dual leadership in public-private network governance

Dual leadership in public-private

network governance

Tamyko Ysa ([email protected])1

Adrià Albareda ([email protected])1

Anna Ramon ([email protected])2

Vicenta Sierra ([email protected])1

1 ESADE Business School – Ramon Llull University (Barcelona, Spain)

2 University of Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain)

2

1. Abstract

We assess how the role of leadership affects network governance form. The paper is

based on theory-driven empirical research. Our theoretical framework is twofold: On

the one hand, the study is based on network literature on public management and, on the

other hand, on shared, dual and co-leadership literature on general management. In this

sense, we first focus on Public Goal-Directed Networks, which are by nature mandated

and funded by a public institution. We rely on the three ideal modes of network

governance proposed by Provan and Kenis (2008): Shared Governance, Lead-

organisation and Network Administrative Organisation (NAO). We further expand

Provan and Kenis’ model by considering the literature on dual leadership. This literature

includes variables such as participants’ previous knowledge, trust, shared vision and

complementarity between leaders (Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce, 2004; Alvarez and

Svejenova, 2005; Carson, Tesluk and Marrone, 2007; Arnone and Stumpf, 2010;

Ramuthun and Matkin, 2012).

In order to answer the research question, how leadership affects network governance

form, we conducted a survey. We based our questionnaire on an existing Dutch survey

on network management (see Klijn et al., 2010a and b). We analyzed a large strategic

research project, Alice Rap (Addictions and Lifestyles in Contemporary Europe), an

EU-funded international consortium with a 10 million euro budget, and over 150

participants involved from public, private and non-profit organizations. The unit of

analysis is the whole network. We combined a regression analysis to determine the

mode of network governance, and a social network analysis (SNA) to present centrality

degree and betweenness among network participants. Moreover, we have

complemented quantitative data with semi-structured interviews to 30 participants with

a managerial position within the network. The major contribution of this paper is to

empirically test the network governance forms and to improve the understanding of

network design when leadership is shared by two heads.

2. Introduction

Network governance is by now a popular concept and a recurrent approach among

practitioners and academia to deal with public and private governance, economic

3

relationships, collaborative public management, resource allocation mechanisms and

international regulatory coordination (Powell, 1990; Miles and Snow, 1992; Provan and

Milward, 1995; Child, Faulkner and Tallman, 2005; Agranoff and McGuire, 2003;

Agranoff, 2006; Levi-Faur, 2011). Despite the network’s popularity in different sectors

of the private world1, and although most of the aforementioned authors have dealt with

inter-organizational settings at national or even local level, our study case is a

transnational publicly funded network.

The focus of this article is on goal-directed networks (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003) defined by

Provan and Kenis (2008: 231) as ‘groups of three or more legally autonomous

organizations that work together to achieve not only their own goals but also a

collective goal’. Although research on this issue has significantly evolved throughout

the last decades, we still have to face many ‘black holes’ related to their design,

management and performance. More specifically, we aim to deepen the understanding

of how goal-directed networks are managed taking into account the three different ideal

forms of network governance presented by Provan and Kenis (2008) (see Table 1

below).

Table 1. Key predictors of effectiveness of network governance forms

Governance form Trust Number of

participants

Goal

Consensus

Need for network

level competencies

Shared Governance High density Few High Low

Lead Organization Low density, highly

centralized

Moderate

number

Moderately

low

Moderate

Network Administrative

Organitzation (NAO)

Moderate density, NAO

monitored by members

Moderate to

many

Moderately

high

High

Source: Provan and Kenis, 2008: 237

This paper further develops Provan and Kenis’ model of network governance by

providing empirical evidence on the determinants of network management. Hence,

taking into account network literature, our first purpose is to contrast the case study with

the different forms of network governance. Secondly, we expand Provan and Kenis’

1 These inter-organizational settings have been used to coordinate complex products or services in uncertain and competitive environments (Piore & Sable, 1984; Powell, 1990; Ring & Van de Ven, 1992; Snow, Miles & Coleman, 1992) and have been applied in industries such as biotechnology (Barley, Freeman & Hybels, 1992), film (Faulkner & Anderson, 1987), music (Andersonson & Berger, 1971), financial services (Eccles & Crane, 1988; Podolny, 1993, 1994), fashion (Uzzi, 1996a, 1996b), and Italian textiles (Lazerson, 1995; Mariotti & Cainarca, 1986).

4

model and analyze the management model used to govern the network. To do so, we

take into account the literature on network management and complement it with shared

and dual leadership literatures (as it is one of the main characteristics of our case study).

Results and discussion focus on how the revised literature applies in the case under

study trying to identify the main idiosyncrasies of our network and to contribute as

much as possible in improving the network management literature.

3. Theoretical framework

This section presents the theoretical basis of the paper. As noted we consider network

management literature to then complement it with shared and dual leadership literature.

3.1. Network literature

Literature on public networks has been a field of study for academics in public

management for more than two decades. However, we still can expand the knowledge

on how are networks governed and managed. As defined by Klijn and Koopenjan

(2000), we understand network management as those mechanisms aimed at mediating

and coordinating inter-organizational policy making. Although regarded as different

concepts (managers have to accomplish goals and leaders have to influence, persuade,

guide and build commitment and a shared vision), we understand that network leaders

have also the responsibility to accomplish the goals established, i.e. they have to

manage the network. Despite being recognized as critical to develop inter-

organizational collaborative capacity (Wise, 2006), the literature on collaboration has

had little to say about leadership (Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Silvia & McGuire, 2010).

