NASA Collaborative Transformation

Collaborative Public Management 33

Collaborative public management research is fl ourishing.

A great deal of attention is being paid to the process and

impact of collaboration in the public sector, and the

results are promising. Th is article reviews the literature

on collaborative public management by synthesizing

what we know from recent research and what we’ve

known for quite some time. It addresses the prevalence

of collaboration (both recently and historically), the

components of emerging collaborative structures, the types

of skills that are unique to collaborative management,

and the eff ects of collaboration. Collaborative public

management research off ers a set of fi ndings that

contribute to an emerging knowledge base that

supplements established public management theory.

P ublic managers operate in collaborative settings

every day. In Texas school districts, for example,

superintendents manage their external environ-

ment by interacting with school board members,

business leaders, legislators, state education agencies,

other superintendents, parent groups, teacher associa-

tions, and federal government offi cials (Meier and

O’Toole 2005). In Beloit, Wisconsin, the city govern-

ment worked actively with a nonprofi t redevelopment

association