Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks:

Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice

Author(s): Keith G. Provan and Robin H. Lemaire
Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 72, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012), pp. 638-
648
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41687977
Accessed: 02-08-2018 19:00 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41687977?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Society for Public Administration, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Theory to Practice
Keith G. Provan is McClelland Professor
in the Eller College of Management at
the University of Arizona, Department
of Management and Organizations. He
"whole"
holds a joint appointment in the School of
Government and Public Policy. Professor
Provan also is a senior research fellow
at Tilburg University and coeditor of the
Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory. He studies
interorganizational networks, primarily in
health and human services, focusing on
network structure, evolution, governance,
and effectiveness.
E-mail: kprovan@eller.arizona.edu
Robin H. Lemaire recently received her
doctorate from the School of Government
and Public Policy at the University of
Arizona and is joining the faculty at the
Center for Public Administration and Policy
at Virginia Tech. Her focus is on organization
theory and the management of public,
nonprofit, and health care organizations,
with a particular interest in organizational
networks and network analysis.
E-mail: robinhlemaire@email.arizona.edu
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 72, Iss. 5, pp. 638-648. © 201 2 by
The American Society for Public Administration.
DOI: 10.1 1 1/j.1 540-6210.201 2.02595.x.
638 Public Administration Review • September | October 2012
Donald P. Moynihan, Editor
Keith G. Prován
Robin H. Lemaire
University of Arizona
Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public
Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Infor
Scholarship and Practice
This article provides an overview of the key researchconclusions on many aspects of networks have yet to
findings and core concepts on the topic of organiza- be reached, there is still considerable research-based
evidence on some key network topics that is important
tional networks. The primary focus is on goal-directed
for understanding how networks operate and why they
service delivery networks , which are prevalent
may or may not be effective. Unfortunately, too often
in the public and nonprofit sectors . The findings and
public managers are asked to create, build, manage
ideas presented are especially salient far helping public
in, and maintain service delivery networks with litde
managers build, maintain > operate, and govern multi-
organizational networks in ways that will enhanceknowledge
their or understanding of the research that has
been conducted on the topic. Furthermore, public
effectiveness. Because research and theory on networks
management scholars, even those who study networks,
extend well beyond the boundaries of public management
and administration, the authors draw on thinkinghavefrom
often neglected a consideration of the research on
a number of fields, providing a broad understanding
networks in of
other fields, especially business management
and sociology.is
public networks and network functioning The article This article is an attempt to draw broadly
on network
intended to provide usable information on networks far research to build a deeper understanding
both practitioners and students, as well as to suggestof public
direc- sector organizational networks, which, it is
hoped, will prove valuable to scholars, network manag-
tions for future research for the many public management
scholars who now study organizational networks. ers, and policy makers.
Most public managers are well aware of the diffi-
has been paid to both the study and the prac- culty and complexity of managing within traditional
Over has tice the been ofticecollaborative
of collaborativepastarrangements
paid two tobetween
decades, both arrangements the increasing study and between attention the prac- organizational boundaries. The literature in this area,
and among organizations. This focus has occurred in in both public and for-profit contexts, is voluminous.
the public, nonprofit, and private for-profit sectors, While much is known about what constitutes an effec-
leading some to claim that we have become a network tive public or private organization, especially how such
society (Castells 2000), or even a society of networks entities might best be structured and managed, there
(Raab and Kenis 2009). There is considerable truth are still many ideas and approaches that have received
to these claims. Especially in the public and nonprofit only limited or mixed support. Compounding this lack
sectors, otherwise independent entities have come of closure regarding management at the organization
together, often working across sectors, to address level, public managers must now confront the challenge
issues, solve problems, and provide services that are too of managing not only within but also across organiza-
complex, costly, and/or seemingly intractable for any tions and institutions through network arrangements
one organization to handle on its own (OToole 1997). (cf. AgranofF 2007; McGuire 2002). The transforma-
tion from organizational to network management does
Although the field of network studies is still relatively not simply mean applying traditional techniques and
new, there has been an impressive approaches in new settings.
amount of description, research, Rather, it involves developing a
It is critical for public managers
and theorizing about organiza- fundamentally new understand-
to understand as much as
tional networks in both public ing of managing. In view of this
and private sector contexts (see possible about what researchers complexity, and coupled with
reviews by Borgatti and Foster
have learned about how networks the prevalence of and demand
2003; Brass et al. 2004; Isett are effectively structured, gov- for networks to address public
et al. 201 1; Provan, Fish, and problems, it is critical for public
erned, and managed.
Sydow 2007). While definitive managers to understand as much
This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
as possible about what researchers have learned about how networks
are effectively structured, governed, and managed.
This article is not a literature review on the topic of public networks,
as such work has already been conducted and published. Instead, we
provide a basic understanding of organizational service delivery net-
works (rather than policy networks), including what they are, how
they differ from more traditional organizational forms, and why the
network form might be appropriate. Then, we discuss several key
factors that have been shown to contribute to network effective-
ness. Discussion is based primarily on the research conducted on