The importance of network management has already been noted by O’Toole and Meier

(1999), who underlined three main objectives of these managers: (1) provide an

adequate structure that fosters the network stability, (2) protect the organization from

external influences, and (3) exploit opportunities present in the environment. To

conduct this study, we take into account the four management strategies presented by

Klijn et al. (2010a) as a point of departure to analyze the managerial characteristics,

skills and actions needed in transnational public networks: exploring, arranging, process

agreements and connecting (Klijn et al. 2010a: 1069). Furthermore, the study adds the

5

three perspectives on network management reviewed by Rethemeyer (2005): facilitator

(Kickert et al., 1997), manipulator (Mandell, 2001) and maestro (Agranoff & McGuire,

2003). These perspectives are also presented as a passive-to-active continuum

encompassing ‘reactive facilitation, contingent coordination, active coordination and

hierarchical-based directive administration’ (Herranz, 2008: 4).

In order to analyze network management our unit of analysis is the whole network

rather than the different organizations composing the network. This broader focus is

what Powell et al. (2005: 1133) referred to as ‘illuminating the structure of collective

action’. Taking this into account we analyze network governance, which involves the

use of ‘institutions and structures of authority and collaboration to allocate resources

and to coordinate and control joint action across the network as a whole’ (Carson et al.,

2007).

Network management operates differently from traditional vertical management, mainly

due to networks’ interdependence. Following Gage et al. (1990) as well as Agranoff

and McGuire (2001), we intend to test how ‘people function in networks as managers

(or leaders) and to see what skills and managerial techniques are used (…) compared to

hierarchical organizations’ (Berry et al., 2004: 542). At national level, this has been

tackled by Agranoff and McGuire (2001) and more recently by Klijn et al. (2010a &

2010b), who note that the managerial skills and capacities required to operate

successfully in network settings differ from the ones needed in a single organization.

Hence, network management and leadership as a different phenomenon of vertical or

hierarchical leadership has become the ‘standard refrain and is now accepted as the

popular wisdom’ (McGuire, 2003).

Hence, leaders and managers must be regarded as stewards, mediators, catalysts (Ansel

& Gash, 2012), but also as facilitators and connectors rather than directors. Leaders may

bear responsibility for steering collaboration toward efficient service delivery,

consensus, or creative problem-solving, but they must work within the constraints

imposed by voluntary action and shared power (even when the network is mandated).

Silvia and McGuire (2010) state that, as vertical organizations, networks do require

some kind of leadership to function effectively. Specifically, they note that inter-

organizational settings need leaders that facilitate ‘productive interaction and moves the

6

parts toward effective resolution of a problem’. According to Provan and Kenis’ forms

of governance we should expect to have shared leadership when the network is

governed through a ‘shared governance’, however, when dealing with a ‘lead

organization’ or a NAO, we expect to have a single leader in charge of managing the

network as a whole.

3.2. Shared Leadership

The role of leadership has long been underlined by academia and public management

practitioners as a necessary element of our contemporary public administrations. As

presented, recently it has been introduced into the network literature research agenda

and already talked through large N studies (Silvia & McGuire, 2010).

At the same time, leadership literature has moved away from a ‘command-oriented view

of the leadership role and has embraced a more distributed view of leadership’ (Ansel &

Gash, 2012: 5). This move towards a ‘distributed’ model of leadership is of much

interest for public goal-directed network researchers since it fits the collaborative setting

of inter-oganizational networks (Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Morse, 2010; Ospina &

Foldy, 2010; Crosby & Bryson, 2010).

As noted, some networks governance’s forms are characterized for being shared, i.e.

there is equal involvement of the participants and the ‘collectivity of partners make all

the decisions and manage network activities’ (Provan & Kenis, 2008: 235). In this

sense, we understand that shared governance implies a shared leadership of the network.

However, we must note here that shared leadership literature has traditionally been

linked to general management instead of network governance. Pearce and Conger

(2002) define shared leadership as “a dynamic, interactive influence process among

individuals and groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement

of group or organizational goals or both”; and add that "this influence process often

involves peer, or lateral, influence and at other times involves upward or downward

hierarchical influence". Hence, instead of considering the unit of analysis the team that

shares the leadership, we consider the network that shares leaders.

Apart from the aforementioned characteristics of shared governance forms (high levels

of trust, few number of participants, high levels of goal consensus and low need for

network level competencies), Pearce (2004) identifies a set of characteristics that,

7

although presented for shared leadership, can also be applied for studying shared forms

of network governance. These characteristics are: high level of interdependence

between participants, the need to obtain creative objectives2 and complexity3.

Shared leadership is a relational phenomenon involving mutual influence between team

members as they work toward team objectives. One of the shared characteristic between

the leaders is the need to manage their egos, as noted by O’Toole et al. (2003: 259) both

leaders should respond affirmatively to the following question: ‘Can they come onstage

and take their bows together?’

When the number of participants increases, it is more difficult to properly manage a

network through shared modes and the establishment of either a lead organization or a

NAO becomes necessary. In these cases, leadership possibly arises in a more traditional

way. However, new forms of leadership between hierarchy and shared collaboration

have appeared. A clear example in this respect is dual leadership which can be defined

as a couple of leaders who manage an organization, a network or a project in a

collaborative way. Dual leadership is then in the midst of traditional hierarchical

management and the more collaborative management of horizontal organizations.

Although it is not the same (see Table 2), dual leadership has usually been linked to

shared leadership literature (Unnervik & Everlöf, 2010). This is so due to some

common characteristics such as the interdependence between leaders, the importance of

communications and the need to embrace a common vision and share similar personal

traits. Dual leadership literature includes variables such as participants’ previous

knowledge, trust, shared vision and complementarity between leaders (Pearce and Sims,

2002; Pearce, 2004; Álvarez and Svejenova, 2005; Carson, Tesluk and Marrone, 2007;

Arnone and Stumpf, 2010; Ramuthun and Matkin, 2012). As noted by O’Toole et al.

