vary depending on these stages. This has not been confirmed for NAOs, but certain tasks are said to be important in specific stages for networks in general.
important in the early development, and external legitimacy is especially important in later stages. Popp et al. (2014) also mention three other tasks that are said to be important in the mature stage, namely scanning of the context in which the network exists, revisiting of the
network’s vision in order to respond to changes in the context, and monitoring and evaluation of the network’s processes and outcomes. Finally, the four leadership roles presented by Holley
(2012) have not been linked to specific stages in the network’s life cycle.
In sum, the literature on leadership tasks with regard to the network’s life cycle is very scarce, and the knowledge that exists is scattered throughout a multitude of articles. Furthermore, research on specific leadership tasks that are important for an NAO is limited. In the next section I will explain how I attempted to solve this issue by performing research at a Dutch NAO.
Table 1. Definitions of important terms
Term Definition
Network An inter-organisational phenomenon where three or more organisations are working together toward a common purpose (Popp et al., 2014). Network life
cycle
The logic of a biological life cycle that networks follow: 1) formation, 2) development and growth, 3) maturity, sustainability, and resilience, and 4) death and transformation. (D'Aunno & Zuckerman, 1987; Popp et al. 2014).
Network Leader The network leaders 1) are well known throughout the network, 2) respond to network partners’ individual needs, 3) take on a mediating and moderating role in business gatherings, 4) are the first people consulted when uncertainties arise, 5) accept responsibility for coordination of the network activities, and 6) have the decision-making power to represent the network externally (Landsperger, Spieth, & Heidenreich, 2012).
Leadership The exertion of influence in order to make things happen despite a lack of formal authority (Müller-Seitz, 2012).
Term Definition
Framing Involves establishing network rules, procedures, norms, and values (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001).
Mobilising Involves the tasks concerned with inducing individuals to make a commitment to the joint undertaking, and to keep that commitment (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001)
Synthesising The steering of network processes and stimulating cooperation between network participants (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001).
3. Methodology
In this section the methods and the decision to adopt them will be explained. First, the research strategy is explained. In this part of the methodology I will clarify the general outline of the study. Second, the sample and the way it was selected will be explained. Third, the data collection process will be described in detail followed by how the data was analysed. Finally, I will describe the three quality criteria that were employed in this study, namely: controllability, reliability, and validity.
3.1. Research Strategy
As was mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the knowledge on leadership tasks in networks governed by an NAO. Due to the fact that leadership is highly dependent on the type of network, the type of network studied here requires individual attention. Current literature on the importance of different leadership tasks, and how the stage of the network life cycle influences the importance, is non-existent for an NAO. Therefore, the knowledge generating process of theory development will be used. In order to fill this gap in contemporary literature, a case study was performed. A case study is especially relevant for ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions (Yin, 2014). Furthermore, Yin (2014) argues that case studies are relevant when the researcher does not require control over behavioural event and if the focus is on contemporary events. In this study, the NWP-bureau and its network, the NWP, were studied to answer the main research question: How
In order to answer this question, I gathered primary data (semi-structured interviews and questionnaires) and secondary data (literature review, published texts, and internet searches). By combining the outcomes of data collection with existing literature on network leadership, explanations of the critical tasks in network leadership for an NAO were developed. The explanations lead to the development of propositions that add value to the existing literature (Van Aken, Berends, & Van Der Bij, 2012), which concluded the theory development process.
Because we can never be sure if conclusions are true or not (Van Aken, Berends, & Van Der Bij, 2012), the central aim of research, and therefore of this study, was to strive after inter-subjective agreement (Van Aken, Berends, & Van Der Bij, 2012). Inter-inter-subjective agreement refers to the consensus between the actors who deal with a research problem (Van Aken, Berends, & Van Der Bij, 2012)
3.2. Sample
As mentioned above, the case selected for this research is the NWP and its governing body, the NWP-bureau. The NWP-bureau is an NAO that was established more than 15 years ago. Therefore, it can be assumed that the NWP is no longer in its formative stage. For this research to yield results it was important that the NAO was no longer in the formative stage, because previous research has already established what tasks are important in the formative stage. Consequently, the results of this study can be compared with previous results and explanations regarding the changes in importance of leadership tasks can be formed.
Sample selection for the interviews was done with the snowball sampling method (Goodman, 1961). Following this method, 4 employees of the NWP-bureau were identified, and found willing to cooperate in the interviews. Respondent 1 is a high level manager at the NWP-bureau, respondent 3 is ultimately responsible for a sub-network, and respondent 2 and 4 both perform activities for sub-networks.
