Network Leadership Webinar | "Unpacking Goal-Directed Networks" with Angel Saz-Carranza
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•968 views
In this third webinar of the Network Leadership Series, Professor Angel Saz-Carranza will explore the question of how formal networks of organizations, created to reach a collective goal (also known as goal-directed networks), work to support the overarching network goals. Goal-directed networks often create a separate organizational unit to broker and administer the network as a whole called Network Administrative Organizations (NAOs). The webinar will answer questions like: How organizational units lead and broker the work of network members to ensure that the network as a whole achieves a collective network goal. finds the direction it needs, aligns the activities of its members, and helps them stay committed and ready to collaborate How leadership strategies are different when the work is not internal to a single organization Drawing from the work of immigration coalitions in the U.S. as examples of an important type of network, Saz-Carranza unpacks the leadership dynamics of formal goal-directed networks. These network member organizations join together to accomplish a common goal that is different from each organizational member but that contributes to advance their individual missions.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (6)
Similar to Network Leadership Webinar | "Unpacking Goal-Directed Networks" with Angel Saz-Carranza
Similar to Network Leadership Webinar | "Unpacking Goal-Directed Networks" with Angel Saz-Carranza (20)
More from Leadership Learning Community
More from Leadership Learning Community (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Network Leadership Webinar | "Unpacking Goal-Directed Networks" with Angel Saz-Carranza
- 1. February 2016 Webinar 3 Network Leadership Webinar Series Today’s Presenter: Angel Saz-CarranzaToday’s Presenter: Angel Saz-Carranza
- 4. Agenda • Goal-directed networks & Network administrative organizations (NAOs) • NAO leadership of goal-directed networks: – The study & key tension – The practices • Ongoing research
- 6. Emergent out of serendipitous interaction Kilduff and Tsai, 2003 Goal-directed networks Social Networks Interorganizational Networks Encompasses ‘‘groups of three or more legally autonomous organizations that work together to achieve not only their own goals but also a collective goal’’ (Provan and Kenis, JPART, 2008, 231).
- 8. Network Broker? — Centrality / Formalization + Coordination activities Member interaction Power balance Formalization of form Cost Shared Decentralized Multilateral Symmetrical Low Distributed Lead- member Centralized (lead-member) Bilateral (via lead-member) Asymmetrical Medium Concentrated NAO Centralized (NAO) Bilateral (via NAO) Symmetrical High Distributed (Provan, Kenis 2008)
- 9. QUESTIONS?
- 10. NAO LEADERSHIP OF GOAL- DIRECTED NETWORKS 2-a
- 11. Midwest Network [$1.690.218 // 20] Four “exceptional” cases West Network [$195.000 // 16] National Network [$290.000 // 30] East Network [$2.167.560 // 164]
- 12. East Network Arab- American Support Center Alianza Dominicana, Inc. … Catholic Charities- Diocese Asian Americans for Equality City Mayor’s Office & Council NAO
- 13. Focus: the unity-diversity tension • Small group collaboration (Smith and Berg 1987) • Organizations (Lawrence and Lorsch, ASQ, 1967; Mintzberg 1983) • Interorganizational relationships – RDT & diversity (Rethemeyer and Hatmaker 2008; Huxham and Beech 2003). – Overembeddedness & trust Information & structural holes (Brass et al. 2004; Burt 1992; Coleman 1990; Uzzi 1997). – Ospina and Saz-Carranza, A&S, 2010 Leadership activities Address unity-diversity tension Collective action
- 14. Unity/Diversity tension • “Every day we have to face that contradiction, that paradox…it's stressful because then it's the same diversity and richness that gives us threat and at the same time gives us a lot of strength. [MwN]” • Premises 1. Diversity within the network is necessary for network effectiveness 2. Unity of the network is necessary for network effectiveness 3. Diversity and unity undermine each other
- 15. Unity/Diversity tension •Diversity •Organizational characteristics •Organizational culture •Organizational sub-issues* •Cultural-national* •Geographic base* •Unity •Meta-objective / vision •Identity / Experiences / Problems •Value of diversity •Premise 3a: Diversity and unity may easily undermine each other
- 16. QUESTIONS?