(2003: 259) dual leadership occurs ‘when the challenges a corporation face are so

complex that they require a set of skills too broad to be possessed by any one

individual’.

2 Creative knowledge work generally requires inputs from multiple individuals. 3 The more complex the task the lower likelihood that one individual can be an expert on all task components.

8

Table 2. Classical, shared and dual leadership

Classical leadership Shared leadership Dual leadership

Number of leaders 1 3 or more 2

Relation between leaders None Collaborative Collaborative

Communication channels Formals Informal Both

Relation with employees Hierarchical Participative Collaborative

Where can be found Traditional organizations Shared Networks Large networks

Source: compiled by the authors

Dual leadership can occur in three different ways: full time, part time and division of

responsibilities (Unnervik & Everlöf, 2010). The first one occurs when both leaders

share all workload, responsibilities and the authority. Part time model of dual leadership

implies that leaders are not present at the same time and, though they share all workload

and responsibilities, they do not work together. Finally, division of job responsibilities

occurs when leaders determine which tasks are they in charge of based on their

individual strengths and preferences.

Regarding the last model, Etzioni (1999) already noted that task oriented groups, tend to

develop two kinds of leader: expressive and instrumental leaders. The first one being an

individual who aims to maintain the integration of the various parts of the system, and

the second one being a task oriented leader.

4. Methods and data

Our case study is a large strategic research project, ALICE RAP (Addictions and

Lifestyles in Contemporary Europe), a European Union’s Seventh Framework Program

for Research (FP7) constituted as an international consortium with a 10 million euro

budget and over 150 participants involved from public, private and non-profit

organizations (see Table 3) representing more than 80 organizations from 20 European

countries. Its aim is ‘to strengthen scientific evidence’4 to inform the public and

political dialogue and to stimulate a broad and productive debate on current and

alternative approaches to addictions’.

4 More than 60% of this network’s participants hold a PhD.

9

Table 3. Alice Rap composition

Public sector organisations 66%

Not-for-profit organisations 22%

Private companies 12%

Source: own statistical analysis

In terms of its structure, this network has six areas analyzing different domains of

addictions:

Area 1 (Ownership of Addictions) provides an historical perspective of

addictions.

Area 2 (Counting Addictions) analyzes how addictions are classified and defined

as well as how this impacts on health and society.

Area 3 (Determinants of Addiction) studies the process by which consuming a

substance can become an addiction.

Are 4 (Business of Addiction) studies revenues, profits and those actors involved

in both legal and illegal trade of addictive substances.

Area 5 (Governance of Addictions) studies how societies and governments steer

themselves to deal with addictions.

Area 6 (Addicting the Young) analyzes how young people are affected by

addictions and features may reduce problematic use of addictive substances.

The network has one further area (Area 7) devoted at integrating and coordinating the

project. Furthermore, each Area has three work packages, which is how the European

Union structures deliverables and deadlines on the projects that fund. Each work

package and area have a leader managing a specific field of work within the network.

The first step of our research attempts to classify the network under analysis into one of

the three ideal types using Provan and Kenis’ variables: trust, number of participants,

goal consensus and need for network level competencies. For that we run a

questionnaire based on an existing Dutch survey on network management (see Klijn et

al., 2010a and 2010b), from which results we generate an in-depth analysis of the

network.

10

We tried to see the characteristics of the management strategies using the Klijn et al.

(2010a) approach building three constructs in order to operationalize the management

strategies variables exploring, connecting and process agreement (Annex 1 presents the

questions used to measure each variable). We included three of the four Klijn et al.

management strategies (2010a). We excluded arranging -creating new ad hoc

organization arrangements (boards, project organizations, etc.)- because, wining the bid

meant to departure from the consortium and the organizational structure proposed to the

Commission. Our analysis starts when the bid was obtained.

The survey was conducted in the fall of 2011. It was sent to all ALICE RAP participants

(153) and we obtained a response rate of 65%. In order to test Provan and Kenis’ key

predictors of network governance form, we needed the four variables mentioned above

(trust, number or participants, goal consensus and need for network). As we have a

single case, the number of participants is fixed. The indicator of trust was built through

four questions about trust among network participants when performing their tasks.

Goal consensus has been measured through the level of coincidence in responding eight

questions referring to the purpose and direction of the project, the main reasons for

participating in the project and the importance of achieving the goals of the network.

Finally, to measure the need for network-level competencies an index was created with

variables representing the complexity of a network at different levels: organizational,

content coordination, external influences and leadership management (Annex 1 presents

the questions used to measure each variable).

Ideally, the operationalization and classification of these four variables should have

been enough to identify the network under analysis with one of the ideal types.

However, we found mixed evidence arising from the survey (see Table 4). While three

of the four variables proposed fitted the NAO form of governance (two of them with

mixed evidence with lead organization form of governance), the levels of trust

coincided with the shared leadership form of governance (respondents reported very

high levels of trust between themselves).

11

Table 4. Provan & Kenis models of governance variables and survey results

Variables Mean Levels of coincidence Form of the Network

Need for Network 3.51 Moderate to high NAO / Lead Organization

Trust 3.61 Moderate to high Shared Govoernance

N. of Participants 153 Moderate to many NAO

Goal consensus 61,8% of coincidence Moderate to high NAO / Lead Organization

Source: compiled by the authors

To move beyond this mixed evidence and properly answer the research question, we

found necessary to develop an in-depth case study through the combination of semi-

structured interviews and the application of social network analysis (SNA) to the whole

network.

Our hypotheses states that the form of leadership of the network can be determinant to

influence or change a variable that does not match the Provan and Kenis model, trust.