networks over the past two decades, including our own, combined
with our observations and insights. Rather than focusing solely on
the public management literature, we draw as well on core ideas
from the social and business network literatures.
Networks: What Are They?
Research on organizational networks draws directly from research
and theory on social networks, which focuses on relationships
between individuals. A fundamental concept underlying this work is
what is known as social capital (Coleman 1988). Unlike economic
capital (based on resources) or human capital (based on knowledge
and training), which are attributes of the actor/individual, social
capital is based on attributes of the relationship between individu-
als (see Adler and Kwon 2002 for a review). A person who has high
social capital is someone who has a rich set of social connections
that provide access to information, resources, support, and so on.
When organizations form network ties, they, too, benefit from
the advantages of social capital. This is especially important when
examining organizational networks from an egocentric perspective.
Egocentric network analysis focuses on the individual actor (a per-
son or an organization) in an attempt to demonstrate why this actor
has developed dyadic network ties with others and what the benefits
or other (possibly negative) outcomes might be. The egocentric
dyadic approach is by far the dominant perspective in the organi-
zation theory and strategy literatures on network relations, which
is not surprising, as this research has focused mainly on private,
for-profit organizations. Such organizations typically make relation-
ship decisions based on self-interest, which makes the egocentric
approach highly appropriate.
While public sector (and nonprofit) organizations are certainly not
immune to self-interest, collective action is an important con-
sideration. As a result, most of the research on and discussion of
networks by public management scholars (but certainly not all, as
evidenced by research by Meier, O'Toole, and colleagues; cf. Meier
and O'Toole 2001) has focused instead on "whole" goal-directed
networks. Whole network research shifts the focus from the ties that
an actor has (an egocentric micro approach) and focuses instead on
all of the ties among a set of actors, which is a macro approach (see
figure 1). Rather than examining only the egocentric ties of indi-
vidual organizations, the whole network approach examines where
ties are both present and absent among a defined set of organiza-
tions, indicating the extent to which the organizations are working
with one another to achieve a common goal.
As defined by Provan, Fish, and Sydow in their review of the topic,
whole networks refer to "a group of three or more organizations
This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Notes: The egocentric approach involves collecting information on the dyadic
ties that ego has to other actors. Although information on multiple egos may be
collected, no information on the ties among alters is collected. The whole network
approach examines the ties that all of the actors in a bounded network have with
one another.
Figure 1 Egocentric versus Whole Network Approaches
connected in ways that facilitate achievement of a common goal"
(2007, 482). They go on to point out that whole networks "are
often formally established and governed, and goal-directed, rather
than occurring serendipitously" and that "relationships among net-
work members are primarily non-hierarchical and participants often
have substantial operating autonomy." Though the whole network
analysis approach can be and is used outside the realm of public
management (see, e.g., Powell et al. 2005), most public manage-
ment research focuses on networks that conform to the definition
given by Provan, Fish, and Sydow (2007). This means examining
not only bilateral dyadic ties, but also the multilateral relations
that define a whole network and that are essential for achieving a
collective outcome. Such networks are critical for resolving many of
the problems and issues that public managers must confront. These
include addressing the health and social needs of children and of
people with serious mental illnesses (Provan and Milward 1995),
unemployment and workforce development (Herranz 2008), com-
munity and regional economic development (Teisman and Klijn
2002), and disaster preparedness and emergency response (Kapucu
and Van Wart 2006; Moynihan 2009). These are the sorts of
"wicked problems" that O'Toole (1997) referred to when he argued
that public scholars and managers need to be "taking networks
seriously."
The need for collective action has, in fact, been taken seriously
by public scholars and managers alike. However, determining the
extent of attention given to the topic is difficult because of the mul-
titude of terms employed. For instance, rather than talking about
networks, many refer to "collaboration" or "collaborative arrange-
ments." Wood and Gray defined collaboration as occurring "when a
group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in
an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to
act or decide on issues related to that domain" (1991, 146). Since
then, the concept has been defined and used in many different ways,
leading to a recent call for a better conceptualization and definition
(Bingham, O'Leary, and Carlson 2008).
Collaborative governance is another related concept. One recent
and rather narrow definition of collaborative governance that is
frequently cited is that of Ansell and Gash: "a governing arrange-
ment where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state
stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal,
consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or
implement public policy or manage public programs or assets"
(2008, 544). Thus, collaborative governance goes beyond mere
collaboration by including government actors as a key component,
Theory to Practice 639
especially as the means for achieving direction, control, and coor- full network, making it essential to consider both micro and more
dination of collective action between government agencies and macro aspects of public networks.
nonpublic groups and organizations (Lynn,
Heinrich, and Hill 2000). Research on public The most fundamental strategy Why and When to Use Networks
contracting is closely tied to collaborative decision that must be made The most fundamental strategy decision
governance as state agencies develop funding that must be made by public policy officials,
by public policy officials, government managers, and potential network
ties to a network of nonprofit and for-profit
organizations to deliver public programs government managers, and members is under what circumstances a net-
(cf. Brown, Potoski, and Van Slyke 2006; potential network members is work form is appropriate at all, as opposed to
Milward and Provan 2000). under what circumstances a more traditional forms. There has been a con-