3.3. Data Collection
In the first step of this research I performed a literature review to discover what previous studies have found regarding the network life cycle and leadership tasks in networks. Based on the literature review I developed an interview guide (see appendix B) for the semi-structured interviews, and a list of leadership tasks (see appendix A) for the questionnaire. After this first step was concluded, I performed four semi-structured interviews and distributed the questionnaire. I chose semi-structured interviews in order to have a framework of topics that were to be discussed, but to also allow new ideas to be brought up during the interview. This enabled me to go into depth on topics that were brought up by the interviewee and also to allow comparability among interviews. The interviews were performed at the headquarters of the Netherlands Water Partnership bureau in The Hague, the Netherlands. I recorded, and afterwards stranscribed, the interviews.
The decision to also distribute a questionnaire was made to be able to perform a statistical analysis and to gather information from a larger sample. The questionnaire consisted of a control question, a list of 36 leaderships tasks, and three open questions. The control question was designed to be able to distinguish the employees from the networkers. Afterwards, participants were asked to rate the importance of the leadership tasks on a scale from 1 to 5. The three open questions were posed to gather extra insight into the reasoning behind rating. The first question asked respondents to state the two leadership tasks they thought to be the most important. The second question was similar, but instead related to the two leadership tasks they thought to be the least important. The third question asked respondents to mention any tasks not mentioned in the list they also deemed important.
3.4. Data Analysis
To analyse the questionnaire, I made use of descriptive analysis and nonparametric tests in SPSS. By comparing the mean scores for the ratings, the most important tasks were distinguished from the least important tasks.
Furthermore, I employed a Mann-Whitney U test (new procedure) (Mann & Whitney, 1947) to analyse if there were statistically significant differences in the importance of leadership task scores between employees and networks of the NWP-bureau. The Mann-Whitney U test was selected because the dependent variable (the different leadership tasks) were of an ordinal nature. Two other design assumptions for this test were also met, namely: the independent variable was categorical with two groups (employees and networkers) and there was independence of observations. The fourth assumption concerns the data and does not influence if this test can be used or not, but will determine how the output can be interpreted. This assumption is used to see if the distribution of scores have the same shape. If the distribution is similarly shaped, the Mann-Whitney U test can be used to make inferences about the difference in median. If they are not similarly shaped, the Mann-Whitney U test can only be used to make judgements based on differences in distribution. Because the sample was smaller than 20, the Mann-Whitney U test provided an exact p-value (“Exact sig. (2-tailed)”). However, the method used to calculate the exact p-value does not correct for ties in the data (i.e. when two or more respondents provide the same value for a dependent variable). In this case, the p-value can be inflated and give a p-value that is too large. Because this study made use of ordinal data, this was especially plausible. Therefore, the asymptotic approximate p-value (“Asymptotic Sig. (2-tailed)”) will be used. If the p-value is higher than .05 the distribution scores or the median are statistically significantly different. The complete results of this analysis can be found in appendix C.
3.5. Quality criteria
To ensure the quality of this study and reach inter-subjective agreement, several research-oriented quality criteria were used. First of all, controllability means that other researchers should be able to replicate the present study. This is done to ensure falsifiability. In order to make this study controllable, a precise explanation of all steps undertaken to reach the conclusion are provided.
student) verify the analysis performed on the data. Furthermore, by making use of triangulation (i.e. the use of multiple sources of evidence; Van Aken, Berends, & Van Der Bij, 2012), instrument bias was limited. I also made sure that the potential respondents bias was kept at as little as possible. This was be done by collecting data from the network leaders in two ways (interviews and questionnaires). Furthermore, interviews were done one-on-one so people do not feel the need to hide opinions.
The third major quality criterion is validity. Validity refers to justification, meaning that a research result is valid when it is justified by the way it is generated (Van Aken, Berends, & Van Der Bij, 2012). Validity is divided into two parts. The first, construct validity, was achieved by generating the interviews based on literature and having them critically assessed by a colleague (master student). Internal validity was achieved through the careful assessment of plausible competing explanations, which should not be present.
3.6. Summary
In this section I presented the methodology used to discover the answer to the main research question. A case study at the NWP was performed, because it matched with the research design and the desired answers. At the NWP, I performed interviews and distributed a questionnaire. In order to analyse the collected data, I did a contextual analysis on the transcribed interviews and used descriptive and nonparametric tests on the data from the questionnaire. In this section I also present the quality criteria that were employed to establish controllability, reliability, and validity. In the next section, the results from data collection will be presented.