Among others, Mayo (2003) has stated that social network approach can be helpful to

provide a conceptual framework and as a methodological tool to measure and analyze

shared and dual leadership. Moreover, Mehera et al. (2006) also noted that social

network theory provides a natural theoretical and analytical approach to studying the

relational influence structure in teams. In order to test the type of leadership in the

network and understand its roles and implications, we have conducted a Social Network

Analysis (SNA) based on the survey results. Hence, the survey was also intended to

obtain the levels of trust and the type of relationships between participants. More

specifically, we assess to what extent participants cooperate, coordinate or collaborate

among themselves and with the leaders. As noted by Sandfort and Milward (2008),

these terms describe the intensity from informal to more formalized relations, therefore,

cooperation would be informal and personal relationships, when coordination appears,

participants and organizations ‘make an effort to calibrate their actions, although

organizations themselves remain independent’, and collaboration occurs when

‘organizations share existing resources, authority and rewards’ (Sandfort & Milward,

2008: 154).

A semi-structured interview was also built to drill down further on network leadership

(Silvia & McGuire, 2010). We used the same key indicators as in the literature such as

the participants’ previous knowledge, trust, shared visions and the complementarity

12

between leaders (Annex 2 presents the questions used to measure each variable). These

semi-structured interviews were conducted to the two leaders who appear as such in the

SNA, as well as those actors that in one way or another exert influence on the network

performance. These are, area and work package leaders, and members of the

coordination and communication team. We created two types of interviews, one adapted

for the two network leaders and the other adapted to the aforementioned participants

(Annex 2 broadly presents the questions used in the interviews). The second set of

interviews (in total 30) has been coded and used to conduct a qualitative analysis of the

network governance. We have looked at the main tasks conducted by all the people with

capacity to influence the network and how this can influence trust between actors, their

relationship and their performance.

4. Results

Network’s form

The first step, as mentioned was to test Provan and Kenis model and their key predictors

of network governance forms (Annex 1 presents the questions used to measure each

variable). Table 4 presents the results for trust and need for network level competencies.

These are additive variables of different items translated into a 5-point Likert-type scale.

The statistical analysis suggests that in case of need for network competencies we see

the average is 3.51 on a scale of 5, which indicates a moderately high value5. Although

the number of participants is a stable number it can be considered as moderate to many6.

Goal consensus is moderately high since 61.8% of participants coincide on their

response. Finally looking to the trust indicator one can see that the index mean is 3.61

from 5 point scale it can be considered moderate high. Therefore, taking into account

Provan and Kenis model, the results show mixed evidence, with low explanatory

capacity.

5 The variables ‘Need for network competencies’ and ‘Trust’ have been operationalized as following: 0-1=Low | 1-2=Moderate Low | 2-3=Moderate | 3-4=Moderate High | 4-5=High. 6 From a randomized study on EU’s Seventh Framework Program projects we can affirm that ALICE RAP is one of the largest projects, especially in terms of organizations involved. While the average is around 15 organizations, ALICE RAP involves 80 organizations.

13

Moreover we use density indicators7 for two reasons: (1) because it can appropriately

reflect the extent to which leadership influence is distributed among a relatively high or

relatively low proportion of team members (Carson et al., 2007) and (2) because

density is positively associated with trust (Moolenaar & Sleegers, 2010). Here we are

analyzing a meso level organization network8 (Riketta & Nienber, 2007) and they

usually have low density indicators (Hedström, et al., 2000). In this case we see that the

density is 3%, usual number of networks with more than 150 actors (Batagelj and Mrvar

(2001) state that ‘the greater the size of the network the lower the tendency of the

density’. Faust (2006) establishes that networks from 4 to 43 actors score from 2-8%,

and when the number of actors increase density is always below this number). If one

looks at local densities corresponding to the areas where a set of partners collaborate in

a specific field of work (see Table 5) the percentages are much higher.

Table 5. Area densities

Area Density

Area 1 16%

Area 2 3.4%

Area 3 17.3%

Area 4 16%

Area 5 16.7%

Area 6 25%

Area 7 22%


Dual leadership in network governance

Figure 1 presents the SNA results regarding the network leadership, and Table 6 results

show the indegree indicator9, betweenness10 and eigenvector11. The conclusion coming

from these analyses is that two leaders steer the network, that is to say that dual

leadership is present. Taking into account basic relationship among participants we can

clearly identify the two leaders.

7 Used in Provan and Kenis models. 8 Social groups that distribute tasks for a collective goal. 9 A count of the number of ties directed to a node 10 Betweenness is ‘calculated as the fraction of shortest paths between node pairs that pass through the node of interest’ (Newman, 2003). It shows us the actor who performs as an intermediary in most cases. 11 Eigenvector measures the importance of a node in a network. This measure not only takes into account centrality degree (i.e. the number of links that each node has), it also considers the number of links of nodes connected to them.

14

Figure 1: ALICE RAP Social Network Analysis Map

These two people (leader 1 and leader 2 -L1 and L2-) get the highest scores on all

indicators analyzed. Results are very similar for them and the two leaders are the ones

with more connections in the network. The presence of two leaders inside the network is

confirmed by two key SNA indicators: betweenness and eigenvetor (see Table 6). This

means that the two leaders are indispensable to connect participants inside the network.

Table 6: Leaders’ SNA indicators

Leader Indegree Betweenness Eigenvector

L1 49 2838 0.404

L2 37 1940 0.337

Source: Own social network analysis

Building further, it is relevant not only to analyse the number of contacts developed

inside the network, but also the typology of activities exchanged in those connections.

Figures 2 and 3, and Table 7 present the SNA indicators for each of the possible

relations in the network (communication, coordination and collaboration).