- 17. WHAT ACTIVITIES DO NAOs PERFORM? 2-b
- 18. Managing the unity/diversity paradox Bridging: mediating member differences Network Domain Framing: setting the stage for action. Frame basic agreements and procedures (structure, process, and culture) Capacitating: constructing the right community. Contribute to enhance the networks’ or the members’ capacity (strategic recruitment & building member capacity)
- 19. Bridging diversity • “[It] is important [that] you don’t force it, because when you try to force it, then it won’t work. Networks have to be managed in a natural manner. [National Network]” • “I call them up before and I just feel them out and just see what your sort of thoughts are so I can be sort of mentally prepared for it. [East Network]” •Open process avoids “exit” (Hirschman 1970) by members •Open process must be managed to avoid diversity turning into disunity (Gray 1995) •No control over the outcome; but oversight of the process. •Intraorganizational management is about decision making (Simon 1976) Network management is about bridging decision-making
- 20. Framing unity • Procedures and routines – A multi-layered cake [Midwest N.]; – Organic structure [East N.] – E.g. McCain-Kennedy Bill • Rules, norms, values – “we shall overcome [Midwest N.]” – “un pueblo sin fronteras [National N.]” – “si se puede [West N.]” – chants demanding immigrant rights in front of City Hall [East N.] •Board (Member orgs.) •NAO •Organizational member staff •Constituents •Integrates members at all levels: incr. complexity, incr. unity •Unifies around vision, identity, and value of diversity (Hogg and Terry, AMJ, 2000) •Generates common meaning-making •Important in fragmented settings.
- 21. Capacitating • “I think it [managing successfully] all starts off when an organization applies to be part of the network. [National N.]” • “Networks have to give back results, such as training and resources, to member groups. [East N.]” •Selection consistent with U/D dimensions. •Network-level Working group-level •Must deliver network gains but also organization-specific advantages (Inkpen and Tsang, AMA, 2007) •Directly affects how members re-evaluates network.
- 22. Conclusion *Bridging: mediating member differences *Framing: setting the stage for action *Capacitating: constructing the right community Unity: *Identity *Value of diversity *Main goal Diversity: *Member organizational characteristics *Member sub-issues *Member national culture Ability to carry out collective action Leadership activities Address unity-diversity tension Collective action
- 23. QUESTIONS?
- 24. ONGOING WORK 3
- 25. Ongoing work • NAO structures • Strategy development in goal–directed networks: who’s boss?
- 26. StaffStaff Plenary / General Board [unanimity] Plenary / General Board [unanimity] Members NAO Simple type Working Groups
- 27. StaffStaff Governance Board [EU votes] Governance Board [EU votes] Members Working Groups NAO DirectorDirector European Energy Agency Executive Board [EU votes] Executive Board [EU votes] Scientific Committee Scientific Committee
- 28. Principal and agent • Being at the service of the institution implies convincing those who have the power. You need to walk one step ahead [of the members], but only one step, not 20 kilometers; otherwise you become irrelevant. • He was always well aware he worked for the Council…The first truly brilliant decision he takes is … to realize that behaving as a [European] foreign minister... will not work… He maneuvered using that sixth sense of his without ever crossing a member state’s red line.
- 30. February 2016 Webinar 3 Network Leadership Webinar Series Today’s Presenter: Angel Saz-CarranzaToday’s Presenter: Angel Saz-Carranza
Editor's Notes
- Good afternoon, Thank you for being here. It is an honor for me to give a talk on my research at the LKY-SPP. I am Angel Saz-Carranza and the title of my talk is XXXXXXX. This presentation is based on the core of my past research, that ultimately produced a piece for JPART. I am from Barcelona, Spain, where I am a Research Fellow and Lecturer at the Institute of Public Governance and Management of ESADE Business School—consistently ranked among the top 10 BS in Europe. I am also the coordinator of its center for Global Economy and Geopolitics.
- First of all, some defintiions. What are networks exactly? This is an important definition given the important over-use of the term. A first distinction exists b/w interpersonal and interorganizational networks A second one b/w serendipitous and goal-directed networks Serenditpitous networks are XXXX.
