• Like
  • Save

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Master scriptie ricardo uijen

  • 2,849 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,849
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORKS A N E V A L U A TI O N O F C E N TR A V O O R J E U G D E N G E Z I N I N TH E N E T H E R L A N D S RICARDO UIJEN 8th of July, 2010 Tilburg University Tilburg school of Economics and Management Department of Organization and Strategy Strategic Management
  • 2. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORKS A N E V A L U A TI O N O F C E N TR A V O O R J E U G D E N G E Z I N I N TH E N E T H E R L A N D S 8TH OF JULY, 2010 Author: Ricardo Uijen ANR: 964593 Phone: +31 6 497 802 90 Email: ricardo.uijen@gmail.com Word count: 18.431 (excluding appendices) Supervisors: drs. A.E. (Astrid) Kramer Tilburg University dr. J. (Joerg) Raab Tilburg University D. (Dirk-Jan) Swinkels VeranderVisie B.V.
  • 3. P a g e |i Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Networks are becoming more and more significant in western society (Raab & Kenis, 2009), bringing faster, more flexible, and all encompassing solutions to problems that can not be solved by single organizations (O'Toole, 1997). In the Netherlands, the lack of collaboration between youth and family care organizations led to the death of several children (Kamerman, 2005, 2007). This was an incentive for the Dutch government to mandate youth and family care networks (van Eijck, 2006a, 2006b), which are called Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin. Collaboration is imposed on several youth and family care organizations, however how the collaboration between these organizations should be managed is not defined by the Dutch government. Therefore, from a practical perspective, it is interesting to study the effectiveness of current management practice. From a theoretical perspective it is interesting to study what leads to effective mandated public network management. Indicative factors of effective mandated public network management are studied based on what can be influenced by five essential network management tasks: (1) the management of design, (2) the management of legitimacy, (3) the management of conflict, (4) the management of commitment, and (5) the management of accountability (Milward & Provan, 2006). A list of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin was provided by the Dutch Ministry of Youth and Families and used as sample for this study. An evaluation framework for effective mandated public network management is developed in this study. The evaluation framework is used in a survey for network managers of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin to evaluate the current situation. Furthermore, the influence of differences in context variables is studied using ANOVA analyses of the survey data. The considered context variables are: (1) management background, (2) participating organizations, (3) accessibility, (4) participating municipalities, (5) municipality size, (6) starting point, and (7) governance mode. In general and on average the studied Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin score adequately on the considered indicators of effective mandated public network management. When considering the context variables extra attention should go out to the management of accountability in Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin with less than eight organizations, ten or more locations, or multiple participating municipalities. Furthermore, little significant differences are found between Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin with small or large participating municipalities. Also, this study finds little significant differences between Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin that are just open to the public and Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin that are open to the public for a few years now. Finally, this study provides tentative proof for the effectiveness of three network governance modes that are suggested by Provan & Kenis (2007). All results are thoroughly discussed, giving possible explanations for the outcomes of this study and recommendations for future research. Keywords: Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin (CJG), effective mandated public network management, evaluation research.
  • 4. P a g e | ii Master thesis Strategic Management TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem indication ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 A practical perspective: management of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin .......................................... 1 1.1.2 A theoretical perspective: management of mandated public networks ...................................... 3 1.1.3 Research context ................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Research goal and question .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Research relevance ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Structure ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Research strategy ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Research design ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 An accurate description of the problem .................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 A description of the desired situation ........................................................................................................ 9 2.2.3 A description of the current situation ...................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 3: An evaluation framework of effective mandated public network management .... 15 3.1 Network management tasks ................................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Management of design ............................................................................................................................................ 16 3.2.1 Contingency factors ......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Management of legitimacy .................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.1 Building legitimacy........................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.2 Internal legitimacy ........................................................................................................................................... 21 3.4 Management of conflict........................................................................................................................................... 23 3.4.1 Conflict prevention........................................................................................................................................... 23 3.4.2 Conflict resolution ............................................................................................................................................ 23 3.5 Management of commitment ............................................................................................................................... 25 3.5.1 Goal commitment.............................................................................................................................................. 25 3.5.2 Partial commitment ......................................................................................................................................... 26 3.6 Management of accountability............................................................................................................................. 27 3.6.1 Clarity .................................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.6.2 Monitoring performance ............................................................................................................................... 28 3.7 The evaluation framework .................................................................................................................................... 29 3.7.1 Interaction of network management tasks ............................................................................................ 30 Chapter 4: Results............................................................................................................................................................... 31
  • 5. P a g e | iii Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 4.1 Descriptive data ......................................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Network management tasks ................................................................................................................................. 33 4.2.1 Management of design .................................................................................................................................... 33 4.2.2 Management of legitimacy ............................................................................................................................ 35 4.2.3 Management of conflict .................................................................................................................................. 36 4.2.4 Management of commitment ....................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.5 Management of accountability .................................................................................................................... 38 4.3 Differences in context variables .......................................................................................................................... 39 4.3.1 Management background .............................................................................................................................. 39 4.3.2 Participating organizations .......................................................................................................................... 39 4.3.3 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................................ 40 4.3.4 Participating municipalities ......................................................................................................................... 40 4.3.5 Size of municipality .......................................................................................................................................... 41 4.3.6 Starting point ...................................................................................................................................................... 42 4.3.7 Governance modes ........................................................................................................................................... 42 Chapter 5: Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................... 43 5.1 Answer to the research questions ...................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Discussion..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 5.2.1 Management tasks ............................................................................................................................................ 45 5.2.2 Contextual variables ........................................................................................................................................ 46 5.3 Contributions to theory and practice ................................................................................................................ 48 5.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 49 Reference list ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................. 56 Appendix I: CJG goals and legal authorization ...................................................................................................... 56 Appendix II: Topic list experts .................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix III: Expert contact list ................................................................................................................................. 58 Appendix IV: List of approached CJG population ................................................................................................ 59 Appendix V: Topic list for the telephone contact with CJG managers (in Dutch) .................................. 60 Appendix VI: Frequency tables discriptive data (SPSS output)..................................................................... 61 Appendix VII: Survey measures .................................................................................................................................. 64 Appendix VIII: ANOVA results ..................................................................................................................................... 70
  • 6. P a g e |1 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION “The important role of nonprofit organizations in policy implementation has led scholars to characterize the state as operating as ‘third-party’ government or the ‘hollowed state’”(Sandfort, 2009, p. 1). ‘Wicked problems’ (Harmon & Mayer, 1986; in McGuire, 2006) such as natural disasters, poverty, and health care need faster, more flexible, and all encompassing solutions using networks instead of single governmental organizations (O'Toole, 1997). “The network logic is that collaboration is needed to deal with problems that do not fit neatly within the boundaries of a single organization” (Milward & Provan, 2006, p. 8). Networks are seen as a way of solving very complex problems that transcend the capabilities of a single organization, “because the resources and expertise needed to cope with the problems are contained within autonomous organizations and vested interest groups” (van der Ven, 1976, pp. 24-25). Therefore organizations in networks are interdependent, which means that they are dependent on each other’s resources to reach their own goals (Kickert, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1997). “Networks typically refer to multiorganizational arrangements for solving problems that cannot be achieved, or achieved easily, by single organizations” (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001, p. 296). These networks are becoming more and more significant in the Western society (Raab & Kenis, 2009). 1.1 PROBLEM INDICATION “Many organizations are concerned with the wellbeing of children. However, children in distress often have to wait for a long time before they are helped properly. They fall between two stools because many organizations only focus on their own organizational turf and fail to collaborate. This is the reason that proper care came too late for Talysa, Gessica, and Savanna.” (Reerink, 2009) 1.1.1 A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE: MANAGEMENT OF CENTRA VOOR JEUGD EN GEZIN The Dutch administration of ‘Balkenende II’ (elected in 2003) started ‘Operatie jong’ in which seven ministries worked together to create strong and result driven youth and family policy in the Netherlands (van Eijck, 2006a). The complex system of ministries as well as care organizations working alongside each other instead of with each other created policy pillars1. Each different problem was addressed by someone else, although it concerned only a single child (van Eijck, 2006a)2. This escalated in a few exemplary cases of the lack of collaboration in youth and family care in the Dutch news (Table 1). At that time little difference was seen in the organization of youth and family policy on a regional and local level (van Eijck, 2006a). This triggered the thought to increase collaboration in activities and responsibilities, and hereby focus on results for youth and families instead of regulations. 1 In Dutch ‘verkokering’. For further reading: Aa, A. van der, Konijn, T. (2001). Ketens, ketenregisseurs en ketenontwikkeling: het ontwikkelen van transparante en flexibele samenwerkingsverbanden in netwerken. Utrecht: Uitgeverij Lemma BV. 2 E.g., on a national level the ministry of Education, Culture, and Science is responsible for early school drop outs, the ministry of Social Affairs and Employment for those who are entitled to a social benefit, the ministry of Justice for youth criminals, and the ministry of Public Housing, Urban planning, and Conservation for inconvenience caused by youth that is hanging around on the streets. All these responsibilities of the different ministries could be targeted on only one child.
  • 7. P a g e |2 Master thesis Strategic Management TABLE 1: EXEMPLARY CASES OF BAD COLLABORATION IN DUTCH YOUTH AND FAMILY CARE Talysa Baby Talysa, barely a month old, died from excessive violence by her parents. Multiple concussions, a skull fracture, eye bruises and a bleeding nose among others were part of the wounds of the baby. Youth Care Rotterdam made some crucial mistakes. Social workers of several organizations made multiple judgment errors and the family guardian was not informed about important and threatening events in the family. The social workers were operating separately from each other ("Rotterdamse baby dood 'door falende jeugdzorg' ", 2008). Gessica The 12 year old Gessica was murdered and cut in pieces by her father. Body parts of her were found in the Maas river. Several social workers were in contact with Gessica for several years. Consultation agencies and school doctors misjudged her risky situation. Social workers and the family doctor who treated her mentally ill father gave no priority to the safety of the child. Files concerning Gessica were poorly updated and not connected to those of her father. The care organizations worked separately from each other (Kamerman, 2007). Savanna Savanna, a 3 year old, was found dead in the trunk of her mother’s car. She was starved by her parents for one and a half years and finally suffocated to death. This happened despite of the supervision of a family guardian for Savanna and several care organizations who were involved in some way. Again they worked separately from each other and redirected responsibility (Kamerman, 2005). A special committee suggested a Centrum voor Jeugd en Gezin (henceforth ‘CJG’3), where easy accessible care for growing and bringing up would be available (van Eijck, 2006a, 2006b). CJG provide advice, support, and help for all issues connected to youth and families, bringing together early education, childcare, health, and family support (Programmaministerie, 2009). CJG are intended for everybody between the moment of conception and 23 years, along with their families (VNG, 2007). The Dutch minister of Youth and Families, Andre Rouvoet4, invests 1,155 billion Euros in CJG between 2008 and 2011 (Rouvoet, 2008b). In 2011 every municipality in the Netherlands is obliged to have a CJG (Rouvoet, 2008a), and the requirements for being a CJG are incorporated in a basic model 5 . Municipalities are in charge of CJG and are held accountable by the ministry of youth and families. The association of Dutch municipalities (VNG 6 ) is responsible for supporting municipalities in the implementation process. Therefore municipalities are supported in their task to establish CJG by means of financial aid, information, and advice by the ministry as well as the VNG. However, bringing together the diverse set of organizations which together constitute a CJG has so far proven to be a big challenge for the responsible municipalities (Oudhof, 2007). One reason for this is that municipalities are free to manage the CJG in their own way (Programmaministerie, 2008). There is no framework for how the participating organizations should manage their activities as a CJG, only the fact that they collaborate will be mandated by law in 2011. Whether this collaboration is managed effectively remains the question. 3 Abbreviation of the Dutch translation of youth and family centers: Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin. 4 Andre Rouvoet is the Dutch minister of Youth and Families under resignation. He was in the government of Balkenende IV which was in office until February 2010. His responsibilities are six projects in the field of youth and families, of which implementing CJG is one. For these projects he works together with the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. (www.jeugdengezin.nl). 5 The literal translation of the CJG basic model proposition can be found in Appendix I. 6 Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten, Dutch acronym for Association of Dutch Municipalities.
  • 8. P a g e |3 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 1.1.2 A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE: MANAGEMENT OF MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORKS Agranoff & McGuire (2001) define public networks as networks that “are led or managed by government representatives” (p. 296). In the case of CJG, municipalities are held responsible for the implementation of CJG in the Netherlands. Therefore CJG can be considered public networks. In a mandated network “collaboration is imposed on separate organizations by a third party” (Rodriguez, Langley, Beland, & Denis, 2007, p. 152). In the case of CJG municipalities and several care organizations are mandated to collaborate in order to create a network that is better fit to address a public problem. The objective of the network is providing a better solution to a public problem, namely youth and family care. Considering this objective, Raab & Kenis (2009) argue that a distinction in networks can be made between groups of organizations “that do not develop a collective identity” (Raab & Kenis, 2009, p. 199) on the one hand, and “consciously created goal directed networks” (Raab & Kenis, 2009, p. 199) on the other hand. Provan, Fish & Sydow (2007) define the latter as whole networks: “a group of three or more organizations connected in ways that facilitate achievement of a common goal” (p. 482). CJG can be considered whole networks. But how should these networks be managed? Recent research has indicated that the management of mandated public networks is not an easy thing to do (Herranz Jr., 2007; Milward & Provan, 2006; Rodriguez, et al., 2007). Managing autonomous organizations who do not necessarily see the advantage of working together has proven to be a challenge for public network managers (Seuren, 2008). Based on a longitudinal multiple case study Rodriguez et al. (2007) argue that multiple management mechanisms should be employed in a mandated situation in order to create incentives that also stimulate organizations that have no intrinsic motivation to be part of the network. Network managers need to acknowledge that each organization in a network has different needs (Milward & Provan, 2006). The question remains however what a network manager can do to effectively manage a mandated public network. Agranoff & McGuire (2001) point out that the management of networks is distinctive from that of single organizations and therefore deserves research attention on its own. Where management of single organizations focuses on their own goals and activities, managers of networks “control and integrate work activity across organizational boundaries” (Alter, 1990, p. 483). Milward and Provan (2006) discuss managers of public networks as those “charged with the task of coordinating overall network activities and, in general, ensuring that network-level goals are set, addressed, and attained. The goals and success of organizational members become secondary to the network as a whole” (p. 18). When studying management often the tasks of the manager are taken as a starting point. There is abundant literature discussing the tasks of managers of single organizations7. Agranoff & McGuire (2001) were the first who tried to develop a framework for public network managers and later added possible network management strategies (Agranoff, 2003; McGuire, 2002). However, these studies take the position of the “government actor formally responsible for the network” (van Raaij, 2006, p. 251). Milward & Provan (2006) on the other hand propose five general but essential tasks for public network 7 e.g. see Gulick & Urwick (1937) and Drucker (1974) for well known examples of management tasks in organizations.
  • 9. P a g e |4 Master thesis Strategic Management managers in order for a network to become successful: (1) management of design, (2) management of legitimacy, (3) management of conflict, (4) management of commitment, and (5) management of accountability. Successful networks are defined in this study as networks that obtain results at the network level (van Raaij, 2006). In other words, collaboration between the organizations of the network should make the outcomes of the whole network bigger than the sum of the separate organizations. It should be noted that effective network management does not make CJG successful. There are many ways to evaluate network success (e.g. Park, 1996; Provan & Milward, 1995, 2001; Ring & Ven, 1994) in which the appropriateness of criteria is situational (Kenis & Provan, 2009) and criteria are rather complementary than mutually exclusive (Alter & Hage, 1993; Provan & Milward, 2001). However, in general scholars agree that effective network management is a necessary condition in order for networks to become successful (e.g. Agranoff, 2003; Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; McGuire, 2002, 2003, 2006; Meier & O'Toole, 2001; Milward & Provan, 2006). Therefore the success of CJG can be explored by evaluating to what extent they are managed effectively. This study uses the five management tasks suggested by Milward & Provan (2006) to do so8. Since CJG are networks that are still in their inception phase or just past that, looking at effective network management instead of for example network survival or outcomes seems appropriate. 1.1.3 RESEARCH CONTEXT In order to be able to evaluate CJG, differences in their context should be discussed. This provides insight in the comparability of CJG. Current CJG differ in their context variables and this might influence effective management of CJG. The selection criteria for these context variables are discussed in Chapter Two. Context variables (Swanborn, 2002) that are considered in this study are (1) management background, (2) participating organizations, (3) accessibility, (4) participating municipalities, (5) municipality size, (6) starting point, and (7) governance mode. The responsibility for the CJG formally lies in the hands of the child and family policy department of each municipality. However in many public networks those formally responsible are often not those who actively manage (McGuire, 2002, 2006). Government representatives are more interested in opening a physical location than making the organizations in that location actually collaborate (Reerink, 2009). Therefore, some municipalities appoint CJG managers (i.e. network managers) that are not employed by the municipality to manage the CJG as a whole. This is recommended by the Dutch government based on practical experience (de la Brethoniere, van Dijk, Quist, & Verhaar, 2008). These CJG managers can have different backgrounds (e.g. youth organizations, health organizations, social care organizations, interim management), often connected to the fact that there is a leading organization in the network (Oudhof, 2007). CJG are rather free in their choice of participants as well. The basic model for CJG (Appendix I) obliges CJG to incorporate coordination with (1) consultation agencies and GGD, (2) youth care bureau and (3) 8 This is further explained in Chapter Two.
  • 10. P a g e |5 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin care and advice teams. These are, in order of reference: nationally, regionally, and locally organized organizations, which makes managing CJG activities even more complex. Furthermore, there are some suggestions for potential participants in a CJG given by the ministry, such as local education, sports, and welfare organizations. Once again many variants of CJG exist in the Netherlands (Table 2) and municipalities adjust the CJG to their local realities (Andel, Dijk, & Slabbertje, 2007). TABLE 2: DIFFERENCES IN PARTICIPATION OF ORGANIZATIONS IN CJG OKC (Ouder en Kind Centrum) Amsterdam In Amsterdam every city district has an OKC. It is a partnership of midwifes, maternity and advice organizations, school health care, parenting support and the city district amongst others. These organizations do not necessarily have their offices on the same location. The health care to children from these organizations is properly coordinated. The OKC are in good contact with the education organizations for children. Furthermore the OKC are meant for all parent who need information or advice about bringing up children – from conception to puberty. These OKC are seen as the spider in the web of care, information, detection, support, and reference. OKé-punt Almere The OKé-punt provides information and personal advice to parents and youth about bringing and growing up. A care coordinator enables the coordination of care services if a family is in need of more than one social worker. OKé is the core of the partnerships of youth health care, GGD, Bureau Jeugdzorg, education, Care Group Almere, daycare centers, and community centers. Apart from the number of organizations in a CJG, the number of physical locations varies as well. CJG should be easily accessible, which is a broad definition. This could also be achieved with a website or telephone access, as is seen in practice. However, CJG are required to have at least one physical location by government mandate. In practice the number as well as the location of these ‘walk-in points’ varies per CJG. CJG do not necessarily have to be part of only one municipality either. Municipalities could also decide to work together as a group of municipalities. In this decision the degree of urbanization is important, since municipalities with a low number of inhabitants in a large area have difficulties with realizing concrete CJG plans (Konijn, 2007). Some tackle this problem by means of regional cooperation, in which certain back office functions are shared with the region, while every municipality keeps the freedom to run its own front office in a way that fits the local reality9. However, some municipalities with few inhabitants still decide to have an own CJG. Therefore the size of the municipalities that have a CJG varies as well. CJG also differ in their starting point. As the idea of a CJG was inspired upon some examples of youth and family care coordination in practice, these examples already made their first steps towards their CJG. OKC in Amsterdam, JONG in Rotterdam, Spilcentrum in Eindhoven, Joed in Apeldoorn, and Oke-punt in Almere are examples of these (Prinsen & Prakken, 2007). Furthermore, the seven biggest municipalities were given 32 million Euros extra (Bestuurlijke afspraken Opvoeden in de Buurt, 2006) from 2006 until 2008 in order to start pilot projects for CJG and share their experiences with the other municipalities and the government (Oudhof, 2007). The age of CJG across the Netherlands therefore differs. 9 For an example of four of these regional initiatives the researcher refers to Bogaart & Wolswinkel (2009).