L1

L2

15

Figure 2. Communication, coordination and collaboration roles in the network


Figure 3. Communication, coordination and collaboration SNA in ALICE RAP

Figures 2 and 3 present how relevant are both leaders in communication and

coordination. However, results change when looking at collaboration’s map, which

present a much more diffuse relation among participants and the two leaders, despite

retaining high results, are not the only central figures in the network (see Figure 3). A

closer look to Figure 2 allows us to see a shift between communication and

coordination; while in the former network L2 is the most relevant one, in coordination

network L1 has higher levels of betweeness. Therefore, participants establish a more

‘formalized’ relationship with L1 than with L2.

Communication Coordination Collaboration

16

Table 7. Leaders’ SNA indicators by type of relation

Relation type SNA indicators L1 L2

Communication

Indegree 20 10

Betweenness 1336 1838

Eigenvector 0.418 0.511

Coordination

Indegree 21 19

Betweenness 1070 786


Collaboration

Indegree 8 8

Betweenness 252 536


Source: Own social network analysis

Regarding trust towards the leaders, as presented in Table 8, there are not notorious

differences. These high levels of trust can be explained on the one hand by the dual

leadership and on the other by the previous knowledge of almost half of the

participants12 (Alvarez & Svejenova, 2005).

Table 8. Level of trust in leadership for each relation type

Relation type L1 L2

General trust 4.64 4.32

Communication trust 4.7 4.18

Coordination trust 4.57 4.75

Collaboration trust 4.71 4.49

Source: Own statistical analysis

The influence of dual leadership on the network’s form

When applying the three forms of network governance by Provan and Kenis (2008) to

and specific complex network results are mixed. We have seen how communication and

coordination are highly centralized (in two people), which means that we could be

dealing either with a NAO or with a Lead Organization, while there is not a centralized

figure in Collaboration, which fits the Shared Governance form. As noted by Provan

and Kenis (2008) this kind of network is used when dealing with concrete tasks and

when the level of complexity is lower. In this sense, taking into account Table 1 and

despite this network level of trust, ALICE RAP closest form is similar to that of a NAO,

although all steering leaders are insiders. All these mean that we cannot classify this 12 47% of the respondents to the survey have had links with other projects lead my members of ALICE RAP.

17

network as a NAO nor as a Lead Organization, which makes us question if the presence

of two leaders is determinant.

We further expand Provan and Kenis’ model by considering the literature on dual

leadership in order to answer the research question, how leadership affects network

governance form, we conducted a survey. This literature includes variables such as

participants’ previous knowledge, trust, shared vision and complementarity between

leaders (Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce, 2004; Alvarez and Svejenova, 2005; Carson,

Tesluk and Marrone, 2007; Arnone and Stumpf, 2010; Ramuthun and Matkin, 2012).

For that we used the results of the semi-structured interviews.

First of all, most of the interviewees noted that the role of these leaders diverges from

the one in a hierarchy (Provan and Kenis, 2008; Kenis, Provan and Kruyen, 2009). Most

area or work package leaders think that the network works in a collaborative manner,

although they have to report, be accountable and even ask for authorization to the co-

leaders (Table 9, ALb). Their work is focused in connecting participants, looking for

synergies, enhancing collaboration and cross-cutting collaboration, helping in the

resolution of problems and reporting the progress to the funding partner. However, as

can be seen in Table 9, some people consider that some decisions are taken

hierarchically. More specifically, area leader a (ALa) considers that L1 is more

authorization and when a proposal is made, participants expect L1’s approval.

Table 9. Hierarchical vs. Network mode of leadership

Interviewee Quote

ALa

“L1 is taking a hidden hierarchical model of network governance. He has very clear ideas of how the

project should evolve. He intends to do it in a consensus way, but in the end, if necessary, he takes the

final decision”

ALb

“We have a collegial relationship. Since the beginning of the project, with the division of tasks,

everyone trusts everyone else to do that. Conversations are never commanded and controlled

conversations, they are more strategic and collaborative conversations”.

Taking into account shared leadership literature and looking closely to ALICE RAP

dual leadership we see that leaders’ roles inside the network are distinct. L1’s role is

more focused on Research and Development while L2 is oriented towards coordination,

administrative tasks, risk management and reporting to the funding institution, the

European Commission. For the purpose of this article we have named them the

18

scientific coordinator (L1) and institutional coordination of the project (L2) –the final

person accountable in front the European Commission for the network results-.

Furthermore, we identify a complementarity between leaders (Alvarez & Svejenova,

2005; Arnone & Stumpf, 2010): their tasks are different and there is a clear division of

labor. This complementarity and division of roles has been confirmed through

interviews and ad hoc questionnaires. Hence, we can identify commonly stated

characteristics by shared leadership and network governance literature. Firstly,

regarding the passive-to-active continuum (Herranz, 2008), all interviewees consider

both leaders as either facilitators or coordinators. More specifically, L1 is normally

regarded as an active coordinator while L2 is a facilitator.

Regarding the division of tasks, L1n is considered as the main connector of the network

and the “visible person” (ALa). He connects all participants, work packages and areas

that compose the project (external coordination), but he also oversights the project and

tries to give cohesion to the whole network, avoiding discrepancies and the emergence

of multiple projects instead of a single and coherent project. Hence, be taking into

account Etzioni’s classification we can state that L1 is the expressive leader, the one

maintaining the integration of the various parts. On the other hand, L2 is more focused

on internal coordination, and he is also in charge of the relation with the European

Commission.

Table 10. Division of tasks between leaders

Interview Quotes

ALc

“L1on is more involved in communication and L2, and it is my impression, is making sure everything

is happening. [Hence] one leader can focus on the public image and communication, and the other is

more on the procedural, and on the supportive operational”

ALd “L1 is the scientific leader. He is the one with international contacts. He is in contact with innovations

and scientific advances. On the other hand, L2 is a coordinator and he is not as visible as L1”.