network form is appropriate siderable amount of theorizing about different

Though network theory and analysis may be forms of organizing, especially which of three
at all, as opposed to more
applied, and possibly with great benefit, to basic forms should be used for performing a
traditional forms.
the study of collaboration, contracting, and task: market, hierarchy, or network. While
collaborative governance, the term "network," we do not have the space here to elaborate on
especially when referring to whole networks, is not synonymous and compare these forms in any detail, a brief overview may provide
with these other concepts. Networks focus on the multiple relation- some guidance as to when each form might be appropriate.
ships existing or not existing among multiple individuals or, in this
case, organizations. Collaboration, contracting, and governance can Transaction cost economics offers what is undoubtedly the most
all be elements of networks, but the occurrence of any one of these extensive theoretical treatment of when to use the market and

concepts alone or even in combination does not necessarily make a
network. While collaboration is critical to network success, col-
laboration between two organizations is a dyadic interorganizational
relationship, not a network. This is the case even when multiple
dyadic relationships exist, as when a state agency contracts with
multiple nonprofits. In addition, in a network, all organizational
participants need not collaborate with each other, and in fact, such
widespread collaboration actually may be detrimental to overall
network effectiveness (see later discussion). Finally, while collabora-
tive governance often occurs through networks, networks may or
may not involve cross-sector collaboration, and they may not even
involve the public sector at all.
In this article, because of their importance to public sector scholar-
ship and practice, we focus heavily on goal-directed whole networks,
which may be formally established and/or mandated through a
top-down process, an emergent or bottom-up process, or have char-
acteristics of both. We use the term "whole" goal-directed network
to refer to those organizations, regardless of sector, that are engaged
in multilateral interorganizational relationships around a common,
universally recognized goal, although commitment to that goal may
vary considerably among participants. For our discussion, the com-
mon goal would typically be addressing, mainly through provision
of services, some major public problem or task. The network may be
organized or initiated by government, but the task is largely publicly
funded, even though participants may be from any sector. In addi-
tion, while membership in or affiliation with a network is often
formalized, making clear who is "in" and who is "out," this is not
always the case, sometimes creating fuzzy boundaries.
Finally, while the analytical and methodological distinctions
between egocentric dyadic network ties and multilateral whole net-
work ties are clear, from a practical perspective, understanding how
whole networks operate requires consideration of the dyadic ties
maintained by individual actors. Thus, despite our "whole network"
perspective, we consider core concepts and ideas from research
and thinking on egocentric dyadic ties as a way of explaining how
public networks operate. Whole networks are composed of many
overlapping sets of dyadic relationships that collectively make up the
when to use a hierarchy, which is the classic "make or buy" decision
(Williamson 1981). In the public sector, the decision between mar-
ket and hierarchy is the decision about whether to contract out for
a service or provide the service directly. Thus, it is fitting that a great
deal of the contracting literature relies on transaction cost econom-
ics and is concerned with finding the conditions that lead to better
contracting decisions and more efficient contracts.
Whether services should be contracted out by a public agency or
provided directly is not the only consideration for public manag-
ers. The other option is to use a network, which may involve a mix
of contractual and more informal, trust-based ties and in which
a public agency may or may not play a lead role in the flow of
resources and information among network participants. Many of
the conditions under which network relations might be a favorable
option, as opposed to a hierarchy, a market, or traditional contract-
ing, were discussed in the late 1980s and 1990s (cf. Powell 1990).
These include the need for flexibility, enhanced learning, improved
knowledge flow, and greater sensitivity to the needs of clients.
Although much of the research on networks since then has focused
on dyadic relationships between for-profit firms (mostly buyer-
seller relationships and strategic alliances), there is also an emergent
literature in the public context examining when to use a network.
Though early work proposed that networks would play a primary
role in governance (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004), a greater recogni-
tion of the shortcomings and challenges of networks has led to a
more nuanced view. For instance, Kettl (2009) described the next
government of the United States not as networked government, but
as two interconnected systems: one in which hierarchies are used to
manage routine problems and another in which networks manage
nonroutine problems.
Scholars have long understood that a bureaucracy, the classic hier-
archy form, is appropriate for stable and routine tasks, but not for
handling most nonroutine tasks (Burns and Stalker 1961). Even for
nonroutine tasks, however, it is not clear when a network should be
used and when a bureaucracy or alternative form of hierarchy would
be best. Because of the costs of working in and through a network
(see discussion later), using the network form for all tasks is likely to