4. Results
Lastly, I present the findings of the questionnaire. Table 3 presents an overview of the results from the questionnaire. Furthermore, I will also discuss the three most important leadership tasks, the two least important tasks, and an important task suggested by a respondent.
4.1. Network life cycle
To confirm in what stage the NWP resided, I discussed the network life cycle in one of the interviews. This respondent was with the organisation for a significant amount of time and, therefore, was in a position to assess the life cycle of the NWP. As explained in the background section, contemporary literature distinguishes between four stages: 1) formation, 2) development and growth, 3) maturity, sustainability, and resilience, and 4) death and transformation.
During the discussion the interviewee responded that the NWP-bureau desired to be in stage two and three simultaneously: “My ambition is to be in stage 2 and 3 simultaneously, because I do not see it as the linear phenomenon you are describing to me now.” The respondent argued that they fulfilled the criteria for being in the mature stage, because the management of legitimacy had become an important subject and there was some institutionalization of structure and processes (Popp et al., 2014). However, according to the respondent, this does not mean that the organisation was finished with development and growth. Due to the diversity of the water sector “the network constantly needs to develop to be able to adapt to changes in the network’s environment”. Therefore, it can be said that at the time of this study, the NWP was in the mature stage, but that the network still contains the flexibility aspects of the development and growth stage.
In the next section I will present the findings from the interviews. Afterwards, the results of the questionnaire will be provided.
4.2. Interview data matrix
tasks are provided (for important tasks) as well as the alternatives to non-important tasks, if applicable.
Table 2. Data matrix semi-structured interviews
Question /
Respondent Critical task 1 Critical task 2 Non-important task 1 Non-important task 2 Suggestions by interviewee 1 Creating shared vision and
shared purpose Developing trust between participants Tasks regarding rules, procedures Changing positions, relations, and roles of participants
Enthuse and inspire participants Argument(s) “Members [of the network]
need something that unites them to ultimately pick up something [a project] together.”
“Developing trust is necessary for network participants to sit together and discuss in a meaningful way.”
“It is really difficult to capture the processes in rules and procedures. Rules and procedures do not provide the necessary flexibility.”
“That is their own responsibility and we can only inspire or tempt them. The eventual change is not made by me, but by themselves.”
“We have the role to take participants ‘by the hand’ and set them in motion.”
How is it accomplished? For non-important task: What is the alternative?
- Writing it down in flyers, booklets, etc.
- Discussing with members - Member meetings
- Transparent information sharing
- Open communication - Creating an atmosphere where organisations dare to disclose goals and actions. - Being an ‘honest broker’
- Unwritten guidelines
- Expert judgment - Inspire - Tempt - Stimulate
- Showing possibilities - Provide successful examples
- Telling a good story - Realistic enthusiasm based on concrete goals
2 Achieve cooperation between network participants
Identifying participants for
the network Recommend an alternative decision-making mechanism Helping the network be self-organizing Identifying international opportunities Argument(s) “The Dutch water sector is
fragmented and we try to strengthen cooperation, in order to improve its reputation abroad.”
“It is something that keeps us busy at the moment. To really see how we can maintain the current base of members and grow it.
“This is not an issue (decision-making methods) that is of concern in the network / with the members.
“This is the role of the NWP-bureau and it should not become obsolete.”
Respondent \
Question Critical task 1
1 Critical task 2 Non-important task 1 Non-important task 2 Suggestions by interviewee
How is it accomplished?
And for non-important task: What is
the alternative?
- Get parties together - Organise themed days - Networking events
- Try to bind parties to the network during exchanges at exhibitions, projects, or other interactions.
- Informing parties about the benefits being a member has
n/a n/a - Gathering market
information and insights into specific countries
3 Creating shared vision and
shared purpose Identifying opportunities for participants Changing positions, relations, and roles of participants
Helping network members with their self-organized projects of interest
Government involvement in networks develops trust Argument(s) “ There are a lot of different
interests [in the network], and everyone wants their own thing. But if you can find one shared interest for everyone, it can be the driving force of the network.”
“For some participants being a member can be expensive and if they cannot show that it is yielding it will bring problems. Therefore, proposing opportunities is very important to keep the network alive.”
“If you are changing the position and role of a member, you lose your independence as a network organisation.”