ALe “To the outside L1 is doing some of the more active roles, but if you look into the real impact, they

are equal”.

ALf “Our contact is L1 more, and L2 is sort of more a background figure, involved in the plenary

meetings, but we have very little contact outside these meetings”.

ALg “L2 seems to me to be more the father behind the scenes. L1 is much more hands on directing

research, developing some of the issues”

AL1 “I work with L1 specially. I normally go to the Barcelona (L2) to coordinate administrative issues”

AL2 “I have the impression that the technical management of Alice Rap is in L2’s hands which he

delegates to others in his organization, while the scientific leadership is in L1’s hands.”

19

It is important to note that these leaders know each other very well for 20 years, have

participated in six different projects and have coordinated or co-lead four of these

projects. From these previous experiences the leaders have gained mutual respect and

trust. Furthermore, as noted by L1, they not only know each other, they also get on very

well and think similarly, do not have problems, difficulties or jalousies when leading

projects. This congruency was also reflected when asked on the levels of disagreement

and conflict. Obviously both leaders noted that in some cases they disagree, however, at

the end they always reach a shared solution to deal with issues. It is also very important

to note that the level of trust between this two leaders must be very high because only

one of them is legally responsible for the project, specially to the EU authorities, and if

we take into account the answers of the Area leaders and the Work Package leaders, the

most active project leader is not the one taking the ultimate responsibility.

Interestingly, the leaders consider themselves as ‘service providers’. As stated by one of

the leaders, this means “creating a comfortable environment in which participants can

develop their work”, which, in practical terms, shall be understood as rapidly

responding to emails as well as to needs and requests of different participants.

Table 11. Advantages and disadvantages of dual-leadership

Interviewee Quote

ALg

“They have different profiles and their contributions are different. The strengths is that they have

different visions, and having two leaders it makes it better than one. Having only one of them would

make a very different project”.

ALh “it could be a problem if both of the leaders disagree”

ALd

“The advantages of having two leaders is that you have two different personalities which help

minimizing each other’s’ weaknesses. Dual leadership is also beneficial when dealing with such a

large this network with multiple egos”.

ALb

“They do not always express the same opinion, so in a discussion you can receive two opinions (one

from L2 and another one from L1), they are sometimes non-agreement, which is good because it

illuminates different possibilities”.

In a traditional organization or project, one would expect that the person or organization

accountable to the funding partner would have the ultimate responsibility; however, due

to the long relationship between these leaders, both the scientific and the administrator

have equal rank and people even contact and ask for authorization more frequently to

20

L1 than to L2. This unique relationship may be explained, as noted by some

interviewees, by their mutual dependence.

Table 12. Leaders’ reasons to work together

Interviewee Quote

ALi “L1 needs an organization to work through, and L2 likes to run international projects and this is a way

that he can, and leaving the scientific part to L1 is a way to keep doing the other things he does”.

ALd “The get on very well and think similarly, but at the same time they need each other, L1 has the

contacts and L2 has the organization”.

5. Discussion and conclusions

We have in Alice Rap a co-Lead organization with two leaders: L1 and L2, playing

complementary roles for the network. L2 organizes the network, has the organizational

resources, and is accountable for its results. L2 is complemented with L1, with contacts

and more international recognition, which helps make the project more visible, but that

does not have an organization to apply for the project. We consider that this

development could hardly be achieved without high levels of trust, that in the case may

be explained by (1) the previous knowledge between most of the participants involved

in the network and (2) and the active management devoted to enhance connections

between participants and increase the leverage of the network.

Answering to the research question, which is the influence of dual leadership on the

network governance form? Our interpretation is that dual leadership could become a

way of avoiding becoming a non-return NAO in large governance networks. In the lead

organization model, key decisions activities are coordinated through and by one of the

members, acting as a lead organization, although all network members share at least

some common purpose. This organization provides administration for the networks

and/or facilitates the activities of the members in their efforts to achieve network goals

while providing its own set of services (Kenis et al. 2009). On the other hand, the basic

idea of a NAO is that a separate administrative entity is set up to manage and coordinate

the network, the NAO is not another network member: it is established with the

exclusive purpose of network governance.

But creating a NAO generates externalities: transaction costs, principal-agency control

problems, and institutionalization of its existence. Alice Rap characteristics would make

21

us initially thought that it would be effectively managed by a NAO (see Table 1), but a

way of avoiding this institutionalization in the early years of the network, has been to

develop not a one member lead organization, but a dual leadership sharing the leading

role in the terminology of Provan and Kenis (2008). This has advantages: the control

remains in hands of the network members; it allows managing a high number of

members, while being able to establish centralization and certain hierarchy in decision

making to ensure outputs and accountability to the funder.

On the other hand, according to Provan and Kenis model (2008), lead organizations are

highly centralized but have low density in trust. Our proposition is that without high

density of trust, the combination of lead organization as network governance, and dual

leadership could not be implemented. High trust is the enabler for role distribution and

conflict avoidance among the two parties.

In conclusion, all other things being equal:

P1: Dual leadership is more likely when big complex network want to keep control of

the network governance, instead of opting for a NAO.

P2: Dual leadership in lead organizations cannot hold together without a high degree of

trust between the expressive and instrumental leaders (Etzioni), and among the rest of

partners.

To sum up, in this paper we have contrasted Provan and Kenis’ ideal forms of network

governance with one case study. Inconclusive results lead us to analyze in-depth the

network and its dual leadership which, as we understand, is the main cause why the

network does not fit any of the ideal forms. Hence, taking into account shared and dual

leadership literature we see the influence on trust of these two leaders, but also the

previous knowledge as a determinant of high levels of trust. Moreover, we will also

determine how the managerial strategies relate to the different levels of the network

(communication, coordination or collaboration).