  • 11. P a g e |6 Master thesis Strategic Management Finally, it was already mentioned that CJG might have a leading organization in the network (Oudhof, 2007). Provan & Kenis (2007) argue that the “structural pattern of relations” (p. 233) might vary among networks. These various patterns are called governance modes and differ in their structural properties (Provan & Kenis, 2007). This study considers self-governed, lead organizations, and network administrative organization (henceforth ‘NAO’) networks. These governance modes will be thoroughly discussed in chapter 3.2, since they are related to the management of design. 1.2 RESEARCH GOAL AND QUESTION To summarize, interest of this study is in the management of mandated public networks, defined as groups of three or more organizations connected in ways that facilitate achievement of a common goal, led or managed by government representatives, on which collaboration is imposed by a third party (constructed from Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Provan, et al., 2007; Rodriguez, et al., 2007). Specifically, CJG are evaluated based on an effective mandated public network management framework consisting of five essential management tasks in order to explore the success of the mandate of CJG. The goal of this research is to gain understanding about effective management of mandated public networks on a network level, specifically in the context of CJG. The specific problem statement guiding this study is: To what extent are Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin managed effectively based on a mandated public network management framework and what is the influence of differences in context variables on their effective management? In order to answer this problem statement, several research questions must be answered: 1. Based on the network management tasks, what factors indicate effective management of mandated public networks? 2. Based on the network management tasks, what can network level managers do to influence these factors? 3. How effective are Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin currently managed? 4. How do differences in context variables influence effective management of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin? 1.3 RESEARCH RELEVANCE There is a lack of research on the network level of analyses, considering collectivities of organizations instead of egocentric or dyadic perspectives on organizations in a network (Provan, et al., 2007; Raab & Kenis, 2009). Furthermore there are only a few studies that address mandated networks (Rodriguez, et al., 2007). Therefore, from a theoretical point of view, it is interesting to study what contributes to effective management of mandated public networks on a network level. From a practical point of view it is interesting to see if mandating CJG contributes to effectively managing collaboration between organizations in a CJG. On top of that it is interesting to study the effect of context variables on effective CJG management. Therefore this study adds value to the implementation of new CJG and gives direction to current CJG practice.
  • 12. P a g e |7 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 1.4 STRUCTURE The structure of this study is as follows: the next chapter describes the methodology of this study. Chapter Three will develop an evaluation framework for effective mandated public network management. Chapter Four will describe the results that come from a survey using the developed evaluation framework. Finally, Chapter Five will thoroughly discuss the results of the study, the contributions to theory and practice, and close with recommendations.
  • 13. P a g e |8 Master thesis Strategic Management CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY This chapter will describe the methods by which the data for this study are collected and analyzed. First the research strategy used in this study will be discussed. Subsequently the research design and its components will be discussed. 2.1 RESEARCH STRATEGY The objective of the Dutch government for mandating CJG is improving collaboration between the relevant organizations operating in the field of youth and family care. Therefore it is interesting to evaluate whether these networks are successful, i.e. are able to obtain results at the network level (van Raaij, 2006). Van Raaij (2006) explains that the success of the network can be studied using objective as well as subjective measures. Subjective measures “are based on perceptions of one or more stakeholders (Alter & Hage, 1993; Provan & Milward, 1995) and vary in the type of criterion used” (van Raaij, 2006, p. 251). This study uses a subjective measure. The unit of observation will be those who are responsible for the collaboration of the organizations in the network as a whole, i.e. the network managers, as is proposed by Milward & Provan (2006). Effective network management is used as the evaluation criterion. Effective network management is operationalized based on five essential tasks of network managers (Milward & Provan, 2006) and adjusted to a mandated public context. For each task factors are determined that indicate effective network management. Milward & Provan (2006) argue that the tasks can be applied for the management in networks, considering management of a single organization in a network, and the management of networks, considering the management of the whole network. This study will go into the latter, following the research directions of Provan et al. (2007) and Raab & Kenis (2009). The reason why the five management tasks suggested by Milward & Provan (2006) are used to evaluate the success of CJG is threefold: (1) Milward & Provan (2006) specifically propose these tasks as essential for networks to become successful, (2) both Milward and Provan are leading researchers in network level research, and (3) given the limited resources of the researcher, network managers are the most interesting available data source for CJG on a network level. 2.2 RESEARCH DESIGN According to Baker (1999) evaluation research focuses on the evaluation of a specific program, intervention, or social activity. Mandating CJG is an intervention in the way youth and family care organizations collaborate, therefore evaluation research is applicable. Evaluating serves several purposes, such as guiding the behavior of those who execute the intervention and determining whether resources are used well (Swanborn, 2002). An evaluation of the intervention is desirable and useful, because the intervention can be critically discussed and the optimal course for continuation can be determined. According to Swanborn (2002) evaluation research distinguishes three components:
  • 14. P a g e |9 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin  An accurate description of the problem  A description of the desired situation  A description of the current situation These components will serve as a structure for this study and will be discussed now. 2.2.1 AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM In order to understand why CJG are mandated and describe the challenge of managing CJG a document study is conducted. This study gives insight in the background of CJG and explains possible differences in CJG based on context variables that might influence the management of CJG. Context variables are properties of the situation that influence the target variable (effective network management) irrespective of the intervention or in conjunction with the intervention (Swanborn, 2002). Previous research also stresses the importance of context variables in networks (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; van der Ven, 1976). The context variables for his study are selected based on the document study. The results of this study can be found in the first chapter. The studied documents include information bulletins, policy plans, government reports, quality newspapers, CJG websites and newsletters, and previous research. Since these data sources may vary in quality, the results from this document study were checked and reflected upon with two CJG managers currently implementing a CJG10. They confirmed the problem indication and suggested two additional context variables: management background and accessibility. After a cross check with relevant documents, the researcher added these variables to the study. 2.2.2 A DESCRIPTION OF THE DESIRED SITUATION In order to describe the desired situation chapter three discusses the five essential management tasks that lead to effective network management adjusted to a mandated public context. The descriptions of the management tasks by Milward & Provan (2006) are used as a leading guideline to come to indicative factors of effective network management11. The researcher acknowledges that the factors are not collectively exhaustive and will discuss why they are not mutually exclusive. However, the purpose of this chapter is creating a usable evaluation model, not critically discussing the suggested management tasks as proposed by Milward & Provan (2006). For this chapter only academic journals are used. These were collected from the academic databases of Tilburg University as well as Google Scholar. The management tasks of Milward & Provan (2006), the 10The first two respondents of the expert contact list in Appendix III. 11In their research on governance modes Kenis & Provan (2007) discuss predictors of effectiveness of governance modes. These are contingency factors that increase the expectation of effectiveness of a network, if the right conditions are met. This study will adopt this terminology, calling the factors that can be influenced by the network management tasks and that indicate effective network management indicative factors.
  • 15. P a g e | 10 Master thesis Strategic Management study on mandated networks (Rodriguez, et al., 2007), and the literature on whole networks (Provan et al., 2007) served as a starting point. The resulting factors were discussed with a national responsible for the implementation of CJG, a general of the Dutch ministry of defense that manages NATO joined forces networks, and two CJG managers based on a topic list (Appendix II) 12 . Furthermore, several business consultants were informally consulted about their reflections on network management based on their extensive experience in organizational networks. These reflections led to more emphasis on goal commitment as well as goal clarity in several management tasks. Furthermore, practical management actions that could lead to effective network management were derived, for example the use of a mission statement and a covenant. Lastly, the importance of communication was stressed. 2.2.3 A DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION An online survey was conducted for this study in order to describe the current effectiveness of CJG management and study possible differences in effectiveness due to different context variables. Chapter Five discusses the results of this survey. The methodology of the survey will be discussed below. 2.2.3.1 SAMPLING AND RESPONDENTS A purposive sample strategy for the survey data was used. Based on an interview with the responsible ministry, a list of CJG that are considered operational by the Dutch government was provided to the researcher. After checking and updating the list, the total population of interesting CJG was 4313. For an overview of the considered CJG see Appendix IV. For each CJG the researcher looked for those responsible for the collaboration of the organizations of the CJG (i.e. network managers) as respondents. Using a single respondent for each network with a self-administered survey is fairly common in network level research (e.g. Clarke, 2006; Daniel, Hempel, & Srinivansan, 2002; Sarkar, Aulakh, & Cavusgil, 1998; Walter & Ritter, 2003). The researcher got in contact with 36 network managers of the selected CJG, most by phone. Each respondent was asked some standard questions (topic list in Appendix V). Furthermore the email address of the contact respondent was acquired with permission in order to send a personal invitation for the online survey. In total 30 of the contacted network managers started filling in the survey and 26 completed the survey, leading to a response rate of 60,5%14. All respondents were interested in the results of the study. 2.2.3.2 SURVEY STRUCTURE The online survey was structured in line with guidelines from academic literature (Baarda, Goede, & Kalmijn, 2007; Brace, 2004; Sekaran, 2003). The survey was sent by email with the title ‘optimal 12Respondent one, two, six and seven in the expert contact list in Appendix III. 13By March 2010, 163 municipalities opened some kind of CJG. On top of that, 45 municipalities were coordinating their activities, complied with the basic CJG model, without officially opening as a CJG (RIVM, 2010). However, not all of these CJG comply with the initial government requirements. 1426/43=0,605.
  • 16. P a g e | 11 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin collaboration within CJG’. In the email respondents could find a link to the actual survey. The survey questions were preceded with a brief explanation about the goal of the research. The anonymity of the respondents was also ensured and they were told that they could receive feedback of the study results if they completed the survey. A link to a website was provided for additional information about the study15. It should be noted that respondents were assured that this study was not intended to judge their personal performance in order to minimize sample bias of respondents giving socially desirable answers. The next page of the survey explained the definitions of CJG and organizations in the CJG that were used for this study. Respondents were asked if they understood these definition, if not they were advised to contact the researcher. All respondents indicated they understood these definitions at once. 2.2.3.3 SURVEY MEASURES The survey measured context variables, as discussed in the first chapter, and variables that came from the developed evaluation framework, as will be discussed in chapter three. 2.2.3.3.1 CONTEXT VARIABLES Table 16 displays the considered context variables and the groups within each variable that are compared. All context variables are objective variables, and can therefore be tested with a single question (Baarda, et al., 2007; Brace, 2004; Sekaran, 2003). TABLE 3: OVERVIEW OF CONTEXT VARIABLES Context variable Group Management background Municipality Other Participating organizations Eight or less More than eight Accessibility Less than ten locations Ten or more locations Participating municipalities Single municipality Multiple municipalities Size of municipality Small (up to 25.000 inhabitants) Large (more than 40.000 inhabitants) Starting point Up to one year One to two years Two to three years Three or more years Governance mode Self governed Lead organizations Network administrative organizations Other 15 http://www.verandervisie.nl/index.php?pid=146.
  • 17. P a g e | 12 Master thesis Strategic Management The first context variable is whether the network manager is employed by a municipality or an other organization. This was determined based on a survey question asking the employer of the network manager. The second context variable is whether there is a difference between the small and large networks in the sample, which is determined based on the number of participating organizations. Based on small groups theory (Burn, 2004; Forsyth, 1999) small networks have approximately eight organizations (Provan & Kenis, 2007). Therefore eight was taken as a threshold and two groups were made: eight or less or more than eight participating organizations. A critical note is that it is often hard to determine the exact number of participants in a network, since network boarders can be ambiguous. This study only considers the core organizations of the CJG as ‘organizations’16. It could be that the CJG refers to other organizations, but these organizations can be considered the networks periphery. Therefore all questions in the survey about organizations were directed at the core organizations. This was incorporated in the definitions given at the start of the survey. The third context variable is the accessibility of CJG. This is measured by asking for the number of locations of a CJG17. In the frequency data (Appendix VI) a tipping point of less than ten and ten or more locations is seen. Based on this, the researcher made two groups. The fourth context variable is whether multiple municipalities participate in one CJG or not. Therefore a group was made for CJG in which a single municipality participates and a group for CJG in which multiple municipalities participate. The fifth context variable is the size of municipalities. The CJG in which multiple municipalities participate are not included in this analysis, since it is not possible to determine what the size would be18. The size of the municipality was measured by the number of inhabitants, which was determined by the respondents in the survey. Since no official categorization was found, the four size categories were determined based on data from the central agency of statistics (CBS) in the Netherlands. All municipalities were sorted on size, and the database was divided in four quartiles, with rounded numbers. The resulting categories were small (up to 15.000 inhabitants), medium-small (up to 25.000 inhabitants), medium-large (up to 40.000 inhabitants), and large (more than 40.000 inhabitants). The sixth context variable is the starting point of a CJG, defined as how long a CJG is open to the public. Therefore the age of a CJG was also determined by the respondents in the survey. The researcher made four groups; (1) open up to one year, (2) open one to two years, (3) open two to three years, and (4) open three or more years. 16 Core organizations, or ‘kern partners’ are those actively involved in the network. 17 With locations this study means physical walk-in points or in Dutch ‘inlooppunten’. 18 An average score for example would not give a proper indication of the size of each municipality and the number of municipalities that participate in one CJG. Because there are only four cases of CJG in which multiple municipalities participated, it is also not relevant to create a separate categorization for this group.
  • 18. P a g e | 13 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin The final context variable that is considered is the governance mode of CJG. This is concerned with the design of the CJG and will be discussed in chapter 3.2. A description of self governed, lead organization, and NAO networks was given to the respondents based on the descriptions of Provan & Kenis (2007). For each question respondents could answer whether this description fit their CJG. If they answered ‘no’ for all three questions they were labeled ‘other’. NAO networks were omitted from the final analysis since the sample consisted of only one NAO. Since this categorization is self-administered and only tested by asking three questions, this categorization should be interpreted with care. The results of the study displayed no relation between the discussed context variables. Therefore, they are worth considering separately. 2.3.3.3.2 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK VARIABLES The variables of the evaluation framework are subjective variables and are therefore tested with several questions (Baarda, et al., 2007; Brace, 2004; Sekaran, 2003) in the form of propositions. The propositions in the survey are tested using a five point Likert scale. This produces similar results as a seven or nine point scale (Elmore & Beggs, 1975). On top of that, a five point scale is easier to understand for respondents but leaves enough room for variance in answers (Brace, 2004). The same scale is used for all propositions in the survey (Baarda, et al., 2007). The survey controls for primacy effect by using both positive and negative propositions for testing a construct (Baarda, et al., 2007; Brace, 2004). The academic databases of Tilburg University and Marketing Scales Handbooks (Bruner & Hensel, 1992; Bruner, James, & Hensel, 2001) were consulted for existing items. Already tested items were used when possible. The selection criteria for the existing items were the following: (1) the definition of the variable should be similar to the description of the variable discussed in this study, (2) the items have a Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951) above 0,7 (Nunnally, 1978; Pallant, 2007), and (3) there is a minimum of three questions (Baarda, et al., 2007). Scales that were used in a network or interorganizational context were preferred. However, there are very few self administered empirical surveys on a network level of analyses. Therefore, some items were adjusted to the context of this questionnaire and for some variables the questions were self developed. All original questions were in English. Questions were first formulated in accordance with the context and subsequently translated to Dutch. Following Maxwell (1996) the questions were back translated by two native English speakers in order to check the translation. Based on this back translation the most notable adjustments were made to the translation of ‘targets’ and ‘organizational turf’. The whole survey was pre-tested by management students as well as CJG experts19. Based on this pre- test some questions were omitted because of a lack of relevance. Furthermore the introduction of the survey was adjusted based on the feedback of the pre-test to further clarify the goal of the study. Finally, 19Respondent 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 of the interview contact list in Appendix III were the CJG experts that pre-tested the survey.
  • 19. P a g e | 14 Master thesis Strategic Management definitions of a CJG and an organization in a CJG were added to the survey in order to clarify the questions. Giving definitions beforehand also enabled shorter and therefore more readable survey questions. An overview of all final survey questions including reference and explanation is provided in Appendix VII. 2.2.3.4 DATA ANALYSES All questions that were reverse coded are coded correctly. Also, dummy variables for all context variables are created. SPSS software is used to analyze the acquired data. The data analyses starts with frequency analyses. In order to test for significant differences in means between groups of the context variables one way ANOVAs are run. A Levene test is done for all variables in order to determine whether equal variances could be assumed20. This is not the case. Therefore, for context variables with two groups the Welch statistic (Welch, 1947) is used to test significant differences in means. For context variables with more than two groups, a post hoc Games-Howell test (Ruxton & Beauchamp, 2008) is done. Both tests were chosen because of their robustness for small unequal sample groups (Toothaker, 1993). The resulting tables are discussed in chapter four. For all tested items on a five point scale, a three was considered an adequate score. In the next chapter the evaluation model for effective mandated public network management will be developed. 20 This is more suitable than a F-test if normality can not be assumed (Pallant, 2007).
  • 20. P a g e | 15 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin CHAPTER 3: AN EVALUATION FRAMEWORK OF EFFECTIVE MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORK MANAGEMENT This chapter will go into the theory of effective management of mandated public networks, based on five essential network management tasks. For each management task factors that indicate effective management are discussed. Furthermore, when relevant, management actions that contribute to these factors are discussed. The chapter will conclude with an evaluation framework for effective management of mandated public networks. 3.1 NETWORK MANAGEMENT TASKS Table 4 shows a description of the five essential management tasks as proposed by Milward & Provan (2006) in order to get a general impression of the content of these management tasks. These tasks will be discussed in the following sections and will be adjusted to a mandated public context. TABLE 4: ESSENTIAL NETWORK MANAGEMENT TASKS (MILWARD & PROVAN, 2006, P. 19) Essential network management task Management of networks Management of Design  Determining which structural governance forms would be the most (governance mode) appropriate for network success.  Implementing and managing the structure.  Recognizing when structure should change based on network and participant needs. Management of Legitimacy  Building and maintaining legitimacy of the network concept, network structures, and network involvement.  Attracting positive publicity, resources, new members, tangible successes, etc. Management of Conflict  Setting up mechanisms for conflict and dispute resolution.  Acting as a "good faith" broker.  Making decisions that reflect network-level goals and not the specific interests of members. Management of Commitment  Getting the "buy-in" of participants.  Working with participants to ensure they understand how network success can contribute to the organization's effectiveness.  Ensuring that network resources are distributed equitably to network participants based on network needs.  Ensuring the participants are well informed about network activities. Management of Accountability  Determining who is responsible for which outcomes.  Rewarding and reinforcing compliance with network goals.  Monitoring and responding to network "free riders". 