“That is their own
responsibility.” “I think it is interesting that not only the NWP takes on the leadership role. In the sub-network I work for, the government also introduced a director type figure. I saw that this created confidence and trust in the network.” How is it accomplished? For non-important task: What is the alternative? - Creating a sector-agreement
- Roadmap for reaching goals with enough freedom for spontaneity (flexibility) - Stakeholder analysis - Organize conferences - Member meetings
- Connecting parties who are working on projects and can use each other
- One member brings forth a project and we are asked to find partners
Note: The addition of 1 or 2 does not imply a ranking. It only serves a distinguishing purpose. * Due to time constraints these questions were not answered.
Respondent \
Question Critical task 1 Critical task 2 Non-important task 1 Non-important task 2 Suggestions by interviewee 4 Creating shared vision Achieve cooperation
between network participants
Tasks regarding rules and
procedures * Manage tension between what information can and cannot be shared
Argument(s) “I think it is the reason we were once established. We did not want the Dutch water sector to go abroad with several independent stories, we wanted them to do that together.”
“And you see that we are useful as NWP if you know your members and can put them together and say: “We know that you all do the same, do you know that as well? If not, maybe you can work more effectively together?” And a lot of times parties encounter similar problems.
“I do not really have rules … it depends on what the situation demands and what has proven to be most effective in the past.”
* “Because we are largely
funded by the government, they require us to be open. However, sometimes if we receive information we are not allowed to publish it, because it would diminish a member’s advantage or break someone’s trust with us.” How is it accomplished? For non-important task: What is the alternative?
- Finding common ground
between diverse companies - Country platform - Network meetings - Specific workshops - Finding the right partners
- See what situation demands
- See what has been effective in the past
* - Not share it yourself, but
4.3. Contextual analysis
In this part of the results section I will analyse the data gathered from the interviews. I will present the two most mentioned leadership tasks, namely creating a shared vision and a
shared purpose and achieve cooperation between network participants. Furthermore, I will also
discuss the leadership tasks that were mentioned the most as being the least important: tasks
regarding rules and procedures.
As can be seen from the colour coding in the data matrix, most leadership tasks that were mentioned as important provide new insights into the importance of tasks at the mature stage. This is because not many tasks have been linked to the mature stage in previous literature.
4.3.1. Important leadership tasks in the NWP. The first most mentioned leadership task was creating a shared vision and shared purpose. Although these two tasks were originally separate, two out of three respondents named them together because they are very related to each other. The responses of the interviewees combined provide a complete picture of the reasoning. As respondent 4 stated: “We did not want the Dutch water sector to go abroad with several independent stories, we wanted them to do that together.” However, respondent 3 mentioned: “There are a lot of different interests in the network and everyone wants their own thing”. Therefore, it is necessary to find common ground between the different participants, “the members need something that unites them, to ultimately pick up something together” (respondent 2). This is a surprising result, considering that current literature argues that the creation of a shared vision and a shared purpose are important in the formative stage, because they are grouped in the framing class (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Hoflund, 2012). There are a variety of practices that are employed to create such a shared vision and shared purpose. The NWP-bureau, the governing body of the network, published flyers, booklets, papers, and a weekly newsletter. One of the respondents showed a 52 page report called ‘water 2020’, which delineated the long-term vision for the Dutch water sector. Furthermore, the NWP-bureau tried to discover common ground between the parties though meetings and discussions.
precise. If I would talk too much about more jobs abroad and that we should work towards more export, a part of the network would no longer see the benefit in being a member. That is because they are concerned with clean drinking water, for example.” This shows that there was a tension between the different interests in the network, and network leaders should tread carefully when advocating the network’s vision and purpose.
The second most mentioned leadership task was achieve cooperation between network
participants. Previous researchers have not written about the importance of this task.
Therefore, this finding can provide a new insight into the leadership tasks that are important during the mature stage in the life cycle of an NAO. Two interviewees stated that this task was of critical importance, however, both interviewees gave different reasons for this.
On the one hand, respondent 2 explained that, because of the inherent differences between the network participants, it was of vital importance for the network leader to improve relations between the different parties and achieve cooperation. Respondent 2 stated: “Because funding is being reduced for many NGOs, they need to become more commercial. While at the same time, businesses need to be more aware of their social and environmental responsibilities. Therefore, both companies would benefit from cooperation. However, they have very different ideas, different ways of operating, and are oftentimes prejudiced towards each other.” In this case the NWP-bureau took on the task of bringing both parties together and guiding the relationship.