This study is full of limitations. We would like to note that this analysis needs further

comparison with other networks in order to contrast the key predictors of effectiveness

of network governance forms and the effect of dual leadership. Our measures of the four

22

key predictors of network governance need to be contrasted and compared to other

networks in order to validate our results. Furthermore, another limitation is not testing

yet how network management strategies affect outcomes, which, due to the early stage

of the project, still cannot be assessed.

23

References

Agranoff, R. 2006. Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review.

Special Issue, 56-65.

Agranoff, R. & McGuire, M. (2001). Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, 11(3): 295-396

Agranoff, R. & McGuire, M. 2003. Models of Collaborative Management. In R. Agranoff and M. McGuire (Eds.),

Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington DC: Georgetown

University Press. 43-66.

Alvarez, J.L., Svejenove, S. 2005. Professional Duos. In J.L. Alvarez and S. Svejenove (Eds.), Sharing Executive

Power: Roles and Relationships at the Top. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ansel, C. & Gash, A. 2012. “Stweards, Mediators, and Catalysts: Toward a Model of Collaborative Leadership” The

Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal. 17(1), article 7.

Arnone, M. and Stumpf, S.A. 2010. Shared leadership: from rivals to co-CEOs. Strategy & Leadership. 38(2): 15-21.

Barley, S.R., Freeman, J. &. Hybels, R.C. 1992. Strategic alliances in commercial biotechnology. In N. Nohria & R.

Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: 311-347. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Berry F.S., Brower R.S., Choi S.O., Goa W.X., Jang H., Kwon M. & Word J. (2004), Three Traditions of Network

Research: What the Public Management Research Agenda Can Learn from Other Research Communities. Public

Administration Review, 64: 539–552

Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. 2007. Shared Leadership in Teams: an investigation of antecedent

conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal 2007. 50(5): 1217–1234.

Child, J., Faulkner, D. and Tallman, S.B. 2005. Networks. In Cooperative Strategy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press. pp. 145-163.

Crosby, B.C., & Bryson, J.M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector

collaboration. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 211-230.

Eccles, R. G. & Crane, D. B. 1988. Doing deals: Investment banks at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.

Etzioni, Amitai (1999) “Dual Leadership in Complex Organizations” American Sociological Review, 30(5): 688-698.

Faulkner, R.R. & L1, A.B. 1987. Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American

Journal of Sociology, 92 (4): 879-909.

Gage, Robert W., and Myrna P. Mandell, eds. 1990. Strategies for Managing Intergovernmental Policies and

Networks. New York: Praeger.

Hedström,L1, Rickard Sandell, and Charlotta Stern (2000).”Mesolevel Networks and the Diffusion of Social

Movements: The Case of the Swedish Social Democratic Party.”American Journal of Sociology, 106(1): 145–72.

24

Herranz, J. 2008, “The Multisectoral Trilemma of Network Management”, Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory, 18(1): 1-31.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How

things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159−1175.

Kenis, P., Provan, K.G. and Kruyen, P.M. 2009. Network-Level Task and the Design of Whole Networks: Is There a

Relationship? In A. Bøllingtoft et al. (eds.), New Approaches to organization Design, Information and

Organization Design Series 8, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0627-4_2.

Kickert, W., and Koppenjan, J. 1997. Public Management and Network Management: an Overview. In W. Kickert,

E.H. Klijn and J. Koopenjan, (Eds.), Managing Complex Networks. London: Sage.

Kilduff, Martin and Wenpin Tsai. 2003. Social Networks and Organizations. London: Sage Publications.

Klijn, E.H. & Koopenjan, J. 2000. Public Management and Policy Networks: Foundations of a network approach to

governance. Public Management, 2(2): 135–158.

Klijn, E., Steijn, B., and Edelenbos, J. 2010a. The Impact of Network Management on Outcomes in Governance

Networks. Public Administration. 88(4): 1063–1082.

Klijn, E., Edelenbos, and J. Steijn, B., 2010b. Trust in Governance Networks: Its Impacts on Outcomes.

Administration & Society. 42(2): 193–221.

Lazerson, M. 1995. A new phoenix?: Modern putting-out in the Modena knitwear industry. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40: 34-59.

Levi-Faur, D. 2011. Regulatory networks and regulatory agencification: towards a Single European Regulatory

Space. Journal of European Public Policy. 18(6): 810-829.

Mandell, M.P. 2001, “Getting results through collaboration: Three perspectives”, New York: Oxford University

Press.

Mandell, M. P., and R. Keast. 2009. A New Look at Leadership in Collaborative Networks: Process Catalysts. Pp.

163-78 in Public Sector Leadership: International Challenges and Perspectives, edited by J. A. Raffel, P. Leisink

and A. E. Middlebrooks. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar Publishing.

Mariotti, S. & Cainarca, G.C. 1986. The evolution of transaction governance in the textile-clothing industry. Journal

of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7: 354-374.

McGuire, M. (2003). Is it really so strange? A critical look at the “network management is different from hierarchical

management” perspective. Presented at the Seventh National Public Management Research Conference,

Washington, D.C., October 9–11, 2003.

Miles, R. and Snow, C. 1992. Causes of Failure in Network Organizations. California Management Review. Summer:

53-72.

25

Moolenaar, N.M., & Sleegers, P.J.C. (2010). Social Networks, Trust, and Innovation. How social relationships

support trust and innovative climates in Dutch Schools. In A. Daly (Ed.), Social Network Theory and Educational

Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morse, R.S. (2010). Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public value. The Leadership

Quarterly, 21, 231-245.