  • 21. P a g e | 16 Master thesis Strategic Management 3.2 MANAGEMENT OF DESIGN Milward & Provan (2006) call the implementation, maintenance, and possible change of the network governance mode the management of design. Each governance mode is distinct in its structural properties, which determines its effectiveness in specific contingency conditions (Provan & Kenis, 2007). There exists a variety of governance modes and the management of design is concerned with choosing and managing the optimal governance mode for the goal of the network. The management of design as discussed by Milward & Provan (2006) is based on the work of Provan and his co authors (Milward & Provan, 2006; Provan & Kenis, 2007), who are leading in this field of study. Therefore this study will use the research of Provan and his co authors as a guideline for the management of design. Figure 1 illustrates the fundamental governance modes illustrated by Milward & Provan (2006) and thoroughly discussed by Provan & Kenis (2007): a self-governed network, a lead organization network, and a NAO. FIGURE 1: NETWORK GOVERNANCE MODES (MILWARD & PROVAN, 2006, P. 23) Although Provan & Kenis (2007) acknowledge that this is not a mutually exclusive of collectively exhaustive set of governance modes, these are three fundamental modes of governance which allow a basic evaluation of the management of design. The distinction between these governance modes can be explained by looking at two dimensions according to Provan & Kenis (2007). The first dimension is whether a network is brokered. This means whether there is one specific entity that is in charge of managing the network. Information as well as resources flow through and from this organization to the rest of the network. Van der Ven (1976) refers to this as the centralization or “locus of decision making in a collectivity” (p. 26). In a network that is not brokered, all organizations are connected to each other and therefore there is no dominant participant or hierarchy. This form is characterized as a self-governed network. The other options, consisting of networks that are brokered, are lead organization networks and NAO’s. The second dimension, whether the network is participant
  • 22. P a g e | 17 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin brokered or externally brokered, explains the difference between these two networks. In a lead organization network, the broker is a network participant where in externally brokered networks the broker is an external entity, often specifically designed to govern the network. The latter is called a NAO. Milward & Provan (2006) argue that a network manager could decide on the optimal governance mode, but that it is best if all network members are engaged in this decision. Since the governance mode should facilitate optimal collaboration between all the different network members, their approval of the network design is important for its functioning. This argument is supported by Bryson et al. (2006) who argue that if network members indeed support the network’s design, this will positively influence network commitment and legitimacy. An efficient network design motivates network participants and increases their confidence in the abilities of the network, and will therefore improve commitment. Legitimacy increases because both internal as well as external stakeholders can see that the network is designed as an efficient entity, also increasing their confidence in and understanding of the network. The governance mode of a network is likely to evolve over time (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Provan & Kenis, 2007), since the needs of a network develop as well, changing the optimal structural properties. Since this is a timely process, this study will assume that for now CJG should have an efficient design based on the current situation. 3.2.1 CONTINGENCY FACTORS Provan & Kenis (2007) argue that the effectiveness of a network’s governance mode is contingent on the kind of trust, the size, the degree of goal consensus, and the need for network level competencies. Trust is defined as “the willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations about another’s intentions or behaviors” (McEvely, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003, p. 92). An important notion about trust in networks is that one should not only consider the trust between two members, i.e. in dyadic ties, but the general trust relations between all network members. Provan & Kenis (2007) call this the trust density. They argue that when there is trust across the whole network, self governance can be an effective design. However, if this is not present, it makes shared decision making very hard. If network members do not trust each other, they do not have the positive expectations about the other members’ behavior and will thus be more protective and act in their own interest. Network governance is still possible in this situation, but a brokered form will probably be more effective (Provan & Kenis, 2007). This is because in a brokered network governance mode not all network members have to trust each other, but rather all network members will have to trust one central entity. In the case of a lead organization design, the network can consist of dyadic ties. As long as the lead organization has a good relationship with all the other network members, the network can function effectively. In a NAO design a somewhat higher degree of trust is necessary since all network members together need to monitor the NAO leadership (Provan & Kenis, 2007). The second contingency factor determining the effectiveness of a design is the number of participants. Provan & Kenis (2007) argue that most organizations will prefer the self governance form because they will remain in full control of all decisions of the network. However, when a network grows, relationships grow exponentially. Coordination will than become very time consuming, since more voices have to be
  • 23. P a g e | 18 Master thesis Strategic Management heard before a decision can be made. Therefore, self governance is only effective in networks with a small number of organizations. A small number would be up to approximately eight organizations (Provan & Kenis, 2007), based on the small groups literature (Burn, 2004; Forsyth, 1999). When there are more organizations, a brokered governance mode is probably more efficient according to Provan & Kenis (2007), since the broker will take up the role of coordinating decisions and all information will go through one single entity. Provan & Kenis (2007) argue that a NAO will have the largest capacity, since it can design its own administrative structure, whereas the lead organization governance mode has a structure that has to deal with coordinating the organization itself and the network next to each other. The third factor that Provan & Kenis (2007) discuss is goal consensus. This is defined as “general consensus on broad network-level goals, both regarding goal content and process” (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 239). When there is a high degree of goal consensus, self governance can be effective. Since there will be little conflict about network level goals and commitment towards them, decisions can be made easily while involving all parties. A lead organization governance mode is more suitable for “making decisions about network-level goals when network members are less able to resolve conflict on their own and only partially committed to network goals” (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 240), because they “assume most strategic and operational decisions” (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 240) for the network. In a NAO governance mode the management often consists of managers from participating organizations in the network. Therefore NAO networks should have a higher commitment towards the network level goals and be more involved in the strategic decisions of the network as a whole (Provan & Kenis, 2007). The fourth and final factor discussed by Provan & Kenis is the need for network level competencies. There are two issues to be discussed for this factor: (1) the complexity of the tasks that need to be performed by the network, and (2) the external demands on the network. Internal complexity increases when there is a high degree of task interdependency. If many network members are dependent on each other for their tasks, there is a high need for network level coordination. Activities like “grant writing, quality monitoring, or even conflict resolution” (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 241) are not very suitable for a self governed design and are more efficiently done by a central party. Externally the same holds for “lobbying, seeking out new members, acquiring funding, building external legitimacy, and so on” (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 241). These are all very specific network level activities that could burden a lead organization or a self governed network, because it is a full time job on its own. Therefore, in the case of these internal and external pressures, the NAO form will be the most efficient. Table 5 summarizes the contingency conditions in which each of the three governance modes this study considers prevails. Although there will be hybrid forms of these modes, or maybe even completely different modes (Provan & Kenis, 2007), classifying CJG based on this model provides insight into the management of design.
  • 24. P a g e | 19 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin TABLE 5: PREDICTORS OF EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNANCE MODES (ADJUSTED FROM PROVAN & KENIS, 2007, P. 237) Management of Design Contingency factor Number of Governance modes Trust Goal consensus Complexity participants Self-governed High density Few High Low Moderate Lead organization Low density Moderately low Moderate number highly centralized Moderate to Network administrative Moderate density, NAO Moderately high High many organization (NAO) monitored by members
  • 25. P a g e | 20 Master thesis Strategic Management 3.3 MANAGEMENT OF LEGITIMACY Network legitimacy justifies the actions which are undertaken by the network (Dart, 2004). Legitimacy in networks is defined as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). In a network context “legitimacy refers to the status and credibility of the network and network activities as perceived both by member firms and outside constituents like funders and customers” (Human & Provan, 2000, p. 328). Legitimacy is critical for the ultimate success of networks (Human & Provan, 2000) because often in the public sector “when goals can be vague or conflicting and performance outcomes are difficult to measure, legitimacy is frequently used as an alternative indicator of effectiveness and success” (Milward & Provan, 2006, p. 20). The fact that internal and external stakeholders accept the network gives it a right to exist. Therefore network managers should build legitimacy. 3.3.1 BUILDING LEGITIMACY Human & Provan (2000) distinguish three dimensions of legitimacy building in networks. The first dimension is the network as a form, which is concerned with whether the network mode of organization is perceived as legitimate to get support and resources from internal and external parties. “A network is not automatically regarded by others as a legitimate organizational entity because it is less understandable and recognizable than more traditional forms, such as bureaucratic structures” (Bryson p. 47). An effective governance mode as discussed in the management of design is considered legitimate. When the network organization functions effectively both internal and external stakeholders will be pleased, because resources are used as intended. The second dimension, network as an entity, is about creating a legitimate entity for both insiders and outsiders. In other words it is about legitimizing who is part of the network, both to internal and external stakeholders. The third dimension Human & Provan (2000) discuss is the network as interaction. Participating organizations need to learn about the benefits the network provides for them as well as for the network as a whole (Human & Provan, 2000). In order to legitimize the network as an interaction “relationships must be established and sustained” (Human & Provan, 2000, p. 340). These three dimensions are the foundation for the management of legitimacy. When managing legitimacy, network managers should consider internal and external legitimacy (Bryson, et al., 2006; Human & Provan, 2000; Milward & Provan, 2006). Internal and external stakeholders have to be treated in a different ways to gain legitimacy. Human & Provan (2000) show that a lack of internal or external legitimacy has a negative effect on network continuity. Both networks in their study had a crisis because of a lack of legitimacy. Human & Provan (2000) explain that a focus on managing internal legitimacy is advisable for CJG. When a crisis arises, it is easier to build external legitimacy quickly, if internal effectiveness is high, since the network will produce results in that situation. However, building internal legitimacy, making all network members act as part of the network, is a time consuming process. When this has to be build when, for example, funding from external parties dries up, the network will probably be terminated before it gets the time to build internal legitimacy. On top of that the management of external legitimacy is less relevant in CJG at this stage. The government supports the
  • 26. P a g e | 21 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin networks for now, both financially and by mandating partnerships between network members. There is no need to attract funding or new network members right now. Therefore this study will not further consider the management of external legitimacy. This might be an interest of study when CJG become more mature and independent networks. 3.3.2 INTERNAL LEGITIMACY According to Milward & Provan (2006) internal legitimacy is achieved when the participating organizations behave as if they are part of the network instead of autonomous organizations. This implies that organizations commit themselves to the goals of the network as a whole. Therefore goal commitment is important for internal legitimacy. Goal commitment can be reached by making network members see that the network is beneficial for them (Human & Provan, 2000), i.e. legitimizing the network as interaction. Communication to internal stakeholders is essential for stimulating internal legitimacy (Human & Provan, 2000; Milward & Provan, 2006; Suchman, 1995). Human & Provan (2000) find two different ways of creating legitimacy for the network as interaction. Both options are a way of communication. The weak option is regularly sending a network newsletter, and the stronger one is regularly bringing network members together in all sorts of ways. This indicates that face-to-face communication is a stronger way of building legitimacy for the network as interaction. Nevertheless both kinds of communication contribute to flows of information and knowledge in a different way and are therefore complementary to some degree. Nevertheless, for activities that can be standardized, face-to-face communication is a time consuming and inefficient mechanism. The ratio between face-to- face communication and written communication is a good indication for the degree of routine in a network (van der Ven, 1976). Therefore, it is important in young networks to regularly communicate face-to-face in order to come to routines. However, this should be taken over by written communication in more mature networks. Apart from the kind of communication, the intensity of communication is important as well. An abundance of communication will distract organizations from the work they should be doing and will make them see the network as a burden. Therefore, the relationship between communication and goal commitment shows an inverted U-shape graph. Network managers should also communicate about the network as a form and the network as an entity. This implies that network managers should communicate the results of the network and who is part of the network (Human & Provan, 2000; Milward & Provan, 2006). By communicating the results, network members see the effect of the network form, and how it contributes to performance. It motivates network members to commit themselves to the network goals because the benefits of the network are made transparent. However results can only be communicated if they are documented and managed. This implies that the management of accountability, as will be discussed later, also has a positive effect on goal commitment. Communicating who is part of the network on the other hand familiarizes network members with each other. It creates internal confidence. Organizations that are confident about the work of their peers in the network will have more belief in the added value of the network, stimulating the network as an interaction again. Communication and management of accountability contribute to internal confidence as well. By communicating who is part of the network, network members become aware that the network is a legitimate entity on its own. By communicating results, confidence grows
  • 27. P a g e | 22 Master thesis Strategic Management among network members about the capabilities of the network and its members. It should be noted that this assumes that there are positive network level results. An effective network structure also contributes to building internal legitimacy in the network. Using recognizable structures of cooperation supports the legitimacy of the network as an entity (Human & Provan, 2000). When network members see a comprehensible structure that works, they consider it more legitimate. Scott (1995) calls this using “cognitive consistency” (p. 47) to build legitimacy. Choosing an effective network design is therefore important for the internal legitimacy of the network. The absence of an effective network structure will have a negative effect on the network legitimacy. On top of that, a document (e.g. a covenant) in which roles within the network structure are divided also contributes to the legitimacy of the network as an entity (Human & Provan, 2000). This is because it clarifies the roles within the network structure of the network members to reach the network goal(s). Within a network design, roles should clearly be divided. This way all network members know their place in the network and see why they are all an essential part of the network. It further legitimizes who is part of the network, and clarifies who is not. Role clarity within the network structure has a positive effect on internal legitimacy. Table 6 summarizes the discussed findings. All indicative factors that can be influenced by the management of legitimacy are noted in the table. The effects of these factors on effective mandated public network management are mentioned in the next column. The management actions, based on the management of legitimacy, that can influence the indicative factors are mentioned subsequently. Finally, the last column of the table shows the effect of the management actions on the indicative factors. TABLE 6: INDICATIVE FACTORS OF EFFECTIVE MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORK MANAGEMENT THAT CAN BE INFLUENCED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF LEGITIMACY Management of Legitimacy Management task Indicative factor Effect Management action Effect Goal commitment Positive Communication Inverted U Management of accountability Positive Confidence Positive Communication Inverted U Internal legitimacy Management of accountability Positive Efficient design Negative (if absent) Management of design Positive Role clarity (structure) Positive Communication Inverted U Document Positive
  • 28. P a g e | 23 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 3.4 MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICT Network level conflicts are disagreements between two or more organizations in the network and occur because organizations want to control their dependency in the network as much as possible or because one organization tries to alter, obstruct, or hamper the actions of another (Alter, 1990). In an interdependent situation like a network, network members might try to resist their dependence on others organizations, if this does not benefit them. 3.4.1 CONFLICT PREVENTION If organizations have different goals, conflicts will arise because of these interdependencies. In these situations organizations are interdependent on a party that does not act in their best interest. Therefore creating commitment to the same network level goals is crucial in preventing conflicts in a network (Bradford, Stringfellow, & Weitz, 2004; Sayeed, 2001). Concequently, goal commitment is important for the management of conflict. In addition, clarity about the goals ensures that it is explicit what the network members should be striving for. Network members might be committed to the network goals because, for example, they depend on it for funding. However, if it is not clear what these goals are, conflict may rise because there are different interpretations of the network goals. A way to create goal clarity in a network is jointly creating a document in which network goals can be made explicit, such as a mission statement (Human & Provan, 2000). The occurrence of conflict is bad for the collaboration in a network because it undermines the development of trust among network members (Milward & Provan, 2006). Goal commitment as well as goal clarity are important for the prevention of these conflicts. 3.4.2 CONFLICT RESOLUTION When conflicts do arise, they need to be properly managed (Milward & Provan, 2006). According to Milward & Provan (2006) conflicts in networks might contribute to the clarification of complex issues, by making the choices of a network explicit. Effective conflict resolution thus has a positive effect on the network (Sayeed, 2001). Alter (1990) supports this argument and argues that “the resolution of conflict enhances common perceptions, improves role clarity, and lessens task ambiguity” (p. 483). More role clarity also contributes to internal legitimacy and accountability. Common perceptions will increase goal clarity, which prevents the rise of new conflicts. To resolve conflicts effectively, network managers need to be objective brokers between the network members. Objective brokers will always keep in mind the goals of the network as a whole, instead of those of specific, maybe powerful, organizations (Milward & Provan, 2006). Because network managers are concerned with the network as a whole and have an important role in network level resources and information flows, they can act as brokers between organizations in the network that disagree (Lemaire & Provan, 2009). This will make it easier for organizations to accept the network manager as a “good faith broker” (Milward & Provan, 2006, p. 21) in case of rising conflict, resolving conflict for the best sake of the network. In order for organizations to trust the network manager with resolving the conflict, the network manager has to be fair-minded and
  • 29. P a g e | 24 Master thesis Strategic Management objective (Milward & Provan, 2006). This implies creating justified procedures for decision making, i.e. procedural justice (Kim & Mauborgne, 1998; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). It has to be clear that the network manager acts in the best interest of the network as a whole, and does not favor specific organizations. On top of that there should also be mechanisms for conflict resolution (Milward & Provan, 2006). Rodriguez et al. (2007) propose that especially in mandated networks, clear formal rules should be set for conflict resolution. They argue that the mandating agency should provide guidelines for network members to deal with conflict otherwise they will be “groping in ambiguity” (Rodriguez et al., 2007, p. 185). The quality of these guidelines is very hard to determine and is beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, based on the recommendations of Rodriguez et al. (2007) and the suggestion of Milward & Provan (2006), this study proposes that the presence of these rules have a positive effect on efficient conflict resolution and therefore on the management of conflict. Therefore network managers need to set up formal rules that indicate how conflicts should be dealt with, and follow these rules objectively, leading to procedural justice. To summarize, network managers should balance the prevention of conflict as well as the efficient resolution of it when it arises. Conflict frequency indicates how many conflicts happen and has a negative U shaped effect on the management of conflict. This means that very little or a lot of conflict negatively effects the management of conflict. Some conflicts, when resolved, contribute to clarity. On the other hand, too much conflict deprives trust and confidence in the network. However, in a mandated network consisting of organizations of various backgrounds and logics it can be assumed that conflict will rise anyway because of different interests in the network21. Therefore, in order to manage the conflict frequency in CJG, managers should focus on conflict prevention and thus the creation of goal commitment and goal clarity. Table 6 summarizes the findings for the management of conflict. TABLE 7: INDICATIVE FACTORS OF EFFECTIVE MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORK MANAGEMENT THAT CAN BE INFLUENCED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICT Management of Conflict Management task Indicative factor Effect Management action Effect Goal commitment Positive Communication (internal) Inverted U Positive Management of accountability Positive Goal clarity Positive Document Positive Conflict Efficient conflict Positive Procedural justice Positive resolution Formal rules for conflict Positive Conflict frequency Inverted U Conflict prevention Positive 21 See Bryson et al. (2006) for a discussion on the influence of different institutional logics on conflicts in networks.
