Different Approaches to Organizational Networking

Abstract

This paper explores insights into organizational networking. The author has chosen to study 14 organizations that are different in production and communication. These organizations vary from federal to state, non-governmental and local government in trying to get an insight into how managers demonstrate working in interorganizational networks. The author seems to suggest that his findings shows how public agencies even though they haven’t embraced it can add collaborative value by addressing policy and program problems. Taking a deeper look in public agency networking the author made several observations based on experience addressing collaborative management.

Keywords: collaborative management, network and empirical

Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers

Looking at this thrilling ride at the center of how a joint system operates reveals the ten important ways how directors can get the job done more efficiently than previous methods that were used over the past decade. Although there are arguments to be made in support of this it is possibly the most compelling point of view that shows how at the center of joint system operations directors can network to build efficiency for organization as will now be discussed.

Literature Review

In Agranoff’s (2006) review ten lessons on central systems, it was found that Public Management networks are collaborative networks just like social networks. Even though they not only compromise representative of disparate organizations but also go beyond analytical modes. They are real world public entities. Six of the ten lessons focused on networks and its impact on one of the organizations that were studied. The issues raised are based on a study of the 14 public management networks in the central states, comprising federal, state, regional, and local governmental officials and non-governmental managers that is, officers from nonprofits, for-profits, universities, and other organizations. (Agranoff 2006). The focus of the public management networks goes beyond studies of informal and intraorganizational networking among individuals to include interorganizational in this case, interorganizational entities that emerge from interactions among formal organizations. (Agranoff 2006).

Agranoff (2006) states the findings are an inductive study in which the theoretical findings emanate from field-based data. Thus, the methodology places emphasis on the responses of the public managers themselves. The managerial lessons that follow from the managers themselves. Hope-fully, these insights will not only contribute to the collaborative management literature but also will be of use to those who practice this form of management. (Agranoff 2006).

Lessons

1. The network is not the only vehicle of collaborative management

When it comes to cross-organization contacts, the managers in the study related that work within the network represents just one of several collaborative contacts. Foremost among these contacts are informal bilateral linkages with representatives of other organizations. (Agranoff 2006). They share a place in many cases, a small place alongside literally thousands of interagency agreements, grants, contacts, and even informal contacts that involve issues such as seeking information or some form of program adjustment (Agranoff and Mcguire 2003).

2. Managers continue to do the bulk of their work within the hierarchy.

A familiar refrain is that networks are replacing hierarchies (Castells 1996; Koppenjan and Klijin 2004). When asked, most managers said that they spent most of their time working within the hierarchy. There seemed to be a sort of consensus that only 15 percent to 20 percent of their total work time was consumed by all forms of collaborative activity, including their participation in networks (Agranoff 2006).

3. Network involvement brings several advantages that keep busy administrators involved.

One clear observation is that sustained collaborative activity, such as that of ongoing networks, must demonstrate worth or busy managers will not waste their time on participation (Agranoff 2006). The key to sustained involvement is performance is adding public value (Moore 1995).

4. Networks are different from organizations but not completely different.

Networks are different in the sense that they are non-hierarchical, players at the table begin largely equal as organizational representative, most actions are discussed and decided by consensus, resources are discussed, and there are relatively few sanctions for withdrawal (Agranoff 2006).

5. Not all net works make the types of policy and program adjustments ascribed to them in the literature.

The fact that informational and development networks do not become directly involved in program and policy adjustments does not make them any less public management networks. There are many public value benefits of coloration, and not all of them fall neatly into the “solving nettlesome interagency problems” (Agranoff 2006).

6. Collaborative decisions or agreements are the products of a particular type of mutual learning and adjustment.

Public management networks probably do not make decisions all that differently from the internal processes of learning organizations, but organizational boundaries must be acknowledged through what one could characterize as partner respect or nonhierarchical behavior. (Agranoff 2006).

7. The most distinctive collaborative activity of all networks proved to be their work in public sector knowledge management.

In our contemporary information-based, society, work is increasingly knowledge based, but substantial=gaps in knowledge led each public management network to seek more and, in the process, somehow manage this commodity. (Agranoff 2006).

8. Despite the cooperative spirit and aura of accommodation in collaborative efforts, networks are not without conflicts and power issues.

All is not harmony in collaboration numerous mini-conflicts occur over agency turf, the contribution of resources, staff time devoted to the network, the location of meetings and conferences, and most importantly, threats of withdrawal because of frustration over the time and effort expended to achieve results. (Agranoff 2006). Also hidden is the issue of power within networks. Some look at policy networks as coequal, interdependent, pattered relationships (Klijn 1996).

9. Networks have their collaborative costs, as well as their benefits.

The only resources contributed involved staff time and information, which normally come at a low or marginal cost. The other networks did have to yield resources for the cause, but when the partners could see their contribution to the larger issue or cause, they felt they could make such contributions. The only problematic issue occurred when resources were withheld. (Agranoff 2006).

10. Networks alter the boundaries of the state only in the most marginal ways; they do not appear to be replacing public bureaucracies in any way.

To a degree, the deliberations of the network and the involvement of nongovernmental organizations clearly influenced the courses of action taken by government, and in some cases, new programs and strategies emanated from network deliberations. (Agranoff 2006).

Conclusion

These lessons represent a start in understanding how collaborative bodies such as networks work on the inside. As suggested here, however much the “era of the network” is present, hierarchies persist to fulfill the legal and policy functions of government. It also demonstrates that not all public networks are alike; they are differentiated by what they do or more precisely, by what powers they have (Agranoff 2006).

They need to be managed like organizations but in collaborative, nonhierarchical ways. The lessons related here suggest that in some areas of study, there is more than meets the eye, but in many more, there is substantially less. (Agranoff 2006). In addition, Agranoff and McGuire (2001) have pulled together a number of core concepts in collaborative network management into a post- POSDCORB paradigm. Managers do spend more time in collaboration, at some cost, but less than one would think. Today’s wicked policy problems, dispersed knowledge and resources, first and second order effects, and intergovernmental overlays guarantee that managers must engage other governments and nongovernmental organizations (Agranoff and McGuire 2003; O’Toole 1997).

It is hoped that these 10 lessons will be of use to managers who are engaging in or contemplating network collaborative public management. (Agranoff 2006).

References

Agranoff, R. 2006. “Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers.” Public Administration Review 66: 56–65. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-s1.
Agranoff, R., and M. McGuire. 2001. “After the Network is Formed. Process, Power and Performance.” In Getting Results Through Collaboration Networks and Network Structures for Public Policy and Management, edited by M. Mandell, 11–29. Wesport: Quorum Books.
Agranoff, R., and M. McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Klijn, E. H. 1996. “Analyzing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks: A Theoretical Examination of the Concept Policy Network and Its Problems.” Administration & Society 28: 90–119. doi:10.1177/009539979602800104.
Koppenjan, J. F. M., and E. H. Kljin. 2004. Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. London: Routledge.
Mandell, M. P., ed. 2001. Getting Results through Collaboration Networks and Network Structures for Public Policy and Management. New York: Quorum Books.