640 Public Administration Review • September! October 2012

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
be both highly inefficient and ineffective. Thus, the decision to use a
network in the first place is critical.
Despite more than 20 years of network research, only some general
guidelines exist for when to use a network versus a more tradi-
tional hierarchical form. It is not necessarily the complexity of the
problem being addressed, but rather how routine and predictable
the problem is and whether the problem can be addressed suffi-
ciently by a single organization (Kettl 2009). The reason "wicked"
problems typically warrant a network response is the need to be
highly adaptive (because the problem and/or solution is either
unknown, inconsistent, or frequently changing) and because the
resources, knowledge, and solutions are spread across many different
entities, necessitating a coordinated response from a multitude of
organizations in order to adequately serve client needs. When these
conditions exist, networks are generally more effective than either a
market or a hierarchy.
While networks are not always an appropriate form, research and
theorizing about networks has demonstrated considerable advan-
tages over the use of more traditional forms for addressing certain
types of problems and in certain settings. These include the capacity
of organizations to stretch and leverage limited resources, enhanced
learning, which leads to greater innovation and better service qual-
ity; the provision of an enhanced range of services to clients, who
are no longer limited to dealing separately with many different
providers; the ability to achieve economies of scale in areas such
as purchasing or greater competitiveness in grant applications; the
ability to exert more pressure on politicians and funders because
of greater political clout and community "reach"; the capacity to
be far more flexible than a traditional bureaucracy; and enhanced
capacity and responsiveness to deal with unforeseen problems, such
as disasters. For these and other reasons, networks of organizations
have been widely discussed and implemented over the past 20 years
and more, and they can and have had a significant positive impact
on how public problems are addressed.
Despite these advantages, the use of networks to address public
needs is not without its problems and challenges, some quite
serious (McGuire and Agranoff 201 1). Thus, as emphasized by
Huxham and Vangen (2005), collaborative forms should not be
entered into or constructed unless more traditional forms have not
been effective or without a clear understanding of the cost-benefit
trade-off. In effect, this means that prior to network involvement
or formation, a strategy decision must be made regarding whether
developing and implementing a network to address a problem is
appropriate. This is a decision that is sometimes, if not often, given
short shrift by public officials who may be overly eager to embrace
network solutions to problems, even imposing requirements on
organizations to form collaborative arrangements for receipt of
funding.
How Strong a Role for Government?
The push for greater collaboration among organizations by govern-
ment leads to the question of whether networks should be man-
dated or emergent. This is an important question for the study and
practice of public networks, in which government agencies often
play a much more significant role in initiating the formation of net-
works (and sometimes sustaining them) than is typically the case in
This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the private sector. Although very little research has been conducted
on this issue, especially research that actually compares mandated
versus emergent networks, both costs and benefits are likely to be
associated with each approach. While a top-down mandate to form
and/or be involved in a network, typically through control of fund-
ing, can provide a powerful incentive for organizations to attempt
to work together, this approach may be best suited to situations
in which coordinated effort is essential and such effort might only
evolve slowly, if at all, without efforts of a key government agency or
funder. Examples might include networks addressing a major public
health issue or a disaster response. At some point, however, if the
network is to be truly effective, as envisioned by those government
funders, regulators, or policy officials who mandated the network
in the first place, it must be able to operate through the coopera-
tive and collaborative efforts of the organizations that make up
the network, allowing time for trust and commitment to be built
(Moynihan 2009).
At the opposite extreme, networks that are purely emergent, or bot-
tom up, are likely to suffer from "liabilities of newness," especially
regarding legitimizing the network to new and potential members
(Human and Provan 2000). In addition, emergent networks often
take a great deal of time to initiate and develop to the point that
they are sustainable, or they may suffer from "overprocessing,"
which can lead to collaborative inertia (McGuire and Agranoff
201 1). Network governance issues also frequently arise, especially
because emergent networks are likely to adopt a participatory
governance form (Provan and Kenis 2008), which places a signifi-
cant time and effort burden on each network member to coordinate
network activities.
While there has been little research directly comparing mandated
and emergent networks, there has been considerable exploration
of the antecedents of network formation in emergent network
relationships. This research has focused primarily on the dyad /
egocentric level, rather than the whole network level, but because
ties between individual organizations are the building blocks of
whole networks, the findings are instructive as to why and when
networks might form. Much of the research on the topic has been
reviewed elsewhere (cf. Brass et al. 2004; Cropper et al. 2008;
Kilduff and Tsai 2003; Oliver 1990). However, some of the main
factors that have been found to explain the emergence of network
ties between individual organizations when they are not mandated
include homophily (i.e., similarity based on size, reputation, service
orientation, etc.), proximity, heterophily (dissimilarity in ways that
the organizations might benefit from working together), the need to
reduce dependence on others, prior relationship experience, and the
need to gain both legitimacy and access to key information and/or
resources.
It is not our intent to discuss the research underlying
or exactly how each might affect the operation and p
of public networks. Nonetheless, from a practice pers
important to recognize that network relationships are
based only in part on instrumental factors related to
performance. Thus, although rarely studied empirical
network literature, a major reason why multiorganiz
networks may not operate as intended, especially tho
through mandate, may be a lack of consideration of h
Theory to Practice 641
relationships typically form, are strengthened, in which their organization is embedded
and ultimately are sustained. Such factors as A major reason why (Agranoff 2007). Even when focusing only
homophily, friendship, trust, or the need to multiorganizational whole on network-level issues, tensions can be
acquire legitimacy or power are the basis of networks may not operate significant, leading to conflict among network
successful relationships and cannot simply be members. As a result, both managing in a
as intended, especially those
discounted by network planners. network context and managing the network
formed through mandate, may
as a whole means confronting and addressing
be a lack of consideration of
Whether the network is emergent, mandated, several fundamental tensions, which are typi-
or mixed, in addition to the potential advan- how emergent relationships cally difficult to resolve (cf. Prován and Kenis
tages of the network form, there are some typically form, are strengthened, 2008; Saz-Carranza and Ospina 201 1). Deal-
significant challenges to working in a whole and ultimately are sustained. ing with such issues as culture clashes, turf/
network context in which multiple organi- power problems, and the loss of autonomy
zations are attempting to work collectively also significantly increases complexity by mak-
toward a common goal. Some of the most important challenges ing conflict resolution among network participants a key concern
identified by network scholars in a number of different contexts (cf. for network management (O'Leary and Bingham 2007).
Agranoff and McGuire 2001; Huxham and Vangen 2005; Weiner
and Alexander 1998) include the following: Network Effectiveness
If a network approach is judged to be the best strategy given the
• Varied commitment to network goals: Networks often consist demands of the task, success is still far from assured. Building an
of many organizational members, some of which may have a con- effective network depends on many factors, all of which must be
siderable stake in network outcomes, while others may be only considered in the design and implementation of a network. Thus,
peripherally involved because of limited overlap between network it is important to understand what the research has demonstrated
and organizational goals. regarding how a network might be constructed and maintained to
• Culture clash: Although a real strength of networks is the be effective and hence minimize the likelihood that the challenges
bringing together of organizations that perform different activities mentioned here might lead to the failure of the network.
to achieve a common goal, this diversity can also make mean-
ingful collaboration difficult. Culture can differ in many ways, In any discussion of network effectiveness, two basic roles of public
including approach to decision making, methods of treatment or managers must be considered: as manager of a. network and as
provision of service, type of training, and level of professionalism. manager in a network (Milward and Provan 2006). This important
• Loss of autonomy: When organizations act independently, distinction is often overlooked. Most of our discussion of network
they make their own decisions. In a network, the connectedness effectiveness here will focus on management and governance of a
of organizations through shared resources, clients, joint planning, network. However, managing an organization that operates within
and so on, means that they are interdependent. Thus, a decision a network context is a critical issue confronting public managers,
of any one organization can have a ripple effect, influencing the especially because individual organizations are often involved in
activities and decisions of others. This can be a real problem for multiple networks. Adopting an egocentric view, managing in a net-
the managers of legally autonomous network organizations who work is paramount because the main aim is to manage an organiza-
may resist coordinated decision making, especially when network tions network ties in order to maximize organization-level benefits.
decisions are not seen as reflecting the interests of their own Moving beyond pure self-interest, the fundamental management
organization. problem is balancing the needs and demands of the organization
• Coordination fatigue and costs: Coordination of decisions and with those of the broader network. By acquiring knowledge about
activities can take up a considerable amount of time and effort. how networks operate and where their organization fits into the
It is simply easier and more efficient to make decisions within broader network in which they are participating, public managers
rather than across organizations. This is a problem that can be can more clearly recognize how to address possible tensions between
eased through the adoption of an appropriate form of network organizational and network demands, thereby enhancing their own
governance. organizations benefits while limiting the costs of involvement.
• Reduced accountability: Despite the common tendency for
managers to take credit for their own success and to blame others A key point to recognize, however, is that managers, especially in
when things go wrong, when organizations act on their own in public and nonprofit settings, either are or should be committed to
addressing problems, their managers are generally held respon- the success of the network as a whole. Their particular organization
sible for the outcomes of their actions. In networks, however, stands to benefit most (often through its clients' outcomes) when
successes and failures are difficult to pin on any one organiza- the network is effective. This is especially true when client and other
tion; thus, accountability is diffused. This stakeholder outcomes can only be achieved
can enhance the possibility of "free riders," through collective action, which is, of course,
Being a good "network citizen" the primary rationale for network forma-
where organizations participate minimally,
assuming that others will pick up the slack. may also have local benefits, but tion. Thus, being a good "network citizen"
• Management complexity: Network only if the benefits of collective may also have local benefits, but only if the
managers must straddle two worlds - the action are recognized and taken benefits of collective action are recognized
internal world of their employing organiza- and taken seriously by participants. This dual
seriously by participants.
tion and the external world of the network sense of responsibility and commitment (to