  • 30. P a g e | 25 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 3.5 MANAGEMENT OF COMMITMENT “Commitment refers to one’s attachment to or determination to reach a goal regardless of the goal’s origin” (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988, p. 24)22. It is the task of the network manager “to build and maintain the commitment of all network members, recognizing that not all members will be involved to the same extent. Resources and benefits must, of course, be allocated differentially based on level of commitment” (Milward & Provan, 2006, p. 24). Internalizing the network goals and creating goal commitment, i.e. goal acceptance (Earley & Kanfer, 1985)23, for the participating organizations is the main aspect of managing commitment. 3.5.1 GOAL COMMITMENT Milward & Provan (2006) propose that internal communication about the network’s activities and results contributes to network commitment, for the same reasons as it contributes to internal legitimacy. On top of that, the distribution of financial resources according to network level goals is mentioned as a way to create network level commitment as well (Milward & Provan, 2006). Public organizations are very dependent on government funding. Therefore, creating financial incentives for complying to network level goals will create interdependence with the network level goals for the organizations to survive. They need funds to execute their activities, and by contributing to network level goals they will be rewarded financially. This makes organizations dependent of the network. Therefore organizations will be motivated to align their goals with network level goals. In mandated networks this financial incentive is even more important according to Rodriguez et al. (2007) since organizations are not naturally motivated to be in the network. In a mandated situation organizations might not necessarily see the benefits of being part of the network, but have to be by mandate. In these situations financial incentives will make contributing to network level goals beneficial for them, therefore increasing their commitment to the network as a whole. Nevertheless Bouillon, Ferrier, Stuebs Jr., and West (2006) prove in a hospital research setting that the effectiveness of financial incentives on commitment is situational and could even undermine it. It is beyond the scope of this study to determine the optimal financial incentives for each specific CJG situation. In situations in which natural goal commitment is low however, financial incentives are expected to be more effective (Bouillon, et al., 2006). Therefore, in line with Rodriguez et al. (2007), in a mandated situation the presence of financial incentives for contributing to network level goals is essential in order to create and sustain goal commitment. Creating justified procedures for decision making, i.e. procedural justice, contributes positively to commitment as well (Johnson, Korsgaard & Sapienza, 2002). Because network level decisions affect all organizations in the network, since all organizations are part of the network, a fair decision making process is important for the commitment to the network. Fair decision making creates confidence in the network as a whole (Kim & Mauborgne, 1998; Korsgaard, et al., 1995), and will therefore increase commitment to network level goals. Procedural justice ensures that all organizations are treated 22 Although the literature discusses several forms of commitment (e.g. affective commitment, normative commitment, and continuance commitment (Clarke, 2006)), this study uses an all inclusive concept of commitment (Locke, et al., 1988). 23 Earley & Kanfer (1985) show in their study that commitment and acceptance measures formed one homogeneous factor (α = 0,95).
  • 31. P a g e | 26 Master thesis Strategic Management similarly with the goal of the network as a whole in mind, instead of favoring larger or more powerful organizations (Milward & Provan, 2006). 3.5.2 PARTIAL COMMITMENT On top of that, when managing commitment it is important to recognize that in networks the participation of organizations is hardly equal (Milward & Provan, 2006): While it may be convenient to say that an organization is part of the network, it may be more accurate to say that a particular program of the organization is part of the network, while it’s other programs and clients are not involved. (p. 24) This creates a situation in which organizations are only partially committed to the network, and often only specific individuals of organizations are engaged in the network activities. This makes the network sensitive for staff turnover, i.e. changes in the labor force. This has a negative effect on network commitment, because commitment is often build with a specific person, rather than an entire organization (Milward & Provan, 2006). For this reason network managers need to build and sustain commitment of participating organizations by involving multiple employees instead of just individuals according to Milward & Provan. This will narrow down the negative effect of staff turnover. Rapid changes in participating organizations are expected to have the same effect as high staff turnover, since new organizations also need to learn about the benefits of the network again. Due to data collection constraints this study focuses on the risk of a negative effect due to staff turnover, rather than actual staff turnover. This means that it is measured if multiple employees of all organizations are involved in CJG, instead of measuring the actual staff turnover for all organizations in a specific CJG. Table 7 summarizes the findings for the management of commitment. TABLE 8: INDICATIVE FACTORS OF EFFECTIVE MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORK MANAGEMENT THAT CAN BE INFLUENCED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF COMMITMENT Management of Commitment Management task Indicative factor Effect Management action Effect Goal commitment Positive Communication Inverted U Management of accountability Positive Commitment Financial incentives Positive Procedural justice Positive Staff turnover Negative Involve multiple employees Narrow down
  • 32. P a g e | 27 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 3.6 MANAGEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY Being accountable means being responsible towards someone or for some activity (Brown, 2007). In a network management context specifying who is responsible for particular network activities or outcomes is critical for success (Brown, 2007; Milward & Provan, 2006). In order for networks to be successful, network members need to be aware of what they have to do in order to create results on the network level. Milward & Provan (2006) call this the management of accountability, and point out that it consists both of creating motivation for network members to take network level responsibilities as well as creating the prospect that acting on them will be acknowledged. The challenge is to balance organization level goals with network level goals (Provan & Kenis, 2007; Provan & Milward, 2001). Accountability is of specific interest in networks according to Romzek, et al. (2009) because: The potential for accountability to get “lost in the cracks of horizontal and hybrid governance” (Bovens, Schillemans, & Hart, 2008, p. 240; Milward & Provan, 2006), and because networks involve “many hands” (Thompson, 1980) which offer “more opportunities for free-riding as well as free-wheeling, fewer reliable reporting mechanisms for political overseers and less overall clarity regarding expectations” (O'Toole Jr, 2000, p. 28). (p. 4) The management of accountability should focus on clarifying responsibilities (Brown, 2007; Milward & Provan, 2006; Romzek, et al., 2009), stimulating effort towards network level goals (Bardach & Lesser, 1996; Milward & Provan, 2006; Provan & Kenis, 2007; Provan & Milward, 2001; Slyke, 2007), and documentation of performance (Milward & Provan, 2006; O'Toole, 2000; Romzek, et al., 2009; Slyke, 2007). 3.6.1 CLARITY The presence of role clarity indicates that responsibilities in the network are evident. Role clarity has been discussed for the management of legitimacy. However, in the case of management of accountability the emphasis of the role clarity is on output instead of structure (Milward & Provan, 2006). This can be stimulated by communicating to network members for which results they are responsible, and making this transparent and accessible by putting it in a document, for example a covenant. Furthermore, the management of design influences the clarity of roles. An effective network design increases the understanding of the division of responsibilities in the network. For example in a self governed network, network level tasks are a shared responsibility. In a lead organization network these tasks are in the hands of a single organization. Stimulating effort towards network level goals can only be done when it is clear for all involved parties what these goals exactly are. Therefore goal clarity is essential for the management of accountability too. Only when it is clear which goals the network strives for can managers reward network members that contribute to these goals. As argued before, goal clarity can be increased by writing a mission statement. Using this mission statement as a basis for network resource distribution ensures that network members know for which efforts they will be rewarded. Resources that can be distributed in CJG are mostly
  • 33. P a g e | 28 Master thesis Strategic Management monetary. However information and goodwill can be very valuable as well. This could alter the influence and relative position of an organization in the network (Bryson, et al., 2006). 3.6.2 MONITORING PERFORMANCE Finally, performance should be documented. When discussing the documentation of performance one should first determine and communicate what performance criteria there are. Bardach & Lesser (1996) thoroughly discuss the problem that network members could be held accountable for many things. For example, they discuss accountability for results, for setting wise priorities, or for targeting. All these examples require different documentation mechanisms. Since CJG are free in determining their specific goals, and therefore free in what they hold their members accountable for, only the presence of a documentation system for results can be tested. Although a high score on performance documentation might not imply very much about the quality of the management of accountability, the absence of performance documentation on the network level would definitely indicate that it is poorly managed. It is impossible to control output if it is not clear where it comes from and who realized it. Without an overview of network level results and individual contributions to these results, network members cannot be rewarded in accordance to their contribution to network level goals. Therefore performance documentation has to be present in CJG. Table 8 summarizes these findings. TABLE 9: INDICATIVE FACTORS OF EFFECTIVE MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORK MANAGEMENT THAT CAN BE INFLUENCED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY Management of Accountability Management task Indicative factor Effect Management action Effect Role clarity (output) Positive Communication Positive Document Positive Management of design Positive Accountability Goal clarity Positive Document Positive Resource distribution Positive Performance Negative Communication Positive Documentation (if absent) Monitoring systems Positive
  • 34. P a g e | 29 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 3.7 THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK The evaluation framework for effective network management in mandated public networks based on the discussed theory can be seen in Figure 2. Indicative factors of effective mandated public network management Management of Legitimacy (internal) Management of Design  Goal commitment  Trust density  Confidence  Number of participants  Efficient design (absence)  Goal consensus + Role clarity (structure)  Need for network level competencies Management of Conflict  Goal commitment  Goal clarity  Efficient conflict resolution  Conflict frequency Management of Accountability  Role clarity (output)  Goal clarity  Performance documentation Management of Commitment (absence)  Goal commitment  Staff turnover Effective management of mandated public networks FIGURE 2: EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORK MANAGEMENT This study evaluates effective network management based on five essential management tasks. Therefore, Figure 2 shows an arrow from the block of management tasks to effective management of mandated public networks. Within each block of a management task indicative factors are displayed that are discussed in the previous sections. The bullet points illustrate if the factor is a positive (+), a negative (-), or some other () indication of effective mandated public network management. For the management of design, the variables facilitate the evaluation of the chosen governance mode, and do not necessarily indicate how well the design is managed. The management of design will thus be evaluated by comparing the chosen governance mode to the contingency factors indicated in Figure 2. All other factors give a positive or negative indication of effective mandated public network management. This framework represents an ideal theoretical situation for CJG. Based on this framework, the effectiveness of CJG management will be evaluated.
  • 35. P a g e | 30 Master thesis Strategic Management Figure 2 also illustrates the interactions of the network management tasks. The arrows between the blocks of tasks represent these interactions. Furthermore some management tasks are grouped in the framework. The next section will briefly explain the rationale for this. 3.7.1 INTERACTION OF NETWORK MANAGEMENT TASKS Although the network management tasks were presented as independent in Table 4, they are in fact interacting concepts as can be concluded from the previous discussion of the network management tasks. Mandated public network management could be regarded “as a challenge of aligning initial conditions, processes, structures, governance, contingencies and constraints, outcomes, and accountabilities such that good things happen in a sustained way over time – indeed so that public value can be created” (Bryson, et al., 2006, p. 52). Just like any organized form of collective behavior, a network can be evaluated based on structure, process, and outcome dimensions (van der Ven, 1976). In order to further justify the proposed evaluation framework, a brief explanation of how the five management tasks fit in these three dimensions will follow. It is beyond the scope of this study to thoroughly discuss the interactions between the indicators of effective mandated public network management. Nevertheless it is important to notice that the proposed evaluation framework is in line with past academic research. The management of design is concerned with the structure dimension, since it is about choosing and managing the most effective structural properties of the network. The process dimension is about the flow of resources, activities, and information in networks (van der Ven, 1976). Bryson et al. (2006) place the management of legitimacy, the management of conflict, and the management of commitment in the process dimension. Based on the previous discussion of the five management tasks, the management of legitimacy, conflict, and commitment are indeed the most concerned with the flow of resources, activities, and information. Therefore, this study will follow the classification suggested by Bryson et al. (2006). Finally, the management of accountability is concerned with managing results and responsibilities and could therefore be regarded an outcome dimension task. Page (2004) explains: An accountable collaborative … needs a measurement system to document its results and how those results change over time. It also needs a ‘managing for results’ system that links the data it measures to specific actors and interventions, that provides critical performance information to its stakeholders, and that uses the information to improve its operations. (p. 592) Based on the discussed dimension of van der Ven (1976), Bryson et al. (2006), and the management tasks of Milward & Provan (2006), Figure 2 illustrates all the interaction between the network management tasks.
  • 36. P a g e | 31 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Based on the evaluation framework of effective mandated public network management introduced in chapter three a survey is conducted to evaluate CJG in the Netherlands. This chapter will briefly outline the collected data and subsequently discuss the results that come from the survey describing the current situation. The first analysis will address the management tasks and the second analysis will look into differences due to context variables. 4.1 DESCRIPTIVE DATA Table 10 summarizes the descriptive data. Detailed frequency tables can be found in Appendix VI. TABLE 10: DESCRIPTIVE DATA descriptives Function N* Employer N Management background CJG coordi na tor 12 Muni ci pa l i ty 14 Pol i cy worker 1 Other GGD 2 Pol i cy a dvi s or 3 Ca re orga ni za tion 6 Ma na ger 10 Founda tion 4 Cha i r 1 groups Group name N Muni ci pa l i ty 14 Other 12 descriptives Mean SD Min Max organizations Participating 7,65 4,758 2 19 groups Group name N Ei ght or l es s 17 More tha n ei ght 9 descriptives Mean SD Min Max Accessibility 5,27 8,665 1 40 groups Group name N Les s tha n ten 21 Ten or more 5 descriptives Size of CJG with multiple participating municipalities Participating municipalities Number of inhabitants Case frequency < 15000 < 25000 < 40000 > 40000 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 1 1 groups Group name N Si ngl e pa rtici pa ting muni ci pa l i ty 22 Mul tipl e pa rtici pa ting muni ci pa l i ties 4 *TOTAL N = 27 BECAUSE ONE RESPONDENT WAS A POLICY ADVISOR AS WELL AS A MANAGER.
  • 37. P a g e | 32 Master thesis Strategic Management descriptives Size of CJG with single participating municipalities Municipality size Number of inhabitants < 15000 < 25000 < 40000 > 40000 1 4 17 groups Group name N Sma l l muni ci pa l i ties ( < 25.000 i nha bi tants ) 5 La rge muni ci pa l i ties (> 40.000 i nha bi tants ) 17 descriptives Mean SD Min Max 23,96 13,704 3 60 Starting point groups Group name N Open up to one yea r 4 Open one to two yea rs 12 Open two to three yea rs 5 Open three or more yea rs 5 groups Group name N Governance mode Sel f-governed 14 Lea d orga ni za tion 8 NAO 1 Other 3 Twelve of the respondents indicate they are CJG coordinators. Furthermore the respondents consist of one policy worker, three policy advisors, ten managers and one chair of the partner organizations board of the CJG. Considering the management background, fourteen of these respondents indicate that they are employed by a municipality. Two respondents are employees of the GGD (municipality health service organization), six of other care organizations and four of a foundation. The latter three are all labeled as having an ‘other’ management background for the analyses. Considering the number of participating organizations, on average the CJG in the sample consist of 7,65 organizations with a standard deviation of 4,758. The CJG with the least organizations consists of two organizations, the maximum is a CJG that consists of 19 organizations. There are 17 CJG with eight or less participating organizations, and nine CJG with more than eight participating organizations in the sample. The accessibility of CJG differs in the sample as well. The CJG in the sample have 5,27 locations on average, with a standard deviation of 8,665. The minimum of locations in the sample was one and the maximum 4024. There are 21 CJG with less than ten locations, and five CJG with ten or more locations in the sample. The sample consists of 22 CJG in which a single municipality participates, and four CJG in which multiple municipalities participates. Considering the CJG in which a single municipality participates, the response 24 Omitting the CJG with forty locations produced an average of 3,88 and a standard deviation of 5,093. However, because of the relative low number of respondents, this case was included in the analyses.
  • 38. P a g e | 33 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin includes one small, four medium-small, and 17 big municipalities25. Since there are no CJG in which a single medium-large municipality participates and no significant differences are found between CJG in which single small or medium-small municipalities participates, for the following analyses two groups are made: small municipalities (up to 25.000 inhabitants) and large municipalities (more than 40.000 inhabitants). Considering the four CJG in the sample in which multiple municipalities participate, the first case consists of one small and one large municipality. The second case consists of two medium-small, one medium-large and one large municipality. The third case consists of three small, one medium-small and one medium-large municipality. Finally, the fourth case consists of six small, one medium-large and one large municipality. Looking at the starting point of CJG, the CJG in the sample are open to the public for 23,96 months on average, with a standard deviation of 13,704. The youngest CJG is open for three months and the oldest is open for 60 months. There are four CJG in the sample that are open up to one year, 12 CJG that are open one to two years, five CJG that are open two to thee years, and five CJG that are open three or more years. Finally, the governance mode of the CJG in the sample differs. The sample includes 14 self governed, eight lead organizations, one NAO, and three other networks. 4.2 NETWORK MANAGEMENT TASKS All subjective factors, except for staff turnover, are measured using multiple questions. However, since the sample size is too small to test whether these questions unidimensionally measure the intended factor, the results are discussed per question26. 4.2.1 MANAGEMENT OF DESIGN The management of design is concerned with choosing the most effective network design based on the contingency factors of the network. Therefore low scores do not necessarily indicate ineffective management. Table 11 summarizes the results for this task. For each score the frequency is given with the percentage between brackets. The lowest two rows indicate the mean score and standard deviation for that specific question. 25 As is explained in the methodology, a small municipalities has less than 15.000 inhabitant, a medium-small municipality less than 25.000 inhabitants, a medium-large less than 40.000 inhabitants, and a large municipality more than 40.000 inhabitants. 26 The researcher did run analyses with summed scores for each factor. However, these produced similar yet less detailed results. Therefore only results per question are discussed.
  • 39. P a g e | 34 Master thesis Strategic Management TABLE 11: FREQUENCIES, MEAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF DESIGN FACTORS Management of Design Trust density Goal consensus Complexity Size Q# 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 (11,5) frequency scores (percentage) Number of organizations 1 1 (3,8) 1 (3,8) 3 (11,5) 1 (3,8) 4 4 (15,4) (percentage) frequencies 2 2 (7,7) 3 (11,5) 3 (11,5) 11 (42,3) 4 (15,4) 3 (11,5) 5 7 (26,9) score 3 2 (7,7) 4 (15,4) 3 (11,5) 8 (30,8) 5 (19,2) 2 (7,7) 1 (3,8) 4 (15,4) 5 (19,2) 6 1 (3,8) 4 20 (76,9) 16 (61,5) 17 (65,4) 21 (80,8) 13 (50,0) 7 (26,9) 21 (80,8) 11 (42,3) 14 (53,8) 17 (65,4) 8 2 (7,7) 5 2 (7,7) 7 (26,9) 4 (15,4) 1 (3,8) 2 (7,7) 3 (11,5) 13 (50,0) 4 (15,4) 1 (3,8) 10 3 (11,5) 13 2 (7,7) 15 3 (11,5) 19 1 (3,8) Mean 3,85 4,04 3,88 3,81 3,54 2,62 4,04 4,35 3,69 3,62 7,65 SD 0,675 0,871 0,816 0,694 0,811 1,023 0,445 0,892 0,928 0,752 4,758 The scores for trust density, goal consensus, and complexity range from low (1) to high (5). In addition the number of organizations that are part of the CJG ranges from two to 19. On average the scores of all factors are rather high. Only the second question testing goal consensus scored below a three. More specifically 53,8% (11,5% (1)27 + 42,3% (2)) of the respondents indicated that the goals of the organizations of the CJG are different. However, effective management of design depends on the chosen governance mode given the contingency factors. Therefore Table 12 shows the scores of the contingency factors for each governance mode in the sample. For each governance mode the mean scores and standard deviations of the questions for the contingency factors is given. 27Henceforth scores between brackets after a percentage indicate the survey score for that percentage.