On the other hand, respondent 4 argued that sometimes participants are not aware of the
fact that a similar organisation is performing similar tasks in the near vicinity. “We organised a meeting for members of the network where 8 NGOs were present, among others. They started talking and realised that they were performing similar projects in the same area in an African country. Shortly thereafter they organised a meeting to share information and to find out if they could cooperate to cover an even larger area.” In this case, the role of the NWP-bureau was to create the first contact and make organisations aware of opportunities for improving their services.
However, when trying to achieve cooperation between network participants, the NAO needs to be aware of their responsibilities and boundaries. As mentioned by an interviewee: “The only thing we can do is bring parties together, and sometimes help them to facilitate the relationship. However, it is not up to us to decide if they are going to work together or not, that responsibility lies with the organisations themselves.”
4.3.2. Least important tasks in the NWP. The least important tasks were those regarding rules and procedures. Least important might actually not properly describe the way the respondents thought about these tasks, such as developing new rules and procedures of
interaction, influencing operating rules of the network, and establishing operating rules of the network. As stated by respondent 1: “It is better to avoid establishing too many rules and
procedures”. This respondent continued by saying that “it is very difficult to capture the processes in a network in rules and procedures. At a certain point in time they will block your ability to perform certain activities, because the situation can be different from what you expected at the beginning.” Therefore, rules and procedures do not provide the required flexibility that is necessary in managing an inter-organisational network.
As can be seen by the green colour coding in the data matrix, current literature does not provide statements regarding the importance of these tasks in the mature stage. Two of these tasks, influencing operating rules of the network and establishing operating rules of the
network, can be found in the framing class of tasks. This class of tasks is said to be important
in the formative stage of the network life cycle. The other task, developing new rules and
procedures of interaction, can be found in the synthesising class of tasks. Literature does not
state a specific stage of the life cycle in which this task is important.
Instead of establishing rules and procedures, the respondents mentioned that they made use of expert judgement or unwritten guidelines. This means that instead of writing down specific rules and procedures, the employees at the NWP-bureau make use of their experiences. Respondent 4 mentioned: “It [using certain methods] depends on what the situation demands, or what has proven to be effective in the past.”
Respondent 1 answered by stating that to enthuse or inspire is very important. “We have a role to ‘take participants by the hand’. Be enthusiastic by showing what things are possible, by providing good examples, or by telling a good story. This is incredibly important, because it sets people in motion.” Respondent 1 continued by saying: “But it needs to be realistic enthusiasm. If you go into overdrive it becomes blind enthusiasm and that will effect members negatively.”
Respondent 4 suggested another leadership task. This respondent stated that it is very important to manage the tension between what can and cannot be shared. “Because we are for a large part connected to the government, a lot of activities and resources need to be publicly available and will be shared with everyone. For some of the participants this can be frustrating and, therefore, they will not share everything with us. They do not want the rest of the network to find out.” The respondent continued by stating: “When I hear something interesting ‘through the grapevine’, my instinct tells me to share it with the members and provide them with an advantage over other firms. Unfortunately, publishing this information could harm a person’s or an organisation’s trust in us. Therefore, I will not do that.” This shows that it is a task to manage between the interests of the individual organisations and the interests of the network as a whole. In literature, this task has been described as being a concern for the managers of the network organizations (O'Leary & Vij, 2012), however, not as a concern for the NAO itself. With regard to the network life cycle, this task would seem important throughout the network’s lifetime. This is because this tension can be expected to occur at any given time in the network’s life cycle.
4.4. Questionnaire
4.4.1. Important leadership tasks in the NWP. As can be seen in table 3, build support for
the network and its purpose was rated as the most important leadership task (M = 4.29, SD =
.69). The Mann-Whitney U test (Mann & Whitney, 1947) was used to determine if there were significant differences in the importance scores of build support for the network and its
purpose between employees and networkers. The distribution scores between employees and
networkers were not similar, as assessed by visual inspection. Importance scores between employees (Mrank = 10.25) and networkers (Mrank = 8.32) were not statistically significantly
different, U = 25.5, z = -.83, p = .407. This finding shows that both the employees and the networkers of the NWP-bureau believe that building support is an important task in the mature stage of an NAO. However, out of the 14 respondents who answered the open question regarding the most critical task, none mentioned this task.
