EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF
MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORKS
AN EVALUATION OF CENTRA VOOR JEUGD EN GEZIN IN THE NETHERLANDS
RICARDO UI...
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF
MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORKS
AN EVALUATION OF CENTRA VOOR JEUGD EN GEZIN IN THE NETHERLANDS
8TH OF JUL...
P a g e | i
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
MANAGEMENT SUMMA...
P a g e | ii
Master thesis Strategic Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................
P a g e | iii
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
4.1 Descriptiv...
P a g e | 1
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
CHAPTER 1: INTRO...
P a g e | 2
Master thesis Strategic Management
TABLE 1: EXEMPLARY CASES OF BAD COLLABORATION IN DUTCH YOUTH AND FAMILY CAR...
P a g e | 3
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
1.1.2 A THEORETI...
P a g e | 4
Master thesis Strategic Management
managers in order for a network to become successful: (1) management of des...
P a g e | 5
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
care and advice ...
P a g e | 6
Master thesis Strategic Management
Finally, it was already mentioned that CJG might have a leading organizatio...
P a g e | 7
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
1.4 STRUCTURE
Th...
P a g e | 8
Master thesis Strategic Management
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This chapter will describe the methods by which the ...
P a g e | 9
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
 An accurate de...
P a g e | 10
Master thesis Strategic Management
study on mandated networks (Rodriguez, et al., 2007), and the literature o...
P a g e | 11
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
collaboration w...
P a g e | 12
Master thesis Strategic Management
The first context variable is whether the network manager is employed by a...
P a g e | 13
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
The final conte...
P a g e | 14
Master thesis Strategic Management
definitions of a CJG and an organization in a CJG were added to the survey...
P a g e | 15
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
CHAPTER 3: AN E...
P a g e | 16
Master thesis Strategic Management
3.2 MANAGEMENT OF DESIGN
Milward & Provan (2006) call the implementation, ...
P a g e | 17
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
brokered or ext...
P a g e | 18
Master thesis Strategic Management
heard before a decision can be made. Therefore, self governance is only ef...
P a g e | 19
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
TABLE 5: PREDIC...
P a g e | 20
Master thesis Strategic Management
3.3 MANAGEMENT OF LEGITIMACY
Network legitimacy justifies the actions whic...
P a g e | 21
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
networks for no...
P a g e | 22
Master thesis Strategic Management
among network members about the capabilities of the network and its member...
P a g e | 23
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
3.4 MANAGEMENT ...
P a g e | 24
Master thesis Strategic Management
objective (Milward & Provan, 2006). This implies creating justified proced...
P a g e | 25
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
3.5 MANAGEMENT ...
P a g e | 26
Master thesis Strategic Management
similarly with the goal of the network as a whole in mind, instead of favo...
P a g e | 27
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
3.6 MANAGEMENT ...
P a g e | 28
Master thesis Strategic Management
monetary. However information and goodwill can be very valuable as well. T...
P a g e | 29
Effective management of mandated public networks: an evaluation of Centra voor Jeugd en Gezin
3.7 THE EVALUAT...
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Master scriptie ricardo uijen
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Master scriptie ricardo uijen

3,161 views
3,048 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,161
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
139
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Master scriptie ricardo uijen

  1. 1. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORKS AN EVALUATION OF CENTRA VOOR JEUGD EN GEZIN IN THE NETHERLANDS RICARDO UIJEN 8th of July, 2010 Tilburg University Tilburg school of Economics and Management Department of Organization and Strategy Strategic Management
  2. 2. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORKS AN EVALUATION OF CENTRA VOOR JEUGD EN GEZIN IN THE NETHERLANDS 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. P a g e | 2 Master thesis Strategic Management TABLE 1: EXEMPLARY CASES OF BAD COLLABORATION IN DUTCH YOUTH AND FAMILY CARE 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 model5 . Municipalities are in charge of CJG and are held accountable by the ministry of youth and families. The association of Dutch municipalities (VNG6 ) 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. 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).
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 10 The first two respondents of the expert contact list in Appendix III. 11 In 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. 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 12 Respondent 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. 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. 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. 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, 19 Respondent 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. 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. 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 (governance mode)  Determining which structural governance forms would be the most 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Governance modes Trust Number of participants Goal consensus Complexity Self-governed High density Few High Low Lead organization Low density Moderate number Moderately low Moderate highly centralized Network administrative Moderate density, NAO Moderate to many Moderately high High organization (NAO) monitored by members
  25. 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. 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. 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 Internal legitimacy Goal commitment Positive Communication Inverted U Management of accountability Positive Confidence Positive Communication Inverted U Management of accountability Positive Efficient design Negative (if absent) Management of design Positive Role clarity (structure) Positive Communication Inverted U Document Positive
  28. 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. 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 Conflict Goal commitment Positive Communication (internal) Inverted U Positive Management of accountability Positive Goal clarity Positive Document Positive 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. 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. 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 Commitment Goal commitment Positive Communication Inverted U Management of accountability Positive Financial incentives Positive Procedural justice Positive Staff turnover Negative Involve multiple employees Narrow down
  32. 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. 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 Accountability Role clarity (output) Positive Communication Positive Document Positive Management of design Positive Goal clarity Positive Document Positive Resource distribution Positive Performance Negative Communication Positive Documentation (if absent) Monitoring systems Positive
  34. 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. 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. Effective management of mandated public networks Indicative factors of effective mandated public network management FIGURE 2: EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE MANDATED PUBLIC NETWORK MANAGEMENT Management of Design  Trust density  Number of participants  Goal consensus  Need for network level competencies Management of Accountability  Role clarity (output)  Goal clarity  Performance documentation (absence) Management of Legitimacy (internal)  Goal commitment  Confidence  Efficient design (absence) + Role clarity (structure) Management of Commitment  Goal commitment  Staff turnover Management of Conflict  Goal commitment  Goal clarity  Efficient conflict resolution  Conflict frequency

×