  • 40. P a g e | 35 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin TABLE 12: MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS PER GOVERNANCE MODE n ce izatio n verna r NAO Othe organ o Se lf g Lead N 14 8 1 3 Management task Factor Q# Mean (standard deviation) 1 3,9 (0,66) 4,0 (0,54) 4,0 (-) 3,3 (1,16) 2 4,1 (0,77) 3,9 (1,25) 4,0 (-) 4,0 (0,00) Trust density 3 4,1 (0,54) 3,6 (1,19) 4,0 (-) 3,3 (0,58) 4 3,9 (0,48) 3,9 (0,35) 4,0 (-) 3,0 (1,73) Number of 1 6,9 (3,80) 7,9 (4,49) 15,0 (-) 8,3 (9,30) organizations Design 1 4,0 (0,56) 3,0 (0,76) 4,0 (-) 2,7 (0,58) Goal consensus 2 3,0 (0,96) 2,3 (1,17) 2,0 (-) 2,0 (0,00) 3 4,1 (0,62) 4,0 (0,00) 4,0 (-) 4,0 (0,00) 1 4,5 (0,65) 4,5 (0,54) 5,0 (-) 3,0 (1,73) Complexity 2 3,5 (1,02) 3,9 (0,99) 4,0 (-) 4,0 (0,00) 3 3,5 (0,76) 3,9 (0,84) 3,0 (-) 3,7 (0,58) When looking at the relative scores, trust density for self-governed networks is highest, followed by the NAO, lead organization, and lastly other governance modes. The smallest networks are self governed networks, followed by lead organization networks, other networks, and finally the NAO. Nevertheless, the standard deviation of other networks is 9,30 because this category includes the smallest as well as the biggest CJG. Goal consensus scores are the highest for self governed networks, followed by the NAO, lead organization networks, and other networks. Complexity scores are the highest for lead organizations, followed by the NAO, self-governed networks, and finally other networks. 4.2.2 MANAGEMENT OF LEGITIMACY Table 13 shows all scores for the indicative factors of the management of legitimacy. TABLE 13: FREQUENCIES, MEAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF LEGITIMACY FACTORS Ma na gement of Legi ti ma cy Goal commitment Confidence Role clarity (structure) Q#: 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 4 2 3 1 (percentage) frequencies 2 1 (3,8) 5 (19,2) 2 (7,7) 4 (15,4) 9 (34,6) 2 (7,7) 5 (19,2) 2 (7,7) score 3 1 (3,8) 2 (7,7) 1 (3,8) 8 (30,8) 4 (15,4) 6 (23,1) 2 (7,7) 10 (38,5) 2 (7,7) 6 (23,1) 8 (30,8) 4 17 (65,4) 22 (84,6) 18 (69,2) 13 (50,0) 20 (76,9) 16 (61,5) 24 (92,3) 7 (26,9) 18 (69,2) 13 (50,0) 12 (46,2) 5 7 (26,9) 2 (7,7) 7 (26,9) 4 (15,4) 2 (7,7) 4 (15,4) Mea n 4,15 4,00 4,23 3,31 3,69 3,46 3,92 2,92 3,92 3,46 3,69 SD 0,675 0,400 0,514 0,788 0,618 0,761 0,272 0,796 0,744 0,905 0,838
  • 41. P a g e | 36 Master thesis Strategic Management The majority of scores is a three or higher. Nevertheless looking at the goal commitment scores, 19,2% (2) of the respondents indicates that there are no consequences if organizations of the CJG do not comply with the goals of the network. On the other hand 26,9% (5) of the respondents indicates that the goals of the CJG are considered very seriously. The same percentage (26,9% (5)) indicates that the organizations of the CJG are very committed to the accomplishment of the goals of the CJG. Looking at the confidence scores, 15,4% (2) of the respondents indicates that the organizations of the CJG are uncertain about the motives of their peers. For role clarity (structure) it should be noted that 34,6% (2) of the respondents indicates that there is no clear distinction in organizational turf for the organizations in the CJG. On top of that 19,2% (2) indicates that the tasks and responsibilities of the organizations in the CJG are not clearly defined. On the other hand, 15,4% (5) of the respondents indicates that there is a document that forms the foundation for the way the organizations in the CJG collaborate. The same percentage indicates that the tasks and responsibilities within the CJG are documented. 4.2.3 MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICT Continuing with the management of conflict, Table 14 summarizes the scores of the indicative factors from the survey. It should be noted that high scores of conflict frequency indicate more conflicts, and therefore high scores on this factor are a negative indication of effective management. As was discussed in chapter three, very low scores on conflict frequency are a negative indication of effective management as well. TABLE 14: FREQUENCIES, MEAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICT FACTORS Management of Conflict Goal commitment Goal clarity Q# 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 (percentage) frequencies 2 1 (3,8) 5 (19,2) 1 (3,8) 10 (38,5) 8 (20,8) 2 (7,7) score 3 1 (3,8) 2 (7,7) 1 (3,8) 8 (30,8) 4 (15,4) 6 (23,1) 7 (26,9) 4 (15,4) 8 (30,8) 4 17 (65,4) 22 (84,6) 18 (69,2) 13 (50,0) 20 (76,9) 8 (30,8) 10 (38,5) 19 (73,1) 16 (61,5) 5 7 (26,9) 2 (7,7) 7 (26,9) 1 (3,8) 2 (7,7) 1 (3,8) 3 (11,5) Mea n 4,15 4,00 4,23 3,31 3,81 3,08 3,15 3,96 3,54 SD 0,675 0,400 0,514 0,788 0,567 1,017 0,925 0,528 0,647 Efficient conflict resolution Conflict frequency Q# 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 9 (34,6) 7 (26,9) 1 (3,8) (percentage) frequencies 2 2 (7,7) 15 (57,7) 1 (3,8) 12 (46,2) 16 (61,5) 4 (15,4) 19 (73,1) 13 (50,0) score 3 2 (7,7) 8 (30,8) 4 (15,4) 3(11,5) 2 (7,7) 11 (42,3) 5 (19,2) 9 (34,6) 4 21 (80,8) 3 (11,5) 20 (76,9) 2 (7,7) 1 (3,8) 10 (38,5) 2 (7,7) 3 (11,5) 5 1 (3,8) 1 (3,8) 1 (3,8) Mea n 3,81 2,54 3,81 1,92 1,88 3,31 2,35 2,54 SD 0,634 0,706 0,567 0,891 0,711 0,788 0,629 0,761
  • 42. P a g e | 37 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin In general the scores for the management of conflict are high. With the exception of conflict frequency, only for one question the mean score is below a three (2,54). As is indicated in Table 14, for 57,7% (2) of the cases in the sample it is common practice to let a superior solve conflicts between organizations in the CJG, which is not a very efficient way of solving conflicts. The goal commitment scores are the same as have been discussed for the management of legitimacy, so they will not be discussed again. Continuing with goal clarity, 38,5% (2) of the respondents indicates that it is not clear which results are expected from the organizations in the CJG. Also, 20,8% (2) indicates that the targets for the CJG are unclear. Considering conflict frequency it is notable that 42,3% (38,5% (4) + 3,8% (5)) of the respondents indicates that it is common practice for the organizations in the CJG to protect their organizational turf. On the other hand 34,6% (1) of the respondents indicates that when the organizations of the CJG come together there are no emotions running high. Also, 26,9% (1) indicates that most organizations of the CJG get along very well. 4.2.4 MANAGEMENT OF COMMITMENT The scores for the management of commitment are shown in Table 15. Again, goal commitment is discussed for the management of legitimacy and is not discussed again. The score of the remaining factor, staff turnover, indicates that the vast majority of the respondents (88,5% = 57,7% (4) + 30,8% (5)) involve multiple employees of every participating organization in their CJG. Nevertheless, since staff turnover was only tested with one question, these results should be treated with care. TABLE 15: FREQUENCIES, MEAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF COMMITMENT FACTORS Management of Commitment Staff Goal commitment turnover Q# 1 2 3 4 1 1 (percentage) frequencies 2 1 (3,8) 5 (19,2) 2 (7,7) score 3 1 (3,8) 2 (7,7) 1 (3,8) 8 (30,8) 1 (3,8) 4 17 (65,4) 22 (84,6) 18 (69,2) 13 (50,0) 15 (57,7) 5 7 (26,9) 2 (7,7) 7 (26,9) 8 (30,8) Mea n 4,15 4,00 4,23 3,31 4,12 SD 0,675 0,400 0,514 0,788 0,816
  • 43. P a g e | 38 Master thesis Strategic Management 4.2.5 MANAGEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY The final management task is the management of accountability. The scores of the indicative factors are shown in Table 16. TABLE 16: FREQUENCIES, MEAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY FACTORS Management of Accountability Role clarity (output) Goal clarity Q# 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 (percentage) frequencies 2 5 (19,2) 4 (15,4) 4 (15,4) 7 (26,9) 1 (3,8) 10 (38,5) 8 (20,8) 2 (7,7) score 3 6 (23,1) 7 (26,9) 8 (30,8) 6 (23,1) 4 (15,4) 6 (23,1) 7 (26,9) 4 (15,4) 8 (30,8) 4 14 (53,8) 15 (57,5) 13 (50,0) 11 (42,3) 20 (76,9) 8 (30,8) 10 (38,5) 19 (73,1) 16 (61,5) 5 1 (3,8) 1 (3,8) 2 (7,7) 1 (3,8) 2 (7,7) 1 (3,8) 3 (11,5) Mea n 3,42 3,42 3,42 3,31 3,81 3,08 3,15 3,96 3,54 SD 0,857 0,758 0,809 0,97 0,567 1,017 0,925 0,528 0,647 Performance documentation Q# 1 2 3 4 1 (percentage) frequencies 2 10 (38,5) 7 (26,9) 13 (50,0) 6 (23,1) score 3 4 (15,4) 4 (15,4) 3 (11,5) 9 (34,6) 4 12 (46,2) 15 (57,7) 9 (34,6) 11 (42,3) 5 1 (3,8) Mea n 3,08 3,31 2,92 3,19 SD 0,935 0,884 1,017 0,801 Once again all average scores, except for one, are above a three (the third question about performance documentation has a 2,92 as mean score). Looking at role clarity (output) some scores are notable. To start with, 19,2% (2) of the respondents indicates that not all organizations of the CJG are aware of the targeted results of the CJG. Furthermore, 15,4% (2) indicates that the organizations of the CJG are not aware of the results that are expected from them. Another 15,4% (2) indicates that there are no clear targets for the organizations of the CJG. Finally for role clarity (output), 26,9% (2) indicates that it is unclear for the organizations of the CJG which tasks are expected from them. Continuing with performance documentation, 38,5% (2) of the respondents indicates that the results of the organizations of the CJG are not measured using existing documents or systems. Furthermore, 26,9% (2) indicates that the organizations of the CJG are not evaluated using existing documents or systems. Also, 50% (2) indicates that there are no documents or systems to evaluate most activities of the organizations of the CJG. Finally, 23,1% (2) of the respondents indicates that there is no direct communication towards the organizations of the CJG about the evaluation of their results.
  • 44. P a g e | 39 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 4.3 DIFFERENCES IN CONTEXT VARIABLES Apart from the scores per management task, this study also looked at differences in scores between groups of context variables for CJG. An overview of all scores can be found in Appendix VIII. This section however will only discuss and show those scores for which a significant difference is found between the groups of the categories. One again, the analysis is based on the questions that tested the factors. For the sake of simplicity all questions in the tables are formulated positively, although they might have been asked reversed in the survey. 4.3.1 MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND Table 17 shows the significant differences between CJG that have a network manager that is employed by a municipality and those that are employed by an other organization. TABLE 17: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MANAGEMENT BACKGROUNDS Significant differences between management backgrounds (MU = municipality, OT = other) Mean1 Welch Factor Q# MU OT statistic Question Trust density 3 3,6 4,2 3,219** The organizations of the CJG expect to benefit from being part of the CJG Goal commitment 2 3,9 4,2 4,346* The organizations of the CJG are committed to the goals of the CJG Efficient conflict resolution 3 3,6 4,0 2,912** The organizations of the CJG are expected to solve mutual conlicts themselves 1 Mean scores for each group for the shown questions *α = 0,05 **α = 0,1 The results indicate that CJG with a network manager that is not employed by a municipality are more committed to the goals of the network and regard the network more beneficial. On top of that the results indicate that CJG with a network manager that is not employed by a municipality also score significantly higher on the expectation for organizations in the CJG to solve their conflicts themselves. Nevertheless, all shown scores are a three or higher on average. 4.3.2 PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS Considering the participating organizations, Table 18 gives the significant difference scores of the analysis. TABLE 18: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS ≧ Significant differences between the number of participating organizations (8 = eight or less, 8 < = more than eight) Mean1 ≧ Welch Factor Q# 8 8< statistic Question Role clarity (structure) 3 3,2 4,0 8,375* The tasks and responsibilities of the organizations of the CJG are clearly defined Role clarity (output) 2 3,2 3,9 9,983* The organizations of the CJG know which results are expected from them 3 3,2 3,9 6,456* There are clear CJG targets for the organization in the CJG 4 3,1 3,8 4,629* It is clear which results are expected from the organizations of the CJG 2 3,0 3,9 12,381* The evaluation of the results of the organizations of the CJG is done based on existing Performance documentation documents or systems 4 3,0 3,6 4,116** There is direct communication towards the organizations of the CJG about the evaluation of their results 1 Mean scores for each group for the shown questions *α = 0,05 **α = 0,1
  • 45. P a g e | 40 Master thesis Strategic Management The scores indicate that CJG with more than eight organizations score significantly higher on questions regarding the management of results and responsibilities. CJG with more than eight organizations also score higher on role clarity. Nevertheless, all shown mean scores are a three or higher. 4.3.3 ACCESSIBILITY Table 19 shows the differences in results between CJG with less than ten and ten or more locations. TABLE 19: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF LOCATIONS ≦ Significant differences between the number of locations (10 > = less than ten, 10 = ten or more) Mean1 ≦ Welch Factor Q# 10 > 10 statistic Question Trust density 3 4,1 2,8 7,188* The organizations of the CJG expect to benefit from being part of the CJG Confidence 3 4,0 3,6 12,923*§ The organizations of the CJG regard each other competent Role clarity (structure) 4 3,5 4,4 8,389* The tasks and responsibilities for the organizations of the CJG are documented Goal clarity 3 3,3 2,4 8,739* The targeted results for the organizations of the CJG are clear Performance documentation 1 3,3 2,2 14,964* The results of the organizations of the CJG are measured using existing documents or systems 3 3,1 2,0 6,154*§ There are documents or systems to evaluate most activities of the organizations of the CJG 4 3,3 2,6 5,965* There is direct communication towards the organizations of the CJG about the evaluation of their results 1 Mean scores for each group for the shown questions § Since at least one of the variances of the compared groups = 0, no Welch statistic could be calculated. Therefore the F-statistic of the ANOVA is displayed here *α = 0,05 **α = 0,1 CJG with more than ten locations score significantly higher on the documentation of the division of work. On average however both groups score above a three. However, on the question whether the targeted results of the CJG are clear to the organizations of the CJG, those CJG with ten or more locations score below a three and significantly lower than CJG with less than ten locations. Related to this, CJG with ten or more locations score significantly lower on the documentation and evaluation of results. In addition, the mean scores for these questions are lower than a three for the CJG with ten or more locations. 4.3.4 PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITIES The results for CJG with a single versus multiple participating municipalities are shown in Table 20.
  • 46. P a g e | 41 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin TABLE 20: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES Significant differences between the number of participating municipalities (SI = single, MP = multiple) Mean1 Welch Factor Q# SI MP statistic Question Number of organizations 1 8,5 3,3 17,206* How many core partners does your CJG have? Goal consensus 1 3,7 2,8 9,632* The organizations of the CJG agree on the way the goals of the CJG should be accomplished Goal commitment 4 3,4 2,8 4,757** It takes much to make CJG members abandon the CJG goals Goal clarity 2 3,3 2,3 6,464*§ It is clear which results are expected from the organizations of the CJG 3 3,3 2,3 11,548* The targeted results for the organizations of the CJG are clear Staff turnover 1 4,0 4,8 6,061* There are multiple employees of each organizations involved in the CJG Role clarity (output) 1 3,6 2,5 10,611* All organizations of the CJG know the targeted results of the CJG 2 3,6 2,3 24,689* The organizations of the CJG known which results are expected from them 4 3,5 2,3 15,566* It is clear for all organizations of the CJG which tasks are expected of them Performance documentation 1 3,3 2,0 8,041*§ The results of the organizations of the CJG are measured using existing documents or systems 3 3,0 2,5 16,938*§ There are documents or systems to evaluate most activities of the organizations of the CJG 4 3,3 2,5 6,032** there is direct communication towards the organizations of the CJG about the evaluation of their results 1 Mean scores for each group for the shown questions § Since at least one of the variances of the compared groups = 0, no Welch statistic could be calculated. Therefore the F-statistic of the ANOVA is displayed here *α = 0,05 **α = 0,1 CJG with a single participating municipality have an average number of 8,5 organizations while CJG with multiple participating municipalities have an average of 3,3 organizations, making the latter significantly smaller networks on average. CJG with multiple participating municipalities score significantly higher on staff turnover, indicating that these CJG on average involve more employees per organization in the CJG. CJG with multiple participating municipalities score below a three and on average significantly lower on questions about the clarity of the expected results of the organizations of the CJG. Furthermore, on performance documentation questions considering the monitoring and evaluation of results, CJG with multiple participating municipalities score below a three and on average significantly lower as well. 4.3.5 SIZE OF MUNICIPALITY There is only one significant difference between CJG with a single small versus large participating municipality, which is shown in Table 21. TABLE 21: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SIZE OF MUNICIPALITIES Significant differences between the size of municipalities (SM = small, LA = large) Mean1 Welch Factor Q# SM LA statistic Question Staff turnover 1 3,0 4,3 7,864* There are multiple employees of each organizations involved in the CJG 1 Mean scores for each group for the shown questions *α = 0,05 The only difference is that on average CJG with a single large participating municipality involve more employees of the in the CJG participating organizations.
  • 47. P a g e | 42 Master thesis Strategic Management 4.3.6 STARTING POINT There are little differences between CJG with different starting points. Table 22 shows the results for this analysis. TABLE 22: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CJG STARTING POINTS (NUMBER OF YEARS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) Significant differences between CJG starting points (1+ = one to two years, 2+ = two to three years, 3+ = three or more years) Mean Mean difference 1 Factor Q# 1+ 2+ 3+ 1+ on 2+ 1+ on 3+ Question Role clarity (structure) 3 2,9 4,0 4,0 -1,083* -1,083** The tasks and responsibilities of the organizations of the CJG are clearly defined Role clarity (output) 2 3,3 4,0 -,750** The organizations of the CJG known which results are expected from them 3 2,9 4,2 -1,283* There are clear CJG targets for the organization in the CJG 1 Mean differences are given based on a post hoc Games-Howell test. *α = 0,05 **α = 0,1 There are only significant differences between the mean scores on role clarity questions. In general these results indicate that for the shown questions, role clarity increases over time. 4.3.7 GOVERNANCE MODES Finally, Table 23 shows the significant differences between the studied governance modes. NAO were omitted from this analysis because N is only one. TABLE 23: SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GOVERNANCE MODES Significant differences between governance modes (SG= self governed, LO = lead organization, OT= other) Mean Mean difference 1 Factor Q# SG LO OT SG on LO SG on OT LO on OT Question 1 1,000* 1,333** The organizations of the CJG agree on the way the goals of the CJG should be Goal consensus accomplished 2 1,000* The mutual goals of the organizations of the CJG are similar Goal commitment 4 3,7 2,8 0,964* It takes much to make CJG members abandon the CJG goals Goal clarity 2 3,1 3,4 2,0 1,071* 1,375* It is clear which results are expected from the organizations of the CJG Efficient conflict resolution 2 2,6 2,1 0,518** It is uncommon for a supervisor to solve a conflict between the organizations of the CJG Role clarity (output) 4 3,6 2,3 1,310** It is clear for all organizations of the CJG which tasks are expected of them Performance documentation 1 3,4 2,9 2,0 1,357* 0,875** The results of the organizations of the CJG are measured using existing documents or systems 3 3,1 2,9 2,0 1,143* 0,875** There are documents or systems to measure most activities of the organizations of the CJG 1 Mean differences are given based on a post hoc Games-Howell test *α = 0,05 **α = 0,1 Table 18 indicates that other governance modes score significantly lower than self governed networks on six questions. In addition other governance modes score significantly lower than lead organization networks on three questions. The questions indicate that other networks primarily score lower on measuring and managing results in the network. All shown mean scores of other networks are below a three. The main difference between self-governed and lead organization networks is the degree of goal commitment. The results indicate that the organizations in self-governed networks are significantly more committed to network level goals. The average scores for self governed and lead organization networks on efficient conflict resolution are below a three.