Newman, M.E.J. 2003. A Measure of Betweenness Centrality Based on Random Walks. Full text availability:

arXiv:cond-mat/0309045.

Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2010). Building bridges from the margins: The work of leadership in social change

organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 292-307

O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. III. (2003). The promise and pitfalls of shared Leadership. In C. Pearce & J.

Conger (Eds.), Shared Leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 250–267). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

O’Toole L.J. & Meier, K.J. 1999, “Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of structural context”,

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(4): 505-526.

Pearce, C.L. 2004. The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work.

Academy of Management Executive. 18(1): 47-57.

Pearce, C.L. & Conger, J.A. 2002. Shared Leadership. Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Sage

Publications.

Pearce, C.L. & Sims, H.P., Jr. 2002. Vertical versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of Change

Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive, Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering

Leader Behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 6(2): 172-197.

L1son, R.A. & Berger, D.G. 1971. Entrepreneurship in organizations: Evidence from the popular music industry.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 10: 97-106.

Piore, M.J. & Sabel, C.F. 1984. The second industrial divide. New York: Basic Books.

Podolny, J. 1994. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 39: 458-83.

Powell, W.W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organizing. IN B. Staw & L.L. Cummings

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 295-336.

Powell, W.W., White, D.R., Koput, K.W. and Owen-Smith, J. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The

growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology. 110(4): 1132-

1205.

Provan, K.G., Fish, A., Sydow, J. 2007. Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level: A Review of the

Empirical Literature on Whole Networks. Journal of Management. 33(3): 479-516.

26

Provan, K.G. and Kenis, P. 2008. Modes of Network Governance and Implications for Network Management and

Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 18(2): 229-252.

Provan, K.G. and Milward, H.B. 1995. A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizationl Network Effectiveness: A

Comparatvie Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40: 1-33.

Ramuthun, A.J. and Matkin, G.S. 2012. Multicultural Shared Leadership: A Conceptual Model of Shared Leadership

in Culturally Diverse Teams. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 19(3): 303-314.

Rethemeyer, K. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring collaborative networks. Public Administration Review, 64:

62–66.

Riketta, M. & Nienber, S. (2007). Multiple identities and work motivation: The role of perceived compatibility

between nested organizational units. British Journal of Management, 18, S61-77.

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic

Management Journal, 13: 483-498.

Sandfort, J. & Milward, H.B. (2008). Collaborative Service Provision in the Public Sector. In Cropper, S., Huxham,

C., Eber, M. & Smith, P. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Saxenian, A. 1990. Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 33(1):

89-112.

Silvia, C. & McGuire, M. (2010) Leading public sector networks: An empirical examination of integrative leadership

behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 264-277.

Snow, C.C., Miles, R.E. & Coleman, H.J., Jr. 1992. Managing 21st century network organizations. Organizational

Dynamics, (Winter): 5-20.

Unnervik, N. & Everlöf, D. (2010) Leadership, dual leadership and team effectiveness, Lund University of Sweden.

Uzzi, B. 1996a. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The

network effect. American Sociological Review, 61: 674-698.

Uzzi, B. 1996b. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness.

Administrative Science Quarterly.

Wise, C. R. (2006). Organizing for homeland security. Public Administration Review. 62(2): 131−144.

27

Annexes

Annex 1: Questions and survey results

Variables Questions

Provan and Kenis Key Predictors

Trust

The parties to the project fulfill their agreements

The parties are able to assume, in principle that other actors involved have good intentions

The parties to the project have the interests of the other parties in mind

The parties do not use the contributions of the other parties for their own benefit

Number of

participants Fixed

Goal

consensus

Regarding the following option, where would

you locate ALICE RAP

Information project

Skills development project

Strategy formulation project

Action project

Need for

network-level

competencies

Internal needs: Complexity of the task

I would characterize the environment of my

project as complex (many actors, relations,

etc.)

The project is connected to a lot of other

projects

I depend greatly on other parties to achieve my

goals

Parties have significant differences of opinion

about the direction of the project

There is strong emphasis on learning from the

experiences and insights of others

Variables Klijn et al. management strategies

Exploring

Special attention is been paid to the sharing of diverse points of view

During the collection of information, emphasis was placed on establishing starting points and

common informational needs

A satisfactory amount of time is being spent on communication among the various parties

Connecting

The leaders of the project consult with the people carrying it out. Decisions are being made

collectively

The leaders of the project are taking into account existing interpersonal relationships, their basis,

and how they are generated and developed

When deadlock is reached or problems arise in the project, the management tries to find common

ground between the positions of the conflicting interests

Process

Explicit agreements are reached about the organization of cooperation mechanisms

The agreements for this project consciously envisage the possibility of diverting from the plan, in

the event that it may prove advantageous to do so

Parties are allowed to abandon the project, if necessary to protect their interests

28

Annex 2: Dual leadership semi-structured interviews

Dual leadership variables Questions from the interview

Participants previous knowledge

In how many projects have they worked together?

Previous experience in leading other projects together?

How was the relation if the case?

Previous experience in leading projects?

Trust How would you rate your level of trust with the other

leader?

Shared visions

Would you manage the network differently?

Levels of role conflict, role commitment and job

satisfaction experienced

Do you think that one of you holds ultimate authority?

Or equal rank?

In which of the following stages of network setting do

you think is more and less useful to have co-leadership:

arranging, process agreements, exploring, connecting.

Complementarity between leaders

Do you think that dual leadership is an appropriate way

to manage this network?

Why and how do you justify the presence of two

leaders?

Which is the main purpose calling or contacting the

other leader?

Is there any field in which you can decide without

“authorization” of the other leader?

Do you connect equally with all the areas? Is there any

division of labor regarding areas?

dual leadership in public-private network governance

Documents