Management and culture in successful networks

• Date: 04 December 2019
• Pages: 381-400
• Published date: 04 December 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-11-2018-0238
• Author: Daniela Cristofoli,Mattia Martini,Benedetta Trivellato,Dario Cavenago
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management

Management and culture in

successful networks

Daniela Cristofoli

Department of Economics, Business and Law for Economics,

Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy

Mattia Martini and Benedetta Trivellato

Department of Sociology and Social Research,

University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy, and

Dario Cavenago

Universita degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy

Abstract

Purpose –It is generally recognized that network management is a critical factor for network success. It is

also acknowledged that different managerial behaviors are necessary in different network settings. Scholars

have explored the relationships between network characteristics and managerial behaviors, but the role of

network culture in influencing network managers’activities remains under-investigated. The purpose of this

paper is to address this gap.

Design/methodology/approach –The analysis is developed through a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative

analysis of 18 country-based networks involved in the same EU-funded project.

Findings –The results shed light on two different combinations of network culture types and management

practices simultaneously leading to high network performance.

Originality/value –The paper confirms the existence of a relationship between network management and

certain characteristics of the networks, in particular network culture.

Keywords Networks, Management, Governance, Public network, Network management, Network culture

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

The role played by network management to achieve high network performance has been

widely addressed by the network literature (Kickert et al., 1997; Agranoff and McGuire,

1998, 2001; Mandell, 2001; Meier and O’Toole, 2001; Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004; Sørensen

and Torfing, 2009; Klijn et al., 2010, 2016; Kort and Klijn, 2011; Steijn et al., 2011; Ysa et al.,

2014; Cristofoli et al., 2019). Some scholars have focused on network managers’skills and

abilities, for instance in terms of nurturing and/or steering the network toward the

accomplishment of goals (Agranoff and McGuire, 2001, 2003; McGuire, 2002). Other scholars

have attributed great importance to managerial strategies, such as creating new

organizational arrangements, connecting network partners, establishing rules to govern

partner interaction and managing and collecting information (Edelenbos and Klijn, 2006;

Klijn et al., 2010, 2016; Kort and Klijn, 2011; Steijn et al., 2011; Ysa et al., 2014).

More recently, scholars have shown how the need for network management varies in

combination with certain contextual and structural network characteristics (Verweij et al., 2013;

Raab et al., 2015; Wang, 2016; Cristofoli and Markovic, 2016; Markovic, 2017; Cristofoli et al.,

2019). Verweij et al. (2013), for example, have shown how adaptive management leads to high

network performance in combination with high network complexity or stakeholder

involvement; when network complexity is low and stakeholder involvement is limited, closed

network management is needed. In a similar perspective, Cristofoli and Markovic (2016) have

argued that network management is important in combination with a centralized network

governance structure, whereas, when networks are decentrally integrated, it is the presence of

managerial mechanisms that leads to high network performance. Recently, Cristofoli et al. (2019)

Received 9 November 2018

Revised 3 September 2019

Accepted 1 November 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

Management

and culture

InternationalJournalof Public

SectorManagement

Vol.33 No. 4, 2020

pp.381-400

©EmeraldPublishingLimited

0951-3558

DOI10.1108/IJPSM-11-2018-0238

381

have shown how network managers are expected to stabilize, stabilize and connect or stabilize

and develop network relationships, in combination with network age, connectivity and trust.

Building on thesestudies, this paper focuses on centrally integrated governance networks

and explores the need for network management in combination with a critical, but still

under-investigated, characteristic among the structural and contextual features of public

networks: network culture.

The choice of centrally integrated networks follows the lead provided by Cristofoli and

Markovic (2016) as they show the critical role played by network management in these

types of networks (as opposed to decentrally integrated networks).

In the following, we define governance networks as “more or less stable patterns of social

relations between mutual dependent actors, which form around a policy program and/or

cluster of means and which are formed, maintained and changed through series of

games”(Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004, pp. 69-70). In this context, we consider network

management as the intentional use of managerial practices to govern processes in, of and at

the boundaries of the network (Provan and Milward, 2001; Klijn et al., 2010). Furthermore,

we focus on culture as “norms and values, interpersonal behaviours, organizational

practices and languages which influence individuals’perceptions, actions and behaviours in

collaborative settings”(Vangen, 2017, p. 307). This definition of culture particularly

emphasizes the influence of these factors on people’s behaviors in collaborative settings,

which include networks in their various forms. As a consequence, to the extent that network

culture affects actions and behaviors, it may interact with network management by

reinforcing or hindering it, or possibly substituting for it. For instance, a shared culture

which values adherence to rules and procedures may reduce the need for management

practices that focus on rules’enforcement and application of sanctions to wrongdoers.

Therefore, we aim to explore which combinations of network culture types and network

management practices can simultaneously lead to high network performance in centrally

integrated governance networks.

Data were collected from multiple sources within different phases of the research project.

We conducted semi-structured interviews and submitted a survey to the 19 partners of a

EU-funded project covering 12 different EU countries. Each project partner was the leader

of a country-based network (CBN) of actors, involving public, private and non-profit

organizations. In this way, we considered and collected data on 18 (as one partner did not

reply) different country-specific governance networks (in Klijn et al., 2010 parlance).

Documentary analysis contributed to triangulate the data.

Data were analyzed through the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA; Ragin,

2000; Ragin et al., 2006) method. The results shed light on two different combinations of

factors simultaneously leading to high network performance in centrally integrated

governance networks. They suggestthat network management has a different role to play,in

combination withthe prevailing network culture: group culture shouldbe combined with the

adoption of institutional design and process management practices, whereas bureaucratic

culture, in the absence of group culture, should be combined with institutional design

practices, while refraining from process management practices.

The paper consists of four sections. The first section reviews the extant studies on network

management and sheds light on the concept of network culture; the second section describes the

empirical setting and the method, and is followed by the findings. The last section provides a

discussion of the results together with the conclusions and relevant insights for future research.

Literature review

Network management

Several scholars have explored the role of management in public networks, from different

perspectives and with multiple results.

IJPSM

382

33,4