  • 48. P a g e | 43 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION This chapter answers the research question and discusses the most important results of this study. Furthermore, the contributions to theory and practice are discussed. This chapter closes with recommendations to theory and practice. 5.1 ANSWER TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS Based on the results of this study the research questions can be answered. Based on network management tasks, what factors indicate effective management of mandated public networks? This study determines contingency factors for the management of design that influence network effectiveness: trust density, network size, goal consensus, and complexity. For the other four management tasks proposed by Milward & Provan (2006) factors that indicate effective mandated public network management are determined. For the management of legitimacy these are goal commitment, role clarity about the network structure, and confidence. For the management of conflict these are goal commitment, goal clarity, efficient conflict resolution, and conflict frequency. For the management of commitment these are goal commitment and staff turnover. Finally, for the management of accountability these are role clarity about the network output, goal clarity, and performance documentation. For each of these factors the relation with effective mandated public network management is discussed in chapter three. Based on network management tasks, what can network level managers do to influence these factors? For the management of legitimacy, conflict, commitment, and accountability and their corresponding factors management actions are discussed in this study that can influence these factors. These suggested management actions are based on relevant academic research and complimented by the consultation of experts. For the management of legitimacy face-to-face as well as written communication and a written document clarifying roles (e.g. a covenant) are suggested. For the management of conflict communication, a written document clarifying goals (e.g. a mission statement), and formal rules for conflict resolution are suggested. For the management of commitment communication, creating financial incentives, justified procedures, and involving multiple employees for each participating organization are suggested. Finally, for the management of accountability communication, a document clarifying targets (e.g. a covenant), a written document clarifying goals (e.g. a mission statement), and setting up a monitoring system are suggested. For each of these management actions the relationship with an indicative factor is discussed in chapter three. Regarding the management of design this study suggests to choose the optimal governance mode for the given contingency factors. It should be noted that all management tasks interact as well. Therefore all management tasks should be executed simultaneously. This study discusses how disregarding one management task can negatively affect the other management tasks.
  • 49. P a g e | 44 Master thesis Strategic Management How effective are Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin currently managed? Based on the results of the survey discussed in chapter four, one can conclude that on average the CJG in the sample are effectively managed. More specific, the studied CJG score adequately (a mean of three or higher) on most factors that indicate effective mandated public network management. Although it could be argued that this is perceived effectiveness in the eyes of the network managers, van der Ven (1976) argues that perceived effectiveness stimulates “dependence, awareness, and consensus among agencies” (p.33) contributing to actual effectiveness again. Therefore the researcher beliefs these results to be valuable to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of CJG management. Although on average CJG score adequately, there are CJG scoring below a three on all factors. This can be explained by looking at the differences in scores between groups of context variables for CJG. How do differences in context variables influence effective management of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin? This study shows that there is a significant difference in the mean factor scores indicating effective management between groups of context variables for CJG. To start with, CJG with eight or less organizations, ten or more locations, or multiple municipalities score significantly lower than their counterparts on multiple questions that test the factors that indicate effective management of accountability. Specifically, these CJG contexts on average score lower than a three on multiple questions testing the management of goals and results, indicating that on average there is less clarity about the goals and the expected results of the CJG in these contexts. On the other hand, there are little significant differences due to variation in the context variables management background, municipality size, and the starting point of CJG. It is remarkable that there is little difference in management effectiveness due to variation in participating municipality size and starting points of CJG, since this is in contrast with what would be expected based on theory. Finally, CJG that are identified as networks with a self governed, lead organization, or a NAO governance mode are managed more effectively due to more clarity in goals and responsibilities than their ‘other’ counterparts. This is in line with the discussed theory, because these other governance modes are less recognizable for the stakeholders. Based on the answers of these research questions, the problem statement can be answered. To what extent are Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin managed effectively based on a mandated public network management framework and what is the influence of differences in context variables on their effective management? Based on the results of this study using the developed mandated public network management framework, it can be concluded that on average the studied CJG are managed effectively. Nevertheless, differences are found between CJG due to variation in their context variables. Most notably CJG with few organizations, many locations, or multiple participating municipalities should put extra effort in their management of accountability. A recognizable governance mode contributes to clarity in goals and responsibilities. Finally, this study does not find differences due to variations in municipality size and starting point of the CJG.
  • 50. P a g e | 45 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin 5.2 DISCUSSION In order to be able to place the results of this study in the right perspective, the most notable results are critically discussed in this section. First of all it is important to notice that the results of this study do not allow any conclusions about the quality of effective network management in CJG. This study does not prove any causal relationship between CJG managers and the extent to which CJG are managed effectively. The results of this study only indicate that on average the studied CJG score adequate on those factors that indicate effective network management and can be influenced by network managers. However, the cause of these scores can not only be explained by network management practice, since other factors might be influential as well. For example, network level goal commitment can be intrinsic for all organizations of the CJG. This would result in a high goal commitment score, but would not imply anything about the quality of network management in that specific CJG. Therefore high scores do not necessarily indicate effective management, and low scores should be interpreted as a warning for CJG managers, not a critique on their current management. Furthermore, in general, this study is limited due to a relative small sample size (N=26), making implications based on the results of this study less powerful. So what do the results of this study tell us? 5.2.1 MANAGEMENT TASKS The results of this study indicate that in general and on average all studied CJG score adequately on the indicative factors of effective mandated public network management. This is a remarkable result for relatively young mandated public networks, in which effective management is complex (Rodriguez, et al., 2007). Also, based on the problem indication, these results are unexpected. This might indicate that this study did not measure what it is suppose to measure, i.e. that the validity of the study is low. However, the evaluation model is based on multiple academic sources and all survey questions were pre-tested by CJG experts and management students, increasing the content validity. This implies that it is reasonable to assume that the operationalizations of the management tasks actually measured them (Sekaran, 2003). Validity is limited however, because the researcher had to rely primarily on the work of Milward & Provan (2006), although this was complemented with other literature, for the operationalization of the management tasks. The researcher was often dependent on the work of Milward & Provan (2006) due to a lack of quality critique in the literature. On top of that construct validity is limited by the fact that the number of respondents did not allow for a thorough factor analysis of the survey measures. Nevertheless, the researcher beliefs the validity of the results to be acceptable for the exploratory nature of this study. A second explanation for the results could be a lack of reliability. However, only existing measures with a Cronbach’s alpha above 0,7 are used. Nevertheless some measures had to be adjusted or self developed. Because of the relative small number of respondents no reliability analyses can be done for these measures. This is a limitation of this study. The analysis of the data is reliable since professional software and robust methods are used. What is a limitation of the reliability of this study, is social desirability bias
  • 51. P a g e | 46 Master thesis Strategic Management of the respondents. Since CJG managers were asked to evaluate their own CJG, they might have given socially desirable answers. The researcher stressed their anonymity and ensured that their scores were not used to draw any conclusions about their personal performance. However, with this research design social desirability bias will always remain a limitation. A third explanation for the results, linking to social desirability, is the case selection for this study. Since the mandating agency, the Ministry of Youth and Families, provided the list of potential respondents, only those cases that meet the standard of the Dutch government might have been provided. This would imply that only the ‘successful’ cases, based on the criteria of the Dutch government, are studied. This is the most plausible explanation for the results according to the researcher. Although this is not certain, if this is the case the generalizability of this study to the Dutch CJG population is severely limited. It implies that based on the results of this study no conclusions can be drawn about the extent of positive indicators of effective management of CJG in the Netherlands. Further study, with critical and objective case selection criteria, is recommended to evaluate the extent of effective CJG management in the Netherlands. 5.2.2 CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES This study also explores the influence of contextual variables on indicative factors of effective mandated public network management in CJG. This does not imply that this study explains under which circumstances CJG are most effective, but rather gives an indication of contexts in which extra attention should be paid to managing the collaborative. Therefore it is important for network managers that these results do not determine what should be done, but provide insight into possible consequences of actions, in order for managers to be able to anticipate. A notable result of this study is that CJG with more organizations score higher on the factors influenced by the management of accountability. This might be explained because CJG with few organizations have difficulties with dividing the responsibilities because of the broad goal of CJG. With fewer organizations in a CJG the organizations might have more responsibilities that do not fall within their core business, causing ambiguities about who does what. However, this assumes that all organizations in a CJG have a different core business. Further studies on the effect of the kind and number of organizations in a CJG might increase the understanding of the optimal composition of CJG. Another interesting finding of this study is the lower scores on the factors that are influenced by the management of accountability in CJG with many locations or multiple participating municipalities. Many locations as well as multiple participating municipalities make a CJG more complex. Performance documentation will be more extensive in CJG with multiple locations and in CJG with multiple participating municipalities the municipalities might have divergent interests in the CJG. This might explain that managing accountabilities is harder in these contexts. Bardach & Lesser (1996) already discuss the difficulty of accountability in public networks. Clarifying who is responsible for what is a big challenge. Rodriguez et al. (2007) argue that a balance between clan as well as more formal or market like management mechanisms is optimal in a mandated situation. Therefore, for mandated public
  • 52. P a g e | 47 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin networks it would be interesting to balance the discussion between formal and informal accountability mechanisms (Romzek & Johnston, 2005; Romzek, et al., 2009). Furthermore, the results of the study showed little difference between small and large municipalities. This is in contrast with the previous observation that small municipalities have difficulties with realizing a CJG (Konijn, 2007). This might again be explained by the case selection for this study. It would be interesting to specifically study these ‘successful’ cases of CJG with only a single small participating municipality in depth in order to gain insight into the critical success factors. This would be valuable for small municipalities struggling with the mandated CJG implementation. It is remarkable that when looking at the starting point of CJG, little difference is found between age categories in this study. Initially one would think this is in contrast with existing theory. Human & Provan (2000) argue that “when networks are formally constructed and organized from scratch” (p. 359), like CJG, “friendship and information exchanges grow most rapidly, with business exchanges developing at a slower pace” (p. 359). Lowndes & Skelcher (1998) on the other hand specify four stages in network evolution in which the emphasis of the first stage is on “informality, trust and a sense of common purpose” (p. 320). The second stage emphasizes the formalization of processes and only from the third stage on the emphasis is on network level outcomes. Because of their age, CJG can be placed in the first two stages of network evolution. Using the theory of Lowndes & Skelcher (1998), the results of this study considering the starting point of CJG can be explained. This study does not measure network level outcomes. Rather the presence of indicative factors of effective network management - a requirement to produce network level outcomes - is measured. These factors are primarily concerned with effective collaboration between the organizations in the network. Therefore the studied networks score adequately on these factors and older networks score significantly higher on factors that can be associated with formalization (role clarity). Further research would be necessary to study variation in network level outcomes based on differences in age or evolutionary stage of CJG. This study does not provide contradicting evidence, but rather gives a prudent indication that the studied CJG are successful in their first evolutionary stage (Lowndes & Skelcher, 1998) and some CJG are moving towards the second stage. Finally, this study provides preliminary quantitative prove of the effectiveness of the suggested governance modes by Provan and his co-authors (Milward & Provan, 2006; Provan & Kenis, 2007). Although the results should be interpreted with care due to a small sample and self-administered categorization, self-governed, lead organization, and NAO networks score significantly higher than ‘other’ governance modes on factors that can be influenced by the management of accountability. The suggested governance modes enable more goal clarity, role clarity, and better performance documentation. On top of that the results indicate that the chosen governance modes are in line with the relative scores of the contingency factors. It should be noted however that there are no ‘low’ scores for the contingency factors, implicating that for example a lead organization network can be effective with high trust density as well. The suggested contingency factors (Provan & Kenis, 2007) might be interpreted as a minimum, rather than absolute requirements. Nonetheless tentative quantitative proof for the discussed predictors of effectiveness for the suggested governance modes by Provan & Kenis
  • 53. P a g e | 48 Master thesis Strategic Management (2007) is provided by this study. It would be interesting to see if these results hold in a larger sample, and whether there are ‘other’ governance modes that also score high on the studied factors. It should be noted that the discussed context variables have been determined by the researcher, although based on previous research and in consultation with current CJG managers. Nevertheless, this is by no means a collectively exhaustive set of context variables that might influence CJG. Due to data and time constraints, only easy to measure context variables are considered. On top of that, for the same reasons, the considered context variables are operationalized in their simplest form. For example, for the accessibility of CJG this study only considered the number of physical locations, ignoring the characteristics of these specific locations. This is a limitation of the study and it is therefore recommended to study the considered context variables more thoroughly as well as search for additional relevant context variables in future research. 5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY AND PRACTICE This study contributes to theory by the development of an evaluation framework for effective mandated public network management based on an operationalization of the essential network management tasks proposed by Milward & Provan (2006). In line with Provan et al. (2007) and Raab & Kenis (2009), the researcher noticed a lack of studies on the network level. Especially quantitative proof of conceptual arguments on whole networks is missing. This study made a first attempt to contribute to this gap in the literature, by providing tentative proof that confirms the effectiveness of the proposed governance modes suggested by Provan & Kenis (2007). However, the proof is limited due to a small sample size and the self-administered categorization by network managers. Although self-administration by network managers is a limitation, the researcher would recommend more research to develop self-administered measures on the network level. Since the difficulty of data collection on the network level is evident, using self-administered measures for network participants might provide researchers with at least tentative results supporting conceptual arguments. Of course, it is preferred to use multiple data sources that control each other for each network, but in practice many studies do not have the resources to do so. The contributions to practice are threefold. First, and most important, this study evaluates the studied CJG and can conclude that on average these CJG score adequately on those factors that can be influenced by network management. This is an indication for the studied CJG that they are on the right track of becoming successful networks. Secondly, this study provides insight into those factors that are essential for mandated public networks and can be influenced by network managers. This can be used by CJG managers to improve and sustain the collaboration in their CJG, and direct specific attention to those factors that need attention in the specific context of their CJG. Therefore, the third contribution to practice is giving insight into the influence of CJG specific context variables. Although the results of this study might provide insights for managers of other mandated public network managers, the results should not be generalized.
  • 54. P a g e | 49 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin Finally, this study contributes to the theoretical as well as practical knowledge base on CJG in the Netherlands. This is ensured by sharing the research results with all study respondents, the VNG and the Ministry of Youth and Families. 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS First of all, it is recommended to continue the study of CJG. This is a rich and relatively easily accessible research context with many comparable networks, which enables large scale studies of mandated public networks on a network level. Recommendations for further research based on the results of this study have been made in the discussion. Repeating this study on multiple moments in time will provide interesting longitudinal results that can give more insight into the evolution of the management of mandated public networks. Furthermore, increasing the sample size will enable additional validity and reliability analyses. The results of this study indicate that in general the studied CJG do not need to alter their management practice. However, this study does stress the importance of context variables for network management. Network managers, and CJG managers especially, should stay aware of the managerial challenges that arise due to the context they operate in. Next to that specific attention should be given to the management of accountability in mandated public networks. This study indicates that some CJG have difficulties with managing roles and responsibilities. In line with Rodriguez et al. (2007) formalization and incentives are recommended to network managers. This study focused on proper management of collaboration between the organizations of the network, which is a basic requirement for networks to become successful in producing network level results. However networks need constant management and will evolve over time (Human & Provan, 2000; Lowndes & Skelcher, 1998; Provan & Kenis, 2007). CJG managers should be aware that many challenges are ahead of them in order for their CJG to become successful networks. Management should be considered on a network and organizational level (Milward & Provan, 2006), towards internal and external stakeholders (Human & Provan, 2000; Milward & Provan, 2006). On top of that, apart from collaboration, results for stakeholders on different levels need to be produced (Provan & Milward, 2001). In mandated networks this is not only influenced by management, but managers should also consider the symbolic and political processes in these networks (Rodriguez, et al., 2007). Since CJG are concerned with very important public issues, researchers should continue to study them in order to assist managers and other involved parties improve youth and family care in the Netherlands.
  • 55. P a g e | 50 Master thesis Strategic Management REFERENCE LIST Agranoff, R. (2003). Collective Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295-326. Alter, C. (1990). An Exploratory Study of Conflict and Coordination in Interorganizational Service Delivery Systems. Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), 478-502. Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Andel, A. v. d., Dijk, B. v., & Slabbertje, A. (2007). Ontwikkeling van Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin: uitkomsten van onderzoek naar praktijkervaringen bij gemeenten in kader van Opvoeden in de buurt. In DSP-groep (Ed.), (pp. 1-49). Amsterdam: DSP-groep. Baarda, D. B., Goede, M. P. M. d., & Kalmijn, M. (2007). Basisboek Enqueteren: Handleiding voor het maken van een vragenlijst en het voorbereiden en afnemen van enquetes. Groningen: Wolters- Noordhoff. Baker, T. J. (1999). Doing social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Bardach, E., & Lesser, C. (1996). Accountability in Human Services Collaboratives - For What? and To Whom? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 197-224. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in New Experimental Aesthetics. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons. . Bestuurlijke afspraken Opvoeden in de Buurt. (2006). Den Haag. Bogaart, A., & Wolswinkel, L. (2009). Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin en regionale samenwerking: een verkenning van vier regionale samenwerkingsverbanden. Den Haag: VNG. Bouillon, M. L., Ferrier, G. D., Jr., M. T. S., & West, T. D. (2006). The economic benefit of goal congruence and implications for management control systems. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25, 265-298. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Hart, P. T. (2008). Does Public Accountability Work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225-242. Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire design: how to plan, structure and write survey material for effective market research. London: Kogan Page Limited. Bradford, K. D., Stringfellow, A., & Weitz, B. A. (2004). Managing conflict to improve the effectiveness of retail networks. Journal of Retailing, 80(3), 181-195. Brown, L. D. (2007). Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability: Issues and Challenges. John F. Kennedy School of Government. The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations. Harvard University. Bruner, G. C., & Hensel, P. J. (1992). Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures (Vol. 1). Chicago, Ill, USA: American Merketing Association. Bruner, G. C., James, K. E., & Hensel, P. J. (2001). Marketing Scales Handbook: A compilation of Multi- Item Measures (Vol. 3): American Marketing Association. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44-55. Burn, S. M. (2004). Groups: Theory and practice. Toronto, Ontario: Thomson-Wadsworth. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73. Clarke, N. (2006). The relationships between network commitment, its antecedents and network performance. Management Decision, 44(9), 1183-1205. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha of the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. Daniel, H. Z., Hempel, D. J., & Srinivansan, N. (2002). A model of value assessment in collaboartive R&D programs. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 653-664.