642 Public Administration Review • September | October 2012

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the organization and the network) must be conveyed in a meaning-
ful way to others working within the organization, many of whom
may not be heavily involved in the network, and thus they may not
be aware of potential network benefits and may be less receptive to
network demands and constraints on organizational action.
Once the basic strategy decision has been made to form a network,
management 0/the network becomes important. The fundamental
questions for management of a. network shift to issues of design and
governance. Basically, public managers and policy officials need
to know how the network can be set up and run to be effective at
accomplishing network-level goals, while minimizing the emergence
of the problems discussed earlier. Unfortunately, but perhaps not
surprisingly, the empirical research on whole network effectiveness
is limited. Some previous publications have addressed this short-
coming while attempting to shed light on how network effective-
ness might best be addressed (cf. Agranoff 2007, chap. 8; Kenis
and Provan 2010; Provan and Milward 2001). Rather than simply
reiterate what these and other discussions of network effectiveness
have said, consistent with the aims of this article, we focus instead
on some key conclusions that can be drawn from research on both
whole and egocentric networks. These conclusions are not defini-
tive, but rather are suggestive of the factors that have generally been
shown to be associated with a more effective, versus a less effective,
network.
In addition, despite some limited empirical research on network
outcomes (see discussion by Turrini et al. 2010), such work has been
scarce and problematic. This is attributable primarily to the diffi-
culty of determining which goals are relevant, accurately measuring
public and nonprofit sector outcomes, and the absence of a control
group, which limits what can be said about the relative contribution
of network (versus organizational or individual) activity and struc-
tures for attaining these outcomes. For this reason, our discussion
will focus primarily on process indicators of network effectiveness,
such as enhanced information processing capability, sustainability,
and the capacity of a network to address the needs of both organi-
zational members and other key stakeholders. In this regard, we
identify five broad characteristics of effective networks:
• Involvement at multiple levels
• Network design
• Appropriate governance
• Building and maintaining legitimacy
• Stability
Involvement at Multiple Levels
Despite the name, organizational networks are built around the
connections and relationships established and maintained by
individuals. When these ties are built around a single representative
in an organization, they may be tenuous. In addition, when only a
single person is that organizations network representative, the likeli-
hood is high that others in the organization will not be committed
to network-level goals and thus may resist active participation.
While there has been little direct research on this idea, it is closely
related to the concept of multiplexity. Multiplexity refers to the
diversity of the relationships among partners, usually based on the
number of different types of ties maintained (Beckman, Haunschild,
This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and Phillips 2004; Ibarra 1995). Multiplex ties are stronger and
more intensive than single ties because they represent multiple
interests. Building on this idea, overall network effectiveness can
be significantly enhanced when network goals and interests are
understood and accepted through meaningful involvement by mul-
tiple members of organizations in the network, especially for those
organizations that are critical to overall network success. Ideally,
network involvement would occur at several hierarchical levels in
the organization, thereby gaining the participation, commitment,
and engagement not only of top administrators who have decision
authority, but also of the key service and staff professionals who
have the necessary operational and programmatic knowledge and
who are likely to be most heavily involved in the implementation of
network initiatives. When these organizational representatives con-
nect to others in different ways, the potential range of information
exchanged is significantly enhanced.
An empirical example of the value of involvement by multiple
individuals at multiple levels and through diverse ties is the recent
work by Safford (2009) examining the configuration of social capital
in communities and the ability of those communities to address
and eventually overcome an economic crisis. Safford proposed
the importance of "multiplex independence," which refers to the
intersection of different types of ties. In the two goal-directed com-
munity networks that he studied, Safford found that a key factor
in explaining the economic success of one community (but not
the other) was that multiple individuals were involved in develop-
ing and maintaining network connections and that these relation-
ships often did not overlap. Network effectiveness also depended
on having particular organizations in the network that could bring
together and unify the intersecting networks when needed, which
gets at issues of network design and governance, discussed later.
Network Design
While there has been considerable discussion and research on
network structure over the past several decades, most research has
examined the structure of dyadic or triadic relations (cf. Gulati and
Gargiulo 1999) and not the whole networks that are so prevalent in
the public domain. Additionally, the vast majority of network lit-
erature in public management journals addresses issues of structure
only broadly and qualitatively, generally ignoring the rich empirical
literature on network structure in other fields.
Drawing on this more extensive structural literature and extend-
ing it to the design of more effective public networks, we can draw
several conclusions. The first is what we call selective integration.
There is no research available to inform practice about the "right"
amount of integration in a network. What can be said is that for
those tasks that are well suited to network solutions, such as the
"wicked problems" discussed earlier, integration across and among
network members is critical. Too little coordination and collabora-
tion by organizations and the network ceases to operate in a mean-
ingful way as a network. At the same time, however, a high level
of integration among organizations in a network is not necessarily
beneficial. As noted earlier, a challenge to network success is time
and coordination costs. If all organizations in a network are interact-
ing frequently and intensively with all or most others, especially
when a network is large, the network will not be effective because
of overembeddedness (Uzzi 1997). Little work may get done, and
Theory to Practice 643
commitment to network goals may drop quickly because of the high First, effort should not be made to integrate all organizations into
demands on participants and resources. Even if network goals are one dense set of relationships. Rather, emphasis should be placed
being accomplished, it may not be done very efficiently, which is a on selective integration based on a mix of close, dense ties (closure)
concern because most network activity is performed in addition to among some organizations, perhaps focused on particular subtasks
individual organizational demands. Selective or geographic regions (Bell and Zaheer 2007),
integration means that network links must be Although strong, intensive and with structural holes that are effectively
targeted and appropriate, so that those organi- brokered so that new information can be
ties may be needed for some
zations that need to work closely together do passed efficiently from one network cluster to
so, while others do not.
network relationships, weaker another. Second, consistent with the ideas of
ties based on low to moderate
closure, although strong, intensive ties may
A major contribution in this regard was levels of interaction are likely to be needed for some network relationships,
made by sociologist Ronald Burt in his be quite appropriate for most weaker ties based on low to moderate levels of
book Brokerage and Closure : An Introduction relationships. interaction are likely to be quite appropriate
to Social Capital (2005). Burt argued that for most relationships.
there are distinct advantages to maintain-
ing network closure, where people are connected to each other, Appropriate Governance
and brokerage, where individuals bridge what he calls "structural An important issue for network effectiveness, and one that is closely
holes." Structural holes are gaps in connectedness in a network and related to overall network design, is governance. While the manag-
may include clusters of strongly connected individuals who are not ers of organizations in a network play a key role in ensuring that the
otherwise (or only weakly) connected to other clusters. Both can network in which they participate functions smoothly and achieves
be advantageous, but for different reasons. Consistent with prior its objectives, the main issue regarding management of a. network
research on closure by Coleman (1988), Burt acknowledged that is governance. Depending on the form of governance adopted,
closure has distinct advantages for building and maintaining trust these two roles may overlap. In the business network literature,
and for sharing information that is already reasonably well known. governance has been addressed extensively, but almost exclusively
In the public sector, closure has been found to have a positive in the context of a dyadic alliance (cf. Zaheer and Harris 2006 for
impact on organizational performance through membership in a review). A key issue here is the role of trust, especially whether
cohesive subnetworks (Schalk, Torenvlied, and Allen 2007). In con- formal governance mechanisms serve as a substitute, complement,
trast, structural holes can be important in a network for generating or alternative to interorganizational trust. Moynihan (2009) argued
new ideas and approaches. The individuals (or organizations) that that in public networks, trust is necessary even for centralized
are able to bridge, or broker, the gap between structural holes can governance forms. In the business alliance literature, trust has often
convey new ideas and approaches to others in the network, thereby been considered to be an alternative to the need for a formal con-
enhancing overall network performance. These network brokers tract (Gulati and Nickerson 2008), although some research has sup-
are themselves quite influential, precisely because they are the key ported Moynihans position that the two governance mechanisms
connectors in a network, which is the focus of Burt's research. In a may complement each other (Zaheer and Harris 2006).
goal-directed whole network, key connectors are likely to be even
more important in order to prevent the degeneration of the whole Systematic research on governance of broader multiorganizational
network into separate clusters created by closure (Gulati, Sytch, and networks is very new, although a number of scholars both inside
Tatarynowicz 2012). and outside public management have specifically addressed the
role of a network facilitator, intermediary, hub firm, or "weaver"
Burt s idea of structural holes is closely related to an earlier con- (cf. Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Dhanaraj and Parkhe 2006;
cept, the so-called strength of weak ties. This idea originally was Ingram andTorfason 2010; Koza and Lewin 1999). In addition,
developed by Mark Granovetter (1973), who argued that weak O'Mahoney and Ferraro (2007) examined informal governance in
ties, to people you may not know well, can be extremely valuable an online open-source network. Despite this work, in-depth discus-
in transferring information that is not available to you or to your sion and recognition of the various forms of network governance
close circle of friends. Rather than only talking to your friends and and their impact on overall network effectiveness have taken place
close relatives to get a new job, for instance, you talk to those who almost exclusively in public management. In particular, Provan and
are connected to other circles of friends who will have different Kenis (2008) introduced three basic modes of network governance;
information, thus increasing the likelihood of getting a new job. shared/participative, lead organization, and network administrative
More recently, weak ties have been found to be especially useful for organization. When network governance is shared, the network
the exchange of complex knowledge leading to innovation (Hansen members themselves are actively involved in governance responsi-
1999; Reagans and McEvily 2003) and for knowledge exploration bilities for the network. Network representatives interact frequently
through networks rather than exploitation (Lechner, Frankenberger, to ensure that coordination and collaboration occurs, that conflict
and Floyd 2010). People also can readily maintain many weak ties, is minimized, and that participants stay focused on network-level
but only a relatively small number of strong ties. The benefits of goals. Engaging in these activities is critical to network effective-
maintaining a mix of both strong and weak ties are the same for ness, and, consistent with the business network literature on alliance
organizational networks as well. governance, trust among participants is essential.