The second highest rated leadership task was achieve cooperation between network
participants (M = 4.24, SD = .66). This task was not only mentioned often in the interviews, but
in the questionnaire as well. Six respondents mentioned it in the open question as being of critical importance. The Mann-Whitney U test (Mann & Whitney, 1947) determined that the importance scores between employees (Mrank = 10.75) and networkers (Mrank = 8.05) were not
statistically significantly different, U = 22.5, z = -1.17, p = .241, indicating that opinions regarding this task are similar.
Introducing new ideas to the network was also the second most critical leadership tasks in the questionnaire (M = 4.24, SD = .66). This task pertains to being aware of what is happening within the sector and in related sectors. By being aware of what is happening, the NWP-bureau can notify their members of new technologies, new projects, and other opportunities. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test indicated that the distribution of importance scores between employees (Mrank = 8.58) and networkers (Mrank = 9.23) are not statistically
Table 3. Descriptive analysis and responses to open questions
Rank Leadership Tasks M SD QC QL
1 Build support for the network and its purpose 4.29 .69 2 Achieve cooperation between network participants 4.24 .66 6
2 Introducing new ideas to the network 4.24 .66 1
3 Development of external legitimacy 4.18 .88 2
4 Finding a way to bring participants with conflicting goals or different goals perceptions, or values together to fulfil the purpose of the network
4.12 .93 5 Induce individuals to make a commitment to the network 4.18 .73 1
6 Creating a shared vision 4.06 1.03 5
7 Creating a shared purpose 4.00 1.00 4
7 Facilitating and furthering interaction among participants 4.00 .79
7 Identifying stakeholders for the network 4.00 .79
8 Enhancing the conditions for favourable, productive interaction
among network participants 3.94 .75
8 Tapping the skills, knowledge, and resources of participants and
stakeholders 3.94 .66
9 Identifying participants for the network 3.92 .90 1
10 Development of internal legitimacy 3.88 .86
11 Revisiting of the network’s vision in order to respond to changes in
the context 3.82 .95 1
12 Putting in place systems such as communications, training and
resources to help the network as a whole function effectively 3.76 .97
12 Integrate network structure 3.76 .97 1 1
12 Inter-organisational policy formation and implementation 3.76 .90 1
12 Arrange network structure 3.76 .75 1
13 Preventing, minimizing, or removing blockages to cooperation 3.65 .70 13 Offer suggestions for looking at a problem differently 3.65 .79 14 Scanning of the context in which the network exists 3.53 .72 14 Reducing complexity and uncertainty by promoting information
exchange 3.53 .87
15 Bringing together unconnected participants in the network 3.47 .87
16 Stabilise network structure 3.41 .94 1
17 Helping the network be self-organizing 3.35 .79 1
18 Monitoring and evaluation of the network’s processes and outcomes 3.29 .69 19 Forging an agreement on the role and scope of network operations 3.24 .83 1 20 Influencing the network’s prevailing values and norms 3.00 1.00
21 Establishing operating rules of the network 2.88 .86 5
22 Changing incentives to cooperation 2.82 .88 2
22 Influencing operating rules of the network 2.82 .88 5
23 Changing positions, relations, and roles of participants 2.65 1.00 3 24 Recommend an alternative decision-making mechanism 2.59 .94 1 24 Developing new rules and procedures of interaction 2.59 .87 5 25 Helping network members with their self-organized projects of
interest 2.53 .86 4
Note: M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation, QC = Times mentioned in open question as critical, QL = times mentioned in open question as least important
4.4.2. Least important leadership tasks in the NWP. The mean score for helping network
members with their self-organized projects of interest was the lowest in the entire
interfere with those projects”. No statistically significant differences in the distribution of the importance scores were found between employees (Mrank = 8.25) and networkers (Mrank =
9.410), U = 37.5, z = .48, p = .630.
The second least important leadership task was developing new rules and procedures of
interaction (M = 2.59, SD = .87). However, in the open question this task was mentioned in
combination with the two other tasks regarding rules and procedures, namely influencing
operating rules of the network (M = 2.82, SD = .88) and establishing operating rules of the network (M = 2.88, SD = .86). The arguments provided in the questionnaire state that rules
and procedures were not in the interest of the network and those few rules and procedures that were necessary were already in place. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test showed no statistically significant differences between the importance scores between employees and networkers for developing new rules and procedures of interaction (U = 34.5, z = .16, p = .872),
influencing operating rules of the network (U = 33.5, z = .05, p = .958), and establishing operating rules of the network (U = 42.0, z = .97, p = .333).