  • 56. P a g e | 51 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin Dart, R. (2004). The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411- 434. de la Brethoniere, R. H., van Dijk, M., Quist, H., & Verhaar, K. (2008). Wegwijzer Centrum Jeugd en Gezin. In SGBO (Ed.). Den Haag. Drucker, P. F. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper & Row. Earley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and role models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 378-390. Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2006). Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 417-446. Elmore, P. E., & Beggs, D. L. (1975). Salience of concepts and commitment to extreme judgements in response pattern of teachers. Education, 95, 325-334. Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Govindarajan, V., & Kopalle, P. K. (2006). Research Notes and Commentaries: Disruptiveness of Innovations: Measurement and an Assessment of Reliability and Validity. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 189-199. Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (1937). Papers on the science of administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Colombia University. Harmon, M. M., & Mayer, R. T. (1986). Organization Theory for Public Administration. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Hart, S. H., Moncrief, W. C., & Parasuraman, A. (1989). An empirical Investigation of salespeople's performance, effort and selling method during a sales contest. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17, 29-39. Herranz Jr., J. (2007). The Multisectoral Trilemma of Network Management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory(18), 1-31. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum004 Holbrook, M. B. (1981). Integrating compositional and decompositional analysis to represent the intervening Role of Perceptions in Evaluative Judgements. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 13-28. Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. L., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An emperical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 18-23. Human, S. E., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Small-Firm Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 327-365. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. New York: Routledge. Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977). A study of task-goal attribute higher order need strength and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 552-563. Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53-70. Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1989). Marketing Jobs and Management Controls: Toward a Framework. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 406-419. Kamerman, S. (2005, July 1). 'Savanna was een absoluut dieptepunt'; Vraaggesprek met de hoofdinsecteur van de Inspectie Jeugdzorg, NRC Handelsblad, p. 2. Kamerman, S. (2007, November 24). Een zoveelste symbool voor falende hulpverlening; Kaapverdsische gemeenschap in Rotterdam zucht onder negatieve aandacht door dood Maasmeisje, NRC Handelsblad, p. 3.
  • 57. P a g e | 52 Master thesis Strategic Management Kenis, P., & Provan, K. G. (2009). Towards an Exogenous Theory of Public Network Performance. Public Administration, 87(3), 440-456. Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997). Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage Publications. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 324-388. Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of Goal Commitment: A Measurement Model Meta-Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 32-55. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworsky, B. J. (1994). The influence of coworker feedback on salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 58, 82-94. Konijn, H. C. S. (2007). Op zoek naar een concept: overzicht en analyse projecten in kader van CJG. Rotterdam: PJ Partners. Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). The role of procedural justice in building commitment, attachment and trust in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60-84. Lemaire, R. H., & Provan, K. G. (2009). Network Governance in a Publicly Funded Child and Youth Helath Network: Sub-network Embeddedness, Cohesiveness, and the Role of Brokers. Paper presented at the PMRA Conference, John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Ohio State University, Ohio, USA. Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The Determinants of Goal Commitment. The Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 23-39. Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The Dynamics of Multi-Organizational Partnerships: an Analysis of Changing Modes of Governance. Public Administration, 76, 313-333. Maxwell, B. (1996). Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Survey Instruments. In M. O. Martin & D. L. Kelly (Eds.), Third International Mathemethics and Science Study Technical Report (Vol. I: Design and Development). Chesnut Hill, MA: Boston College. McEvely, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an Organizing Principle. Organization Science, 14(1). McGuire, M. (2002). Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 599-609. McGuire, M. (2003). Is it really so strange? A critical look at the 'network management is different from hierarchical management' perspective. Paper presented at the Public Management Research Association Conference, Washington, DC. McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Public Administration Review, 66(33-43). Meier, K. J., & O'Toole, L. J. (2001). Managerial Strategies and Behavior in Networks: A Model with evidence from U.S. public Education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 271-293. Menon, A., Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1997). Product Quality: Impact of Interdepartmental Interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 187-200. Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A Manager's Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks Networks and Partnerships Series (pp. 1-44): IBM Center for The Business of Government. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Toole Jr, L. J. (2000). Different public managements? Implications of structural contexts in hierarchies and networks. In J. L. Brudney, L. J. O. T. Jr & H. G. Rainey (Eds.), Advancing public management: New developments in tgheory, methids, and practice (pp. 19-32). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • 58. P a g e | 53 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin O'Toole, L. J. J. (1997). Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agendas in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 57, 45-52. O'Toole, L. J. J. (2000). Different public managements? Implications of structural contexts in hierarchies and networks. In J. L. Brudney, L. J. O. T. Jr & H. G. Rainey (Eds.), Advancing public management: New developments in theory, methods, and practice (pp. 19-32). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press. Oudhof, M. (2007). Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin: Basismodel: Overeenkomsten en verschillen van diverse Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin in Nederland: Nederlands Jeugdinstituut / NJi. Page, S. (2004). Measuring Accountability for results in Interagency Collaboratives. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 591-606. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows: Open University Press. Park, S. H. (1996). Managing an Interorganizational Network: A Framework of the Institutional Mechanism for Network Control. Organization Studies, 17(5), 795-824. Prinsen, B., & Prakken, J. (2007). Kansen en dilemma's rond Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin. JeugdenCo Kennis, 35(2), 35-45. Programmaministerie. (2008). Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin en de Regierol voor Gemeenten. Den Haag: Jeugd en Gezin Retrieved from http://www.nji.nl/nji/dossierDownloads/CJG_Brochure_regierol_gemeente.pdf. Programmaministerie. (2009). Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin. www.jeugdengezin.nl/dossiers/centra-voor- jeugd-en-gezin/ Retrieved 4th of August, 2009, from http://www.jeugdengezin.nl/dossiers/centra-voor-jeugd-en-gezin/default.asp Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level: A Review of the Emperical Literature on Whole Networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479-516. Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229-252. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1-33. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public- Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423. Provan, K. G., Veazie, M. A., Staten, L. K., & Teufel-Shone, N. I. (2005). The Use of Network Analysis to Strengthen Community Partnerships. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 603-613. Raab, J., & Kenis, P. (2009). Heading Toward a Society of Networks: Emperical Developments and THeoretical Challenges. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3), 198-210. Raaij, D. P. A. M. v. (2006). Norms network members use: an alternative perspective for indicating network success or failure. International Public Management Journal, 9(3), 249-270. Rahim, M. A. (1983a). Measurement of organizational conflict. Journal of Group Psychology, 109, 189- 199. Rahim, M. A. (1983b). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory: Forms A, B, & C (Vol. II). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Ramaswani, S. N. (1996). Marketing Controls and Dysfunctional Employee Behaviors: A test of Traditional and Contingency Theory Postulates. Journal of Marketing, 60, 105-120. Reerink, A. (2009, 12 september). Kinderen van de verwijsmachine; onderzoek jeugdhulp, NRC Handelsblad.
  • 59. P a g e | 54 Master thesis Strategic Management Ring, P. S., & Ven, A. H. v. d. (1994). Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90-118. RIVM. (2010, March 25, 2010). Nationale Atlas Volksgezondheid 3.21. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_map/o3425n38301.html Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. L. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Rodriguez, C., Langley, A., Beland, F., & Denis, J. (2007). Governance, Power, and Mandated Collaboration in an Interorganizational Network. Administration & Society, 39(2), 150-192. Romzek, B. S., & Johnston, J. M. (2005). State social services contracting: Exploring the determinants of effective contract accountability. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 436-447. Romzek, B. S., LeRoux, K., & Blackmar, J. M. (2009). The Dynamics of Informal Accountability in Networks of Service Providers. Paper presented at the PMRA Conference, John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Ohio State University, Ohio, USA. Rotterdamse baby dood 'door falende jeugdzorg' (2008, December 17). NRC Handelsblad, p. 2. Rouvoet, A. (2008a). Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin en Regierol Gemeente Beleidsbrief 16-11-2007: Programmaministerie voor Jeugd en Gezin. Rouvoet, A. (2008b). Tijdelijke Regeling CJG, Staatscourant, pp. 14-27. Retrieved from http://www.mogroep.nl/scrivo/asset.php?id=128462 Ruxton, G. D., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing. Behavioral Ecology, 19(3), 690-693. Sandfort, J. (2009). Defining and Tracking Effectiveness: Implementing Performance Management through Human Service Networks. Paper presented at the Public Management Research Association, Columbus, Ohio. Sarkar, M. B., Aulakh, P. S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1998). The strategic role of relational bonding in interorganizational collaborations: an empirical study of the global construction industry. Journal of International Management, 4(2), 85-107. Sayeed, O. B. (2001). Organzational Commitment and Conflict: Studies in Healthy Organizational Processes. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods For Business: A Skill Building Approach. Groningen: John Wiley & Sons. Seuren, W. (2008). Regieaanwijzingen voor Centra van Jeugd en Gezin. In KCJG (Ed.): Kennisnetwerk Centra Jeugd en Gezin. Slyke, D. M. v. (2007). Agents or Stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157-187. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 571-610. Swanborn, P. G. (2002). Het ontwerpen, begeleiden en evaluaeren van interventies: een methodische basis voor evaluatie-onderzoek. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom. Thompson, D. (1980). Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. American Political Science Review, 74, 905-916. Toothaker, L. E. (1993). Multiple comparison procedures. London: Sage Publications. van Eijck, S. R. A. (2006a). Sturingsadvies Deel 1: Koersen op het kind. Den Haag: Projectbureau Operatie Jong. van Eijck, S. R. A. (2006b). Sturingsadvies Deel 2: Koersen op het kind. Kompas voor het nieuwe kabinet. Den Haag: Projectbureau Operatie Jong.
  • 60. P a g e | 55 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin Ven, A. H. v. d. (1976). On the Nature, Formation, and Maintenance of Relations among Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 24-36. VNG. (2007). Visie op het centrum voor Jeugd en Gezin (CJG), vastgesteld in het bestuur van de VNG op 8 Maart 2007 (pp. 1-18): VNG. Walter, A., & Ritter, T. (2003). The influence of adaptations, trust, and commitment on value-creating functions of customer relations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18, 229-241. Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of "student's" problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrica, 34(1-2), 28-35.
  • 61. P a g e | 56 Master thesis Strategic Management APPENDICES APPENDIX I: CJG GOALS AND LEGAL AUTHORIZATION Goal of the CJG: This part is based on a policy letter of the minister of youth and families, Andre Rouvoet, send to the Dutch lower house on the 16th of November 2007 (Rouvoet, 2008). In order to be authorized to use the name CJG, the following has to be bundled: A. Youth health care E.g. Consultation agencies and GGD B. The 5 ‘law of social support’(WMO in Dutch28) functions of performance area 2. i. Information and advice ii. Problem identification iii. Inflow of care iv. Light pedagogic care v. Coordination of care E.g. social work, family coaching and parental support C. Link with youth care bureau (Bureau Jeugd Zorg) D. Link with Care and Advice teams. These are the minimum requirements; on top of that CJGs can be customized to local needs. One could think of incorporating one of the following people or organizations: - Nurseries, daycare centers and preschool education - Compulsory education officer - Developments in the field of ‘brede school’ and customized education - Welfare work: general social work, youth work and street corner work - Primary care like: o Family doctors o Midwifes o Birth care - Youth GGZ - Municipality services Work and Wage; youth counter. - Debt aid for parents as well as youth - Police and judiciary 28The ‘Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning’ (WMO) was introduced on the first of January 2007. It makes municipalities responsible for social support. The law consists of 9 performance areas, of which the second is applicable on CJGs. This makes a functioning CJG an obligation by law for municipalities. The function of youth care that CJGs will have is incorporated in the law ‘Wet collectieve Preventie Volksgezondheid’ (Wcpv). These preceding laws ensure that all the activities of a CJG are supported by law. However, the extra task of a CJG is bringing together the separate activities that come from these laws. Furthermore the law ‘Wet op de Jeugdzorg’ and the ‘Zorg- en Advies Teams’ (ZAT) make sure that CJGs cooperate with ‘Bureau Jeugdzorg’ and the indicated youth care offerings of the province (Rouvoet, 2008).
  • 62. P a g e | 57 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin Finally, there are 5 basic tasks identified for CJG based on the 5 WMO functions (i.-v.) discussed above: 1. Providing physical open access for youth and families on questions about growing and bringing up 2. Providing accessible support and advice in order for families to take care of themselves 3. Mapping problematic children and families at risk 4. Providing instant care to families in order to prevent problems (or even escalation) 5. Managing family care based on the ‘one family, one plan’ principle: if more members of a family are in need of care, the provided care should be coordinated.
  • 63. P a g e | 58 Master thesis Strategic Management APPENDIX II: TOPIC LIST EXPERTS Network management: Introduction: this interview will be about the management of effective networks of organizations. Since you are experienced in this context, I would like to ask you some questions about network management for my research about CJG management. Your answers will be recorded on tape. Except for your name as interview contact you will remain anonymous in my research. Do you agree with this? If so, we will continue with the interview. Topics: can I have your opinion on:  Essential network management tasks  Execution of these tasks  Preferable outcomes of network management Milward & Provan have introduced a model of effective network management, I would like to go through all tasks of their model. Could you tell me for each task why you think this is essential, how it could be reached, and what the outcome of executing this task will be?  Management of Design  Management of Legitimacy  Management of Commitment  Management of Conflict  Management of Accountability APPENDIX III: EXPERT CONTACT LIST Number Name Function Organization 1 Joep Coehorst CJG manager Uden-Veghel VeranderVisie B.V. 2 Daan Platje CJG manager Uden-Veghel VeranderVisie B.V. 3 Ronald van Sechel CJG manager Uden-Veghel VeranderVisie B.V. 4 Dirk-Jan Swinkels Consultant VeranderVisie B.V. 5 Anne Willems CJG coordinator Tilburg MEE Tilburg 6 Peter Cuyvers National CJG implementor Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (VNG) 7 Generaal-Majoor (Koen) Gijsbers NATO network manager Ministry of Defense, the Netherlands 8 Marionne Westra Pleegzorg medewerker Zuidwester Jeugdzorg Breda
  • 64. P a g e | 59 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin APPENDIX IV: LIST OF APPROACHED CJG POPULATION CJG of participating municipalities 1 Almere 23 Halderberge 2 Alphen aan de rijn 24 Helden 3 Amersfoort 25 Koggenland 4 Amsterdam 26 Leeuwarden 5 Apeldoorn 27 Lelystad 6 Bergen 28 Leusden 7 Bergen op Zoom* 29 Middelburg 8 Boxtel 30 Montferland 9 Breda 31 Nijmegen* 10 Bunschoten 32 Noordenveld 11 Dalfsen 33 Oss 12 Delft 34 Oudewater 13 Den Bosch 35 Rijnmond (Rotterdam) 14 Den Haag 36 Schouwen-Duivenland 15 Dordrecht 37 Sittard-Geleen 16 Eersel 38 Smallingerland 17 Eindhoven 39 Tilburg 18 Emmen 40 Tytsjerksteradiel 19 Enschede 41 Utrecht 20 Groningen 42 Venlo 21 Haarlem 43 Zaanstad 22 Haarlemmermeer *these CJG were added to the list based on telephone interviews with other CJG managers
  • 65. P a g e | 60 Master thesis Strategic Management APPENDIX V: TOPIC LIST FOR THE TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH CJG MANAGERS (IN DUTCH) Introductie:  Voorstellen  Toelichten hoe ik aan de contact gegevens ben gekomen  Controleren of ik contact heb met de juiste persoon: o Ik ben op zoek naar diegene die verantwoordelijk is voor de samenwerking van de verschillende organisaties binnen uw CJG, bent u dat?  Ja -> ga door met de volgende vraag  Nee -> wat is uw functie dan? is deze vergelijkbaar?  Ja -> ga door met de volgende vraag  Nee -> zou u mij in contact kunnen brengen met de verantwoordelijke persoon? o Nee -> is er geen centrale verantwoordelijke voor uw CJG?  Ja -> zou u mij in contact kunnen brengen met diegene die het meeste van de CJG af weet?  Nee -> afsluiten  Toelichten studie: o Student van de Universiteit van Tilburg. Afstudeer onderzoek voor de Master Strategic Management o Evalueren van de huidige situatie van CJG in Nederland om tot concreet advies te komen voor het efficiënter managen van de interne samenwerking o Huidige situatie wordt getest door een korte enquête aan CJG managers o Onderzoeksresultaten worden gedeeld met het Ministerie van Jeugd en Gezin en de VNG en natuurlijk met de deelnemende CJG Medewerking:  Zou u aan deze studie deel willen nemen? o Bestaat uit een online in te vullen enquête die maximaal 10 minuten duurt Telefonisch interview vragen:  Is er 1 aanspreekpunt bij de gemeente voor de CJG? o Wie is dit?  Hoe gaat het met de samenwerking binnen uw CJG?
  • 66. P a g e | 61 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin APPENDIX VI: FREQUENCY TABLES DISCRIPTIVE DATA (SPSS OUTPUT) Management background Name organization Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Municipality 14 53,8 53,8 53,8 ActiVite 1 3,8 3,8 57,7 SOVEE 1 3,8 3,8 61,5 GGD 1 3,8 3,8 65,4 Jeugdgezondheidszorg 0-4 jaar 1 3,8 3,8 69,2 MEE 1 3,8 3,8 73,1 SOVEE 1 3,8 3,8 76,9 St.De Zuidwester 1 3,8 3,8 80,8 Stichting de Boei 1 3,8 3,8 84,6 stichting steunpunt opvoeding 1 3,8 3,8 88,5 Thuiszorg en GGD 1 3,8 3,8 92,3 Thuiszorgorganisatie 1 3,8 3,8 96,2 Stichting Wel.kom. 1 3,8 3,8 100,0 Total 26 100,0 100,0 Participating organizations Number of Cumulative organizations Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 2 3 11,5 11,5 11,5 4 4 15,4 15,4 26,9 5 7 26,9 26,9 53,8 6 1 3,8 3,8 57,7 8 2 7,7 7,7 65,4 10 3 11,5 11,5 76,9 13 2 7,7 7,7 84,6 15 3 11,5 11,5 96,2 19 1 3,8 3,8 100,0 Total 26 100,0 100,0
  • 67. P a g e | 62 Master thesis Strategic Management Accessibility Number of Cumulative locations Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 1 11 42,3 42,3 42,3 2 5 19,2 19,2 61,5 3 3 11,5 11,5 73,1 5 1 3,8 3,8 76,9 6 1 3,8 3,8 80,8 10 2 7,7 7,7 88,5 14 1 3,8 3,8 92,3 22 1 3,8 3,8 96,2 40 1 3,8 3,8 100,0 Total 26 100,0 100,0
  • 68. P a g e | 63 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin Starting point Number of Cumulative months open Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent 3 2 7,7 7,7 7,7 4 1 3,8 3,8 11,5 12 1 3,8 3,8 15,4 14 2 7,7 7,7 23,1 15 1 3,8 3,8 26,9 18 1 3,8 3,8 30,8 19 2 7,7 7,7 38,5 20 3 11,5 11,5 50,0 21 1 3,8 3,8 53,8 24 2 7,7 7,7 61,5 26 1 3,8 3,8 65,4 28 2 7,7 7,7 73,1 30 1 3,8 3,8 76,9 32 1 3,8 3,8 80,8 39 1 3,8 3,8 84,6 40 2 7,7 7,7 92,3 50 1 3,8 3,8 96,2 60 1 3,8 3,8 100,0 Total 26 100,0 100,0
  • 69. P a g e | 64 Master thesis Strategic Management APPENDIX VII: SURVEY MEASURES Table 26 provides an overview of all survey measures used in this study. From left to right the table shows the management task it tests, the influential factor within that task it tests, the reference for the question(s), the Cronbach’s alpha when relevant, the original test scale when relevant, the question as used in the online survey, and an indication whether the question was reverse coded in the survey. All questions in table 26 will be discussed now, starting with the self developed measures and subsequently discussing those from previous research. The self develop measures were constructed according to a multistage process as proposed by Churchill (1979) and used by Govindarajan & Kopalle (2006). First a multi-item scale based on the theoretical definition of the construct was developed. These scales were discussed with scholars and experts in the field. Based on these comments, the scales were reworded. Then the self developed scales, together with the existing scales were tested as described above. A scale for trust density was developed based on the frequency of interaction, the intensity of interaction, the expectation of benefits, and the degree of confidence between CJG members. These are indicators derived from the academic literature (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006; Provan, Veazie, Staten, & Teufel-Shone, 2005). A scale for goal consensus was developed based on the definition of goal consensus by Provan & Kenis (2007, p. 239): “when there is general consensus on broad network-level goals, both regarding goal content and process”. Therefore, the items measure consensus on both goal content and goal process. Furthermore, in line with Provan & Kenis (2007) and van de Ven (1976), goal similarity is also used as an item for measuring goal consensus. Governance modes were measured by giving respondents a description of self-governed, lead organization, and NAO networks. For each description respondents could answer whether this fit their CJG. If they answered ‘no’ for all three descriptions they were labeled as networks with an ‘other’ governance mode. One objective measure has been developed by the researcher: network size. It was addressed with a single question: “how many core partner organizations are part of the CJG?”. Finally, staff turnover was measured by testing whether more employees of each CJG member organizations are involved in the CJG. This is regarded an indicator of the sensitivity of the CJG to staff turnover. Furthermore scales from previous research have been used in the survey. The need for network level competencies was measured by looking at complexity based on Holbrook (1981), Berlyne (1974), and Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum (1957). This was chosen based on the description of this factor by Provan & Kenis (2007). Goal commitment was measured using the five items from Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck & DeShon (2001). These items are an optimized self reporting measure of goal commitment based on Hollenbeck, Williams & Klein (1989). Role clarity was measured using a three item scale from Sarkar, Aulakh & Cavusgil (1998), who used it in an interorganizational collaboration context. Goal clarity was measured using a six item scale from Hart, Moncrief, & Parasuraman (1989) and Ivancevich & McMahon (1977). Hart et al. (1989) used it in a network of sales representatives for a mayor food producer. The output role clarity construct was adjusted from Kohli & Jaworski (1994).