Thus, building on what is known about network structure, effec- Especially as a network becomes larger (i.e., includes more organiza-
tive public networks should be designed with two goals in mind. tions) and more complex, however, shared governance becomes less

644 Public Administration Review • September! October 2012

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
viable and overall network effectiveness more problematic. While it network that failed focused heavily on external legitimacy building,
is difficult to jointly govern a network of five or six organizations, thereby largely ignoring the internal needs of network members
when the number increases to 20, 30, or more, the task becomes until it was too late. In both cases, and for both forms of legitimacy,
nearly impossible, especially as trust among all participants is not the role of network governance was critical.
likely to be particularly strong. Thus, network governance typically
will shift to one of two alternative forms: either a lead organization There are important implications of this research for a broader
or a network administrative organization. Both are brokered forms, consideration of legitimacy for public network effectiveness. As
enabling a network to be governed effectively despite a large number mentioned earlier, public networks may be either mandated or
of organizations and a reduced level of active involvement regarding emergent, and they often display characteristics of both. When
management of the network by most participants. Hybrid forms are mandated, or at least when formed by and through a government
also possible, with the three forms discussed by Provan and Kenis agency charged with building, funding, overseeing, and maintain-
(2008) being pure or "ideal" types. ing a network, the risk is that legitimacy for the network will be
externally established, but that internal legitimacy will be ignored or
It is beyond the scope of this article to go into a full discussion undervalued. Thus, network participants will be weakly committed
of the three forms of governance and the conditions under which to working closely with others in the network and may only do so
each is likely to be most effective. However, just as the shared/ because of external pressure and/or financial incentives. This is not
participative form can be effective for some networks, each of the to say that such networks cannot be effective. However, it requires
two brokered forms can be effective under certain specific condi- the building of trust-based relationships, as would typically occur
tions. Although empirical research on network governance has only in an emergent network, especially if the network is to be sus-
recently begun, research suggests support for the effectiveness of tained once government involvement and funding ends. Thus, the
certain forms over others under various conditions (cf. Saz-Carranza internal legitimacy needs of network participants must be addressed
and Ospina 2011). instead of simply assuming that it will happen on its own. This is an
important consideration for choice of governance form and for the
Legitimacy leadership of a network.
Legitimacy, often thought of as credibility to others or externally
conferred status, is a concept that has been discussed frequently in Stability
the literature on organizations (see Suchman 1995 for a review). Networks are typically seen as flexible forms of organization that
It has also been discussed within a network context, but mainly are "light on their feet" (Powell 1990). Despite this basic network
as an advantage that accrues to network participants as a result of characteristic, there has been little research on network evolution, in
being connected to others with high status or reputation (Podolny large part because of the difficulties of data collection and analysis.
and Page 1998). But the limited research on whole multiorganiza- Recently, however, there has been considerable interest in the topic
tional networks has demonstrated that legitimacy can be critical for in the business network literature (cf. Koka, Madhaven, and Prescott
network success. Specifically, in work by Human and Provan (2000) 2006; Zaheer and Soda 2009), although this work has mostly
comparing the evolution of two business networks, both internal focused on the stability or change over time of dyadic relationships.
and external legitimacy were found to be essential for determining For whole, goal-directed networks, the flexibility of relationships
the success of one network and the failure of another. can be highly advantageous in performing tasks, such as emergency
response (Kapucu and Van Wart 2006; Moynihan 2009), to which
Building the internal legitimacy of the network consisted of such traditional bureaucratic forms are not well suited. Paradoxically,
actions as demonstrating the value of network participation to however, networks that are highly flexible are also unstable, which
network members, developing trust-based ties between members, can lead to ineffectiveness. In part, the issue depends on the task
satisfactorily resolving conflicts, and building sustainable network being performed, with some network tasks requiring significantly
governance and communication mechanisms. These are similar to more stability than others. Emergency response may be at the
many of the management activities discussed in the public network high-flexibility end of the task continuum, but even for this task,
literature, such as facilitating (Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan 1997), stability is required regarding such factors as which organizations are
framing and synthesizing (Agranoff and McGuire 2001), and bridg- part of the network at which stages of the crisis, how the network
ing (Saz-Carranza and Ospina 201 1). Building external legitimacy is governed and led, how resources will be distributed, and so on.
consisted of seeking new members, promoting the network and For other tasks, such as dealing with "vulnerable" clients, including
its activities to outsiders, and providing outside resources to meet emergency and disaster recovery efforts, stability is an important
network (and organizational) goals. In the public network literature, factor for network success. This conclusion was demonstrated in a
these are similar to the management activities comparative study by Provan and Milward
of activating and mobilizing (Agranoff and The conclusion that we can (1995) on community-based networks serving
McGuire 2001) or capacitating (Saz-Carranza adults with serious mental illnesses.
draw about the stability-
and Ospina 201 1). The research findings from
flexibility paradox is that Based on the limited research that has been
Human and Provan's (2000) study indicated
that while both aspects of legitimacy build- networks need to be relatively conducted on whole network stability, the
ing were needed for network success, internal stable at their core, while conclusion that we can draw about the stabil-
legitimacy was more important early in the maintaining flexibility, ity-flexibility paradox is that networks need to
networks development as a way of sustain- especially at the periphery. be relatively stable at their core, while main-
ing the network through times of crisis. The taining flexibility, especially at the periphery