4.4.3. Differences between NPW-bureau employees and networkers. For the majority of leadership tasks the importance ratings between employees and networkers did not significantly differ, as can be expected with a small sample size. However, the distributions of importance scores showed to be statistically significantly different for four tasks. The employees and networkers did not agree on creating a shared purpose (U = 11.0, z = -2.35, p = .019), creating a shared vision (U = 13.5, z = -2.08, p = .037), induce individuals to make a
commitment to the network (U = 14.0, z = -2.07, p = .038), and reducing complexity and uncertainty by promoting information exchange (U = 12.5, z = -2.19, p = .029). This is
surprising, especially for creating a shared vision and shared purpose, because the employees of the NWP-bureau regard this task as being one of the most important tasks as was discovered in the interviews.
Table 4. Results Mann-Whitney U test
Mrank
Leadership tasks Distribution same shape? p E
1 N1 U z
Build support for the network and its
purpose No .407 10.25 8.32 25.5 -.83
Achieve cooperation between network
participants No .241 10.75 8.05 22.5 -1.17
Introducing new ideas to the network Yes .780 8.58 9.23 35.5 .28 Helping network members with their
self-organized projects of interest No .630 8.25 9.41 37.5 .48
Developing new rules and procedures of
interaction No .872 8.75 9.14 34.5 .16
Establishing operating rules of the network No .333 7.50 9.82 42.0 .97 Influencing operating rules of the network Yes .958 8.92 9.05 33.5 .05
Creating a shared purpose No .019* 12.76 7.00 11.0 -2.35
Creating a shared vision No .037* 12.25 7.23 13.5 -2.08
Induce individuals to make a commitment to
the network No .038* 12.17 7.27 14.0 -2.07
Reducing complexity and uncertainty by
promoting information exchange No .029* 12.42 7.14 12.5 -2.19
* Significant at p < 0.05
1 E = Employees, N = Networkers
Note: Here the results are summarized for the leadership tasks discusses in this section, the results for all leadership tasks can be found in Appendix C
4.5. Summary
In this section the results of the interviews and the questionnaire were presented. The qualitative data matrix (table 2) shows the main findings of the interviews, which were then used in the contextual analysis. It was found that from the interviews it seems that creating a
shared vision and shared purpose, and achieving cooperation between network participants are
important tasks for an NAO governing a mature network. The results from the interviews also show that tasks regarding rules and procedures were the least important. Furthermore, the data from the questionnaire is presented in table 3 and shows that the most important leadership tasks could be to build support for the network and its purpose, achieve cooperation
between network participants, and introducing new ideas to the network. In addition, the least
5. Discussion
In this section of the paper, I will discuss the findings of the interviews and the questionnaire. By comparing the results of these studies, and comparing it to contemporary literature, I was able to develop propositions that summarise the main findings of this study. The discussion will follow the order of the sub-questions.
In the first stage of this research a literature review was performed in order to establish a list of network leadership tasks that could be used in the subsequent stages of the research. A total of 36 tasks were found, which later made up the questionnaire. It became apparent that this list does not encompass the entire range of leadership tasks available to a network leader. This could be seen in the suggestions offered by respondents. However, it must be noted that a list of leadership tasks, no matter how exhaustive, cannot precisely depict all the leadership tasks that a network leader utilises.
From the results of this study it can be seen that the classification by Agranoff and McGuire (2001) provide a reasonably accurate representation of the leadership tasks. This is because, with the exception of the development of external legitimacy, all tasks that were added by me did not prove to be of great importance for a mature NAO. Consequently, by adding the management of legitimacy to the classification by Agranoff and McGuire (2001) their collection of tasks provides a more accurate representation of the actual leadership tasks used by a network leader, that can be used in future studies on this topic. As stated by Popp et al. (2014), the management of legitimacy is closely related to the management of commitment and mobilising. Therefore, I propose the following:
Proposition 1: To more accurately represent the leadership tasks used by network leaders, the development of legitimacy should be added the classification by Agranoff and McGuire (2001), namely to the mobilising class.
life form and have eco-cycles, rather than life cycles where there is a solid renewal loop (Hurst & Zimmerman, 1994).
Proposition 2: Networks do not follow a linear life cycle, but instead can reside in multiple stages simultaneously.