  • 70. P a g e | 65 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin TABLE 24: SURVEY MEASURES General questions Objective Question if no if yes Wat is de naam van uw functie binnen het CJG Wat is de naam van Is de gemeente uw werkgever uw werkgever General Bestaat uw CJG uit meerdere gemeenten Hoe groot is uw Hoe groot zijn de gemeenten die onderdeel zijn van uw CJG characteristics gemeente Hoeveel inlooppunten heeft uw CJG Hoeveel maanden is uw CJG geopend Evaluation Questions Cronbach's Likert Reverse Objective Factor Author Questions: Dutch translation α Scale coded De aan het CJG deelnemende organisaties besturen samen Based on Provan & op gelijkwaardige wijze het CJG Network structure Kenis (2007) Het CJG wordt door een leidende aan het CJG deelnemende organisatie bestuurd Is er een apart bestuur opgericht voor het aansturen van het CJG als geheel? De organisaties in het CJG werken intensief samen no Developed based on Edelenbos & Klein Er is geen communicatie tussen de organisaties van het CJG yes original Trust density (2007); Provan, Veazie, x De organisaties in het CJG verwachten voordeel te hebben Management of 5 point no Staten & Teufel-Shone van hun deelname aan het CJG Design (2005) De organisaties in het CJG beoordelen elkaar als competent no Not Size of network Self developed Uit hoeveel organisaties bestaat uw CJG? relevant De organisaties in het CJG zijn het eens over de manier no waarop de doelen van het CJG behaald moeten worden Self develeped based De doelen van de organisaties in het CJG onderling zijn Goal consensus on Provan & Kenis x yes verschillend (2007) De organisaties in het CJG zijn het eens over de inhoud van no de doelen van het CJG
  • 71. P a g e | 66 Master thesis Strategic Management Adjusted to likert scale De taken van het CJG moeten door meerdere organisaties no Complexity (need based on Holbrook samen worden uitgevoerd original De taken die de organisaties in het CJG uitvoeren voor het for network level (1981); Berlyne (1974); 0,82 yes 7 point CJG zijn eenvoudig competencies) Osgood, Suci & Tannenboom (1954) De externe omgeving van het CJG is stabiel yes De organisaties in het CJG nemen de doelen van het CJG yes niet serieus De organisaties in het CJG zetten zich in voor de doelen van Klein, Wesson, no original het CJG Goal commitment Hollenbeck, Wright & 0,74 5 point Het maakt de organisaties in het CJG niet uit of de doelen DeShon (2001) yes van het CJG worden behaald Er zijn geen consequenties voor de organisaties in het CJG yes als ze zich niet aan de doelen van het CJG houden Management of De organisaties in het CJG hebben vertrouwen in elkaar no Legitimacy De organisaties in het CJG zijn onzeker over elkaars Confidence Clarke (2006) 0,78 original yes (internal) beweegredenen 7 point De organisaties zien elkaar als deskundig no De werkzaamheden van het CJG zijn helder afgebakend no Er is een document dat de basis vormt voor de manier van no samenwerken in het CJG Role clarity original Sarkar et al. (1998) 0,84 De taken en verantwoordelijkheden van de organisaties in (structure) 5 point no het CJG zijn duidelijk gedefinieerd De taken en verantwoordelijkheden van de organisaties in no het CJG zijn vastgelegd Goal commitment see management of legitimacy De beoogde resultaten van het CJG helpen de organisaties no hun taak binnen het CJG te definiëren Management of Hart, Moncrief & Het is niet duidelijk welke resultaten van de organisaties in Parasuraman (1989); original yes Conflict Goal clarity 0,9 het CJG worden verwacht Ivancevich & McMahon 7 point (1977) De beoogde resultaten voor het CJG zijn helder no De organisaties in het CJG begrijpen de doelen van het CJG yes niet
  • 72. P a g e | 67 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin De organisaties in het CJG staan achter de prioriteiten die no gepaard gaan met de gewenste resultaten van het CJG Onenigheden tussen organisaties in het CJG worden in no goed overleg opgelost Ayers, Dahlstrom & Efficient conflict original Het is gangbaar dat een meerdere wordt ingeschakeld bij Skinner (1997); Heide & 0,75 yes resolution 7 point het oplossen van conflicten tussen organisaties in het CJG John (1992) Het CJG verwacht van de betrokken organisaties in het CJG no dat zij zelf onderlinge conflicten oplossen Als de organisaties in het CJG bijeenkomen, lopen de no gemoederen meestal hoog op De meeste organisaties in het CJG kunnen het goed met yes elkaar vinden Jaworsky & Kohli original Het is gangbaar voor de organisaties in het CJG om hun Conlict frequency (1993); Ajay, Jaworsky, 0,87 no 7 point werkzaamheden te beschermen & Ajay (1997) Er zijn weinig tot geen conflicten tussen de organisaties in yes het CJG De doelen van de organisaties in het CJG komen niet met no elkaar overeen Goal commitment see management of legitimacy Management of Er worden meerdere personen per aan het CJG Commitment Staff turnover Self developed x x deelnemende organisatie betrokken bij de regie van het no CJG Alle organisaties zijn op de hoogte van de beoogde no resultaten van het CJG Kohli & Jaworsky De organisaties weten niet welke resultaten van hen original yes Role clarity (output) (1994); Rizzo, House & 0,81 verwacht worden voor het CJG 5 point Lirtzman (1970) Er zijn duidelijke CJG doelen voor de organisaties no Management of Het is onduidelijk voor de organisaties welke taken er van yes Accountability hen verwacht worden Goal clarity see management of conflict Er worden geen resultaten gemeten van de organisaties Performance Jaworski & MacInnis yes original door middel van bestaande documentatie of systemen documentation (1989); Ramaswami 0,78 5 point De beoordeling van de resultaten van de organisaties (monitoring system) (1996) no wordt gedaan door gebruik te maken van bestaande
  • 73. P a g e | 68 Master thesis Strategic Management documentatie of systemen Er bestaat geen documentatie of systemen om de meeste yes activiteiten van de organisaties te beoordelen Er wordt direct gecommuniceerd naar de organisaties no betreffende de evaluatie van hun resultaten
  • 74. P a g e | 69 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin It is based on a 15 item scale of role clarity from Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman (1970). Conflict frequency was measured by a seven item scale developed by Jaworski & Kohli (1993) and Menon, Jaworski, & Kohli (1997). The measures of Jaworski & MacInnis (1989) and Ramaswani (1996) were used as survey items for performance documentation. Confidence was measured based on a three item scale developed by Clarke (2006) and used in a network context. Efficient conflict resolution was measured based on Rahim (1983a, 1983b), who used it measuring interpersonal conflict resolution. Clarke (2006) used this measure in a network context. Some original scale items were excluded from the survey. This was because they could not properly be translated to the network context, or were not relevant in the research context. This was decided based on the feedback and reflections of the experts.
  • 75. P a g e | 70 Master thesis Strategic Management APPENDIX VIII: ANOVA RESULTS size of single participating (number of locations) (number of months) governance mode municipalities municipalities Starting point organizations participating management participating accessibility background Management task Factor Welch Welch Welch Welch Welch Mean difference Mean difference statistic statistic statistic statistic statistic 0+ on 1+ 0+ on 2+ 0+ on 3+ 1+ on 2+ 1+ on 3+ 2+ on 3+ SG on LO SG on OT LO on OT 1 1,132 1,166 § 1,728 0,065 0,846 § -0,5 -0,5 -0,1 0 0,4 0,4 -0,143 0,524 0,667 2 0,48 0,088 1,514 0,616 1,272 0,333 0,05 0,25 -0,283 -0,083 -0,2 0,268 0,148 -0,125 Trust density 3 3,219** 0,307 7,188* 0,094 0,075 0,25 0 0 -0,25 -0,25 0 0,518 0,810 0,292 4 1,939 1,377 1,631 1,799 0,091 § -0,583 -0,55 -0,95 0,033 -0,367 -0,4 0,054 0,929 0,875 Number of org. 1 0,222 62,677* 0,217 17,206* 0,345 -2,5 -2,55 -3,95 -0,05 -1,45 -1,4 -1,018 -1,476 -0,458 design 1 1,404 0,272 1,028 9,632* 0,688 -0,083 0,1 -0,1 0,183 -0,017 -0,2 1,000* 1,333** -0,333 Goal consensus 2 0,021 2,185 2,704 0,091 0,001 -0,5 -0,55 -0,15 -0,05 0,35 0,4 0,750 1,000* 0,250 3 0,144 2,437 0,044 § 1,642 0,392 0,417 0,05 0,05 -0,367 -0,367 0 0,071 0,071 0,000 1 0,699 0,237 1,788 0,544 3,005 -0,917 -0,25 -0,65 0,667 0,267 -0,4 0,000 1,500 1,500 Complexity 2 0,016 0,011 1 0,011 1,396 0 0,55 -0,25 0,55 -0,25 -0,8 -0,375 -0,500 -0,125 3 0,099 0,73 0,004 1,079 2,261 0,083 0,55 -0,05 0,467 -0,133 -0,6 -0,375 -0,167 0,208 1 0,482 0,19 1,74 0,558 0,021 -0,583 -0,65 -0,05 -0,067 0,533 0,6 -0,161 0,881 1,042 Goal 2 4,346* 1,247 1,304 1,267 0,845 -0,083 0 0,2 0,083 0,283 0,2 -0,196 -0,071 0,125 commitment 3 0,81 0,557 1,259 § 0,007 1,209 § 0,25 0,5 0,3 0,25 0,05 -0,2 0,036 0,286 0,250 4 0,417 0,441 0,642 4,757** 0,001 -0,083 0,25 -0,35 0,333 -0,267 -0,6 0,964* 1,048 0,083 legitimacy 1 1,284 0,338 3,564 3,759 0,01 -0,083 -0,3 -0,5 -0,217 -0,417 -0,2 0,429 0,929 0,500 Confidence 2 0,556 0,338 2,581 2,836 1,042 0 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0 0,786** 0,786 0,000 3 1,846 § 1,846 § 12,923*§ 0,648 0,284 § -0,167 -0,25 -0,25 -0,083 -0,083 0 0,125 0,333 0,208 1 0,864 1,895 1,714 0,163 0,025 0,333 -0,4 0 -0,733 -0,333 0,4 0,125 0,667 0,542 Role clarity 2 1,014 1,052 0,071 2,546 0,03 § -0,083 -0,25 -0,45 -0,167 -0,367 -0,2 -0,464 0,119 0,583 (structure) 3 0,037 8,375* 2,308 § 1,455 0,042 0,833 -0,25 -0,25 -1,083* -1,083** 0 -0,143 -0,310 -0,167 4 0,02 0,982 8,389* 2,822 0,441 0,25 0,15 -0,45 -0,1 -0,7 -0,6 -0,500 -0,167 0,333
  • 76. P a g e | 71 Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin size of single participating (number of locations) (number of months) governance mode municipalities municipalities Starting point organizations participating management participating accessibility background Management task Factor Welch Welch Welch Welch Welch Mean difference Mean difference statistic statistic statistic statistic statistic 0+ on 1+ 0+ on 2+ 0+ on 3+ 1+ on 2+ 1+ on 3+ 2+ on 3+ SG on LO SG on OT LO on OT 1 0,482 0,19 1,74 0,558 0,021 -0,583 -0,65 -0,05 -0,067 0,533 0,6 -0,161 0,881 1,042 Goal 2 4,346* 1,247 1,304 1,267 0,845 -0,083 0 0,2 0,083 0,283 0,2 -0,196 -0,071 0,125 commitment 3 0,81 0,557 1,259 § 0,007 1,209 § 0,25 0,5 0,3 0,25 0,05 -0,2 0,036 0,286 0,250 4 0,417 0,441 0,642 4,757** 0,001 -0,083 0,25 -0,35 0,333 -0,267 -0,6 0,964* 1,048 0,083 1 0,048 0,403 0 1,83 2,376 -0,417 -0,1 -0,5 0,317 -0,083 -0,083 -0,018 0,524 0,542 2 0,12 1,835 0,306 6,464* 0,043 -0,25 -0,85 -0,25 -0,6 0 0,6 -0,304 1,071* 1,375* Goal clarity 3 0,794 0,475 8,739* 11,548* 0,053 -0,167 -0,4 0 -0,233 0,167 0,4 0,161 0,952 0,792 4 0,158 0,97 0,02 3,163 0,054 § 0,333 0,45 0,25 0,117 -0,083 -0,2 0,321 0,071 -0,250 Conflict 5 0,87 2,604 0,166 0,474 0,35 -0,417 0,05 -0,55 0,467 -0,133 -0,6 0,339 0,714 0,375 1 0,036 1,56 0,376 2,682 0,845 0 -0,05 -0,25 -0,05 -0,25 -0,2 -0,214 0,452 0,667 Efficient conflict 2 0,062 0,234 2,658 1,336 0,43 -0,25 0,1 0,3 0,35 0,55 0,2 0,518** -0,024 -0,542 resolution 3 2,912** 1,798 1,507 0,534 0,019 0,417 0 0 -0,417 -0,417 0 0,625 0,000 -0,625 1 0,001 0,821 3,642 4,553 0,291 1,167 0,75 0,75 -0,417 -0,417 0 -0,089 -0,881 -0,792 2 0,118 0,001 0,593 1,232 0,654 0,833 0,5 0,7 -0,333 -0,133 0,2 -0,089 -0,548 -0,458 Conflict 3 0,112 0,86 5,87 0,655 2,628 0,167 0,5 0,1 0,333 -0,067 -0,4 -0,232 -0,524 -0,292 frequency 4 0,514 0,007 0,025 4,83 1,399 § 0,5 0,35 0,55 -0,15 0,05 0,2 0,107 -0,310 -0,417 5 0,556 0,007 0,4 1,554 1,398 0,25 0,35 0,15 0,1 -0,1 -0,2 -0,196 -0,571 -0,375 1 0,482 0,19 1,74 0,558 0,021 -0,583 -0,65 -0,05 -0,067 0,533 0,6 -0,161 0,881 1,042 Commitment Goal 2 4,346* 1,247 1,304 1,267 0,845 -0,083 0 0,2 0,083 0,283 0,2 -0,196 -0,071 0,125 commitment 3 0,81 0,557 1,259 § 0,007 1,209 § 0,25 0,5 0,3 0,25 0,05 -0,2 0,036 0,286 0,250 4 0,417 0,441 0,642 4,757** 0,001 -0,083 0,25 -0,35 0,333 -0,267 -0,6 0,964* 1,048 0,083 Staff turnover 1 1,245 0,385 0,063 6,061* 7,864* 0,25 1,1 0,3 0,85 0,05 -0,8 0,214 0,214 0,000
  • 77. P a g e | 72 Master thesis Strategic Management size of single participating (number of locations) (number of months) governance mode municipalities municipalities Starting point organizations participating management participating accessibility background Management task Factor Welch Welch Welch Welch Welch Mean difference Mean difference statistic statistic statistic statistic statistic 0+ on 1+ 0+ on 2+ 0+ on 3+ 1+ on 2+ 1+ on 3+ 2+ on 3+ SG on LO SG on OT LO on OT 1 0,185 0,316 1,185 10,611* 0,311 0,167 0,1 -0,1 -0,067 -0,267 -0,2 0,464 1,048 0,583 Role clarity 2 0,29 9,983* 0,004 24,689* 0,718 -0,25 -1 -0,6 -0,750** -0,35 -0,4 -0,268 0,357 0,625 (output)) 3 0,842 6,456* 0,502 1,276 0,851 0,833 0,15 -0,45 -0,683 -1,283* -0,6 -0,339 -0,048 0,292 4 1,157 4,629* 0,047 15,566* 1,718 -0,417 0 -0,6 0,417 -0,183 -0,6 0,518 1,310** 0,792 1 0,048 0,403 0 1,83 2,376 -0,417 -0,1 -0,5 0,317 -0,083 -0,083 -0,018 0,524 0,542 Accountability 2 0,12 1,835 0,306 6,464* 0,043 -0,25 -0,85 -0,25 -0,6 0 0,6 -0,304 1,071* 1,375* Goal clarity 3 0,794 0,475 8,739 11,548* 0,053 -0,167 -0,4 0 -0,233 0,167 0,4 0,161 0,952 0,792 4 0,158 0,97 0,02 3,163 0,054 § 0,333 0,45 0,25 0,117 -0,083 -0,2 0,321 0,071 -0,250 5 0,87 2,604 0,166 0,474 0,35 -0,417 0,05 -0,55 0,467 -0,133 -0,6 0,339 0,714 0,375 1 0,2 0,018 14,964* 8,041* 0,13 -1,083** -0,95 -0,75 0,133 0,333 0,2 0,482 1,357* ,875** Performance 2 0,549 12,381* 0,065 16,938* 0,051 -0,917 -0,9 -1,1 0,017 -0,183 -0,2 -0,214 0,619 0,833 documentation 3 0,534 1,113 6,154*§ 0,84 0,222 -0,5 -0,9 -0,1 -0,4 0,4 0,8 0,268 1,143* ,875** 4 0,389 4,116** 5,965* 6,032** 0,738 -0,333 0 -0,2 0,333 0,133 -0,2 0,036 0,952 0,917 § Since at least one of the variances of the compared groups = 0, no Welch statistic could be calculated. Therefore the F-statistic of the ANOVA is displayed here *α = 0,05 **α = 0,1