- Now, what are goal-directed networks. GPPN = goal directed network LKY sum of international partners and allies is a social/ego network … Networks have become a popular concept in the last 20 years. This popularity can be attributed to today’s complex world, which demands an organizational form of individuation and dispersed power as well as unification (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001b). This complexity has exponentially increased “wicked” problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973)—problems that not only require complex solutions, but that are also ill-defined (Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Thoret, 1976). Goal-directed networks ‘‘have become exceptionally relevant as formal mechanisms for achieving multi-organizational outcomes, especially in the public and nonprofit sectors, where collective action is often required for problem solving’’ (Provan and Kenis 2008, 231). Example of Emergy Task Force Organizations Participating in the Emergency Network Federal Agencies Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) – Veterinary Services – National Veterinary Services Laboratory • United States Forest Service • National Response Management Team State Agencies California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention • Animal Health and Food Safety Services • Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory California Office of Emergency Services California Highway Patrol California Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Health Services Private Sector Temp agencies Temporary employees
- These are the 4 exceptional cases.
- To show how these networks look like from within, here is an example of 4 nodes of one of the network studied. Please notice that while these networks are made up by nonprofits, they are internally very diverse. The organizational members of the network differ highly between
- Definition of UD Unity is self-explanatory in the context of organizational networks as it refers to the state of being in accord, without deviation Diversity refers to variability in structural and institutional traits within and across organizations, not only with respect to demographics and cultures but also to other features of interest that are comparable within fields and populations of organizations S&B call the paradox of belonging Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) linked integration (‘‘the process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems’’ [4]) and differentiation (the ‘‘segmentation of the organizational system into subsystems’’ [3]) in organizations. They found that high-performing organizations achieved subsystem differentiation ‘‘consistent with the requirements of the sub-environments,’’ whereas their degree of integration was ‘‘consistent with the requirements of the total environment’.’ Integrative organizational devices helped address the paradoxical situation of having both high differentiation and high integration."
- The U/D tension was found in all 4 networks. Interviewees associated key moments of the NAO’s work with getting all members to collaborate. But at the same time, the main challenges highlighted in the stories were related precisely to bringing different groups together The tension plays out as follows:
- A formal proposition for future research is that a central task in the governance of networks is to strategically engage both demands associated with the unity-diversity tension—to unite the network and to support its diversity. A corollary is that doing this effectively requires finding the appropriate mix of unity and diversity to sustain the network Paradox management alternate or separate the poles (Poole and Van den Ven 1989), emphasizing each at different times, levels of action, or dimensions of the work (Crosby and Bryson 2005; Heifetz and Sinder 1991; Hersey and Blanchard 1982)(Eisenhardt 2000; Kaplan and Kaiser 2003; March and Weil 2005; Quinn and Cameron 1988)
- The organization and management literatures suggest that managing culture addresses the need for unity, integration, and cohesion in the midst of diversity, differentiation, and fragmentation. Now, maintaining an open and participatory decision-making process seems contrary to prescriptions that call for reducing complexity in networks (Huxham & Vangen, 2000b) and for maintaining stability in open systems through hierarchy (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Kilduff & Dougherty, 2000). However, in networks, joint decision-making may not only be more efficient but also more effective (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001a). The effectiveness of joint decision-making is due to the support it generates for the implementation of the decision made—especially as implementation is often left to member organizations.
- Of the activities identified, capacitating is clearly the most illustrative of whole- network management for two reasons. First, participants are selected according to network-level criteria rather than according to network member’s independent preferences. Second, the work is about having the network give back to members, rather than about each organizational member gaining unilateral advantages from the network, as documented so far in the alliance management literature.
- Essentially I find three activities executed by the NAOs address the unity/diversity tension in a very specific manner and thus allow for joint action by network members. The three activities of bridging, framing, and capacitating can be considered network-level mechanisms to address this tension, similar to the integrative devices Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) documented to address the paradox of having both high differentiation and integration within an organization Applicable to all network types and gov form. [Community < Stage]