The interviews and questionnaire provide interesting insights into the importance of leadership tasks in the mature stage of an NAO’s life cycle. First of all, the findings from the interviews mostly match with the findings from the questionnaire. The tasks mentioned as the most important in the interviews can be found in the top 9 highest-ranking tasks from the questionnaire. Furthermore, the least important tasks from the interviews can be found in the bottom 11 lowest-ranking tasks in the questionnaire. This shows that both data collection methods showed similar results and instrument and respondent bias were kept at a minimum. However, there were surprising differences between the qualitative and quantitative approach to data collection. One difference is that build support for the network
and its purpose is the highest-ranking leadership task in the questionnaire. This task was
neither mentioned in the interviews, nor in the open question of the questionnaire. This might be because this task and the activities to perform this task were less advocated in the network and, therefore, it was not a task that was remembered when respondents were asked to indicate which tasks they thought to be the most important. Furthermore, finding a way to
bring participants with conflicting goals or different goal perceptions, or values together to fulfil the purpose of the network can be found at place four in the ranking from the questionnaire.
This task was also not mentioned in the interviews or the open question of the questionnaire. A possible explanation for this finding could be that it is similar to achieve cooperation
between network participants, which was mentioned often.
pay close attention to it in the mature stage of the network life cycle. One reason for this might be that the vision and purpose of the network change over time (Mitchell & Shortell, 2000) and, for a network to function effectively, there must be some degree of consensus at the network level (Vasavada, 2013). Therefore, the network leader needs to make the network members aware of the changes that occurred. Consequently, the creation of a shared vision and shared purpose is an important task that might require constant attention throughout the life cycle of a network and, therefore, also in the mature stage. Another reason could be that it is not the vision and purpose that change, but the network members, as they leave and enter the network. Moreover, the vision and purpose send a signal to those who wish to become members (Mitchell & Shortell, 2000) and as mentioned by respondent 2 growing the network is a point of attention for the NWP.
In sum, it is important for an NAO to create a shared vision and a shared purpose to align the interests of network members, and create unity between them. This shared sense of unity can then help further the relationships between network participants and help them overcome their differences.
Proposition 3: The creation of a shared vision and a shared purpose is a critical leadership task in a mature network governed by an NAO.
However, it must be noted that there were statistically significant differences in the distribution of importance scores between the employees and networkers of the NWP-bureau. This result indicates that the opinions regarding the importance of creating a shared vision and shared purpose differed between these two groups. One of the reasons provided by a respondent, a networker, can explain this finding. The respondent stated that the shared vision was already in place and, therefore, it was less important in the NWP. If this was a shared belief for all the networkers, this could indicate why there was a significant difference. Another reason for this could be that the networkers supported the NWP-bureau in specific countries or with specific programs. Because of this, the networkers were less involved with the overarching purpose and vision and, therefore, devote less importance to this task. However, the true reason can only be discovered through follow-up research.
The second interesting finding from this study was that achieve cooperation between
network participants was found to be important in the mature stage of an NAO. This task was
achieving cooperation between participants, the NWP tried to increase the effectiveness of Dutch organisations abroad. Consequently, as the reputation of the Dutch water sector abroad increases, economic performance could also increase.
As stated by Popp et al. (2014) the tasks that are of most importance will flow from the network purpose and functions. This might explain why this task was discovered to be important. This task specifically is not described in current literature, but it is similar to what Paquin and Howard-Greenville (2013) call ‘connection actions’. Their analysis shows two main connection actions, namely, strategically introducing relevant firms and deepening involvement with firms and/or projects. These two are related to the arguments provided by the respondents in this study for the NWP to engage in achieving cooperation between network participants. However, Paquin and Howard-Greenville (2013) state that these tasks are important in the ‘capturing value’ phase, which can be compared to the development and growth stage in the categorization used by Popp et al. (2014). McGuire (2006) provides arguments similar to Paquin and Howard-Greenville. He states that after the formative stage, network leaders need to be concerned with how to link the organisations together. “These “ties that bind” are created by establishing both formal communication channels through technology and informal channels through face-to-face interaction, coordinating activities across organizations, and building relationships as a means to share knowledge and create trust” (McGuire, 2006). This was also found in this study, where the findings show that the main activity for achieving cooperation was through organising events where organisations meet each other (i.e. networking events, workshops, and country platforms, among others). These findings could indicate that achieving cooperation becomes increasingly important as the network matures and is not only important in the mature stage. But this cannot be stated with certainty, because Paquin and Howard-Greenville (2013) studied a network orchestrator, which does not presume a particular form for the assembling entity and McGuire (2006) talks about a collaborative effort, which could be a variety of networking forms. Therefore, I can only propose the following:
Proposition 4: Achieving cooperation between network participants is a critical leadership task in a mature network governed by an NAO.