Theory to Practice 645

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
(for an analytical discussion, see Borgatti and Everett 1999). The accomplish work, especially complex tasks that are best suited to
network core would typically consist of organizations that are most multiorganizational and collaborative solutions involving multiple
central in their level of involvement and most critical to the overall sectors, those who study the phenomenon would be well served to
mission of the network. Significant disruptions in the pattern of draw on the contributions of public network scholars.
relationships among the core organizations
are especially difficult to overcome. Flexibility Despite a great deal of progress made in
could be advantageous, however, on the Despite a great deal of progress recent years in understanding why networks
network periphery, which refers to those made in recent years in form, what they are capable of doing, how
organizations that are less well connected they are managed and governed, and how
understanding why networks
and whose involvement might be less critical. they might operate effectively to accom-
form, what they are capable of
New organizations can enter and less involved plish their goals, there are many issues and
doing, how they are managed topics that are not well understood. While
organizations can leave, thus bringing new
ideas and contributions to core members. and governed, and how they this incomplete knowledge about networks
might operate effectively to may prove frustrating to those whose work
One example of the value of core stabil- accomplish their goals, there are involves funding, building, maintaining,
ity in an evolving network is the case of the many issues and topics that are and running networks, it offers considerable
Southern Alberta Child and Youth Health opportunities for conducting public network
not well understood.
Network (SACYHN; see Lemaire 2012). In research. It is not the purpose of this article
SACYHN, the core consisted mostly of health to provide a thorough discussion of possi-
organizations, as they initiated the network and provided most of ble areas for further research. However, a few of the more obvious
its financial support. This core group was highly stable, while on areas where research is very much needed include: (1) network
the periphery, the membership and involvement of organizations evolution, including demise/dissolution; (2) comparing multiple
from other sectors varied over the eight-year life of the network. networks in a variety of settings with respect to key differences in
While SACYHN was highly effective for most of this period, what such areas as governance, task, sector, and design; (3) examining the
led to its demise was a restructuring of the health system that col- role that mandate plays (versus emergent networks) in contribut-
lapsed seven core member organizations into a single agency. With ing to network effectiveness or the lack of it; and (4) considering
the uncertainty created by this restructuring, coupled with the the impact of multiple network membership, overlapping network
withdrawal of support by the main health agency, SACYHN was involvement, and broader network-environment relations on the
no longer able to operate as a formal network. Overall, as network capacity of network organizations to function effectively in the face
needs change based on shifting clients, changes in funding, or move- of competing and often conflicting demands (cf. Rethemeyer and
ment to a different task stage, some organizations at the periphery Hatmaker 2008). Addressing these issues will prove highly benefi-
may drop out, while others move to the core, eventually supplanting cial to network practice, providing both policy officials and public
the role of some older core organizations. This type of change does network managers with a deeper understanding of why, when, and
not disrupt overall network stability, while a stable core can actually how to establish, maintain, and get the most out of networks and
support the flexibility typically associated with networks and still network involvement.
maintain the networks mission.
Because the literature on organizational networks and network
Conclusion relations is by now so large, a thorough consideration of all that has
This article has attempted to provide public management scholars,been done to date is an impossible task, at least within the confines
students, and practitioners with an overview of current thinking of
on a journal article. Our intent here has been to provide a brief
organizational networks. We have focused in particular on whole, overview of what we believe are the key findings and ideas that have
goal-directed service delivery networks, which are so important toemerged in the study of networks over the past two decades that are
and prevalent in the public and nonprofit sectors. Our discussion particularly relevant to public management network scholars and
has drawn not only on the considerable research and theorizing on practitioners concerned with or working in service delivery net-
works. Too often, scholarly research either does not reach practition-
public and publicly funded networks, but also on some of the core
ers in a way that is usable, or the knowledge transferred is extremely
concepts and findings from network scholarship in other disciplines.
Adding our own thinking, we have offered insights into why a net-narrow, depriving practitioners of an understanding of the bigger
picture. This article has been attempted to convey public network
work might be appropriately selected over more traditional, hierar-
research knowledge that is both nontechnical and broad enough to
chical forms of organizing and, once selected, how networks might
function more effectively. While public management scholars andaddress a range of important questions and issues. Those involved
in network practice will, of course, still need to adopt the general
practitioners can certainly learn a great deal from work that has been
done on private sector networks, public network researchers haveconclusions that we have made here to their own specific network
settings.
examined some issues that are significantly understudied in a private
sector context. Most notably, and as pointed out on several occa-
sions here, public network scholars have contributed in importantReferences
Adler, Paul. S., and Seok-Woo Kwon. 2002. Social Capital: Prospects for a New
ways to an understanding of goal-directed whole networks, includ-
ing their management and governance, while private sector scholars Concept. Academy of Management Review 27(1): 1 7-40.
have mostly focused on dyadic relationships and egocentric network
Agranoff, Robert. 2007. Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public

ties. As business firms turn increasingly toward network forms to Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

646 Public Administration Review • September | October 2012

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2001. Big Questions in Network
Management Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
11(3): 295-326.
Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2008. Collaborative Governance in Theory and
Practice. Journal of Public Administration and Theory 18(4): 543-71.
Beckman, Christine M., Pamela R. Haunschild, and Damon J. Phillips. 2004.
Friends or Strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, Market Uncertainty, and
Network Partner Selection. Organization Science 15(3): 259-75.
Bell, Geoffrey G., and Akbar Zaheer. 2007. Geography, Networks, and Knowledge
Flow. Organization Science 18(6): 955-72.
Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, Rosemary O'Leary, and Christine Carlson. 2009.
Frameshifting: Lateral Thinking for Collaborative Public Management. In Big
Ideas in Collaborative Public Management, edited by Lisa Blomgren Bingham and
Rosemary O'Leary, 3-16. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Borgatti, Stephen P., and Martin G. Everett. 1999. Models of Core/Periphery
Structure. Social Networks 2 1 (4) : 375-95.
Borgatti, Stephen P., and Pacey C. Foster. 2003. The Network Paradigm in Organization
Research: A Review and Typology. Journal of Management 29(6): 991-1013.
Brass, Daniel J., Joseph Galaskiewicz, Henrich R. Greve, and Wenpin Tsai. 2004.
Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. Academy
of Management Journal 47(6): 795-817.
Brown, Trevor L., Matthew Potoski, and David M. Van Slyke. 2006. Managing
Public Service Contracts: Aligning Values, Institutions, and Markets. Public
Administration Review 66(3): 323-31.
Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Melissa Middleton Stone. 2006. The
Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from
the Literature. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 44-55.
Burns, Tom, and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London:
Tavistock.
Burt, Ronald S. 2005. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society. Vol. 1 of The Information Age:
Economy, Society and Culture. 2nd ed. Maiden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.
Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Special
issue, American Journal of Sociology 94: 95-120.
Cropper, Steve, Mark Ebers, Chris Huxham, and Peter Smith Ring, eds. 2008.
The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Dhanaraj, Charles, and Arvind Parkhe. 2006. Orchestrating Innovation Networks.
Academy of Management Review 31(3): 659-69.
Goldsmith, Stephen, and William D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New
Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology
78(6): 1360-80.
Gulati, Ranjay, and Martin Gargiulo. 1999. Where Do Interorganizational Networks
Come From? American Journal of Sociology 104(5): 1439-93.
Gulati, Ranjay, and Jack A. Nickerson. 2008. Interorganizational Trust, Governance
Choice, and Exchange Performance. Organization Science 19(5): 688-708.
Gulati, Ranjay, Maxim Sytch, and Adam Tatarynowicz. 2012. The Rise and Fall of
Small Worlds: Exploring the Dynamics of Social Structure. Organization Science
23(2): 449-71.
Hansen, Morten T. 1999. The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties
in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science
Quarterly 44(1): 82-1 11.
Herranz, Joaquin, Jr. 2008. The Multisectoral Trilemma of Network Management.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(1): 1-31.
Human, Sherrie E., and Keith G. Provan. 2000. Legitimacy Building in the
Evolution of Small-Firm Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and
Demise. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(2): 327-65.
This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and
Practice of Collaborative Advantage. London: Routledge.
Ibarra, Herminia. 1995. Race, Opportunity, and Diversity of Social Circles in
Managerial Networks. Academy of Management Journal 38(3): 673-703.
Ingram, Paul, and Magnus Thor Torfason. 2010. Organizing the In-Between:
The Population Dynamics of Network-Weaving Organizations in the Global
Interstate Network. Administrative Science Quarterly 55(4): 577-605.
Isett, Kimberley R., Ines A. Mergel, Kelly LeRoux, Pamela A. Mischen, and R.
Karl Rethemeyer. 2011. Networks in Public Administration Scholarship:
Understanding Where We Are and Where We Need to Go. Supplement, Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 21: 157-73.
Kapucu, Nairn, and Montgomery Van Wart. 2006. The Evolving Role of the Public
Sector in Managing Catastrophic Disasters: Lessons Learned. Administration &
Society 38(3): 279-308.
Kettl, Donald F. 2009. The Next Government of the United States: Why Our Institutions
Fail and How to Dix Them. New York: W. W. Norton.
Kickert, Walter J. M., Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F. M. Koppenjan, eds. 1997.
Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage
Publications.
Kilduff, Martin, and Wenpin Tsai. 2005. Social Networks and Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Koka, Balaji R., Ravindranath Madhaven, and John E. Prescott. 2006. The Evolution
of Interfirm Networks: Environmental Effects on Patterns of Network Change.
Academy of Management Review 31(3): 721-37.
Koza, Mitchell P., and Arie Y. Lewin. 1999. The Coevolution of Network Alliances:
A Longitudinal Analysis of an International Professional Service Network.
Organization Science 10(5): 638-53.
Lechner, Christoph, Karolin Frankenberger, and Stephen W. Floyd. 2010.
Task Contingencies in the Curvilinear Relationships between Intergroup
Networks and Initiative Performance. Academy of Management Journal 53(4):
865-89.
Lemaire, Robin H. 2012. The Functions of the Network Executive: A Case Study of
Network Management, Leadership, and Governance. PhD diss., University of
Arizona.
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr., Carolyn J. Heinrich, and Carolyn J. Hill. 2000. Studying
Governance and Public Management: Challenges and Prospects. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 233-62.
McGuire, Michael. 2002. Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do
and Why They Do It. Public Administration Review 62(5): 599-609.
McGuire, Michael, and Robert Agranoff. 20 1 1 . The Limitations of Public
Management Networks. Public Administration 89(2): 265-84.
Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr. 2001. Managerial Strategies and
Behavior in Networks: A Model with Evidence from U.S. Public Education.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1 1(2): 271-95.
Milward, H. Brinton, and Keith G. Provan. 2000. Governing the Hollow State.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 359-80.
Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Governm
Moynihan, Donald P. 2009. The Network Governance of Cri
Studies of Incident Command Systems. Journal of Public Ad
and Theory 19(4): 895-915.
O'Leary, Rosemary, and Lisa Blomgren Bingham. 2007. Mana
Networks. International Public Management Journal 10(1
Oliver, Christine. 1990. Determinants of Interorganizational
Integration and Future Directions. Academy of Management
241-65.
O'Mahoney, Siobhan, and Fabrizio Ferraro. 2007. The Emergence of Governance
in an Open Source Community. Academy of Management Journal 50(5):
1079-1106.
Theory to Practice 647
OToole, Laurence J., Jr. 1997. Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research- Sector Service Provision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Based Agendas in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 57(1): 18(4): 617-46.
45-52. Safford, Sean. 2009. Why the Garden Club Couldn't Save Youngstown: The

Podolny, Joel M., and Karen L. Page. 1998. Network Forms of Organization. Annual Transformation of the Rust Belt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Review of Sociology 24: 57-76. Saz-Carranza, Angel, and Sonia M. Ospina. 201 1. The Behavioral Dimension of
Powell, Walter W. 1990. Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Governing Interorganizational Goal-Directed Networks: Managing the Unity-
Organization. In Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 12, edited by Barry M. Diversity Tension. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(2):

Staw and Larry L. Cummings, 295-336. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 327-65.

Powell, Walter W., Douglas R. White, Kenneth W. Koput, and Jason Owen- Schalk, Jelmer, Rene Torenvlied, and Jim Allen. 2010. Network Embeddedness

Smith. 2005. Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of and Public Agency Performance: The Strength of Strong Ties in Dutch Higher

Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences. American Journal of Education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(3): 629-53.

Sociology 110(4): 1132-1205. Suchman, Mark C. 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional
Provan, Keith G., Amy Fish, and Joerg Sydow. 2007. Interorganizational Networks Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571-610.
at the Network Level: A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks. Teisman, Geert R., and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2002. Partnership Arrangements: Governmental

Journal of Management 33(3): 479-516. Rhetoric or Governance Scheme? Public Administration Review 62(2): 197-205.

Provan, Keith G., and Patrick Kenis. 2008. Modes of Network Governance: Turrini, Alex, Daniela Cristofoli, Francesca Frosini, and Greta Nasi. 2010.

Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Networking Literature about Determinants of Network Effectiveness. Public

Research and Theory 18(2): 229-52. Administration 88(2): 528-50.

Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 1995. A Preliminary Theory of Network Uzzi, Brian. 1997. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The

Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Health Systems. Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 35-67.

Administrative Science Quarterly 40(1): 1-33. Weiner, Bryan J., and Jeffrey A. Alexander. 1998. The Challenges of Governing
Public-Private Community Health Partnerships. Health Care Management
Review 23(2):
Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration 39-55. 61(4):
Review
414-23. Williamson, Oliver E. 1981. The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost

Raab, Jörg K., and Patrick Kenis. 2009. Heading toward a Society of Networks: Approach. American Journal of Sociology 87(3): 548-77.

Empirical Developments and Theoretical Challenges. Journal of Management Wood, Donna J., and Barbara Gray. 1991. Toward a Comprehensive Theory of
Inquiry 18(3): 198-210. Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2): 139-62.

Reagans, Ray, and Bill McEvily. 2003. Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer:Zaheer, Akbar, and Jared Harris. 2006. Interorganizational Trust. In Handbook
The Effects of Cohesion and Range. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): of Strategic Alliances, edited by Oded Shenkar and Jeffrey J. Reuer, 169-97.
240-67. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rethemeyer, R. Karl, and Deneen M. Hatmaker. 2008. Network Management Zaheer, Akbar, and Giuseppe Soda. 2009. Network Evolution: The Origins of
Reconsidered: An Inquiry into Management of Network Structures in Public Structural Holes. Administrative Science Quarterly 54(1): 1-31.

Join Public Administration Review on Facebook

to find out more about issue updates and upcoming calls for papers

(http:/ /www.facebookxom/PAReview) .

648 Public Administration Review • September! October 2012

This content downloaded from 158.170.10.44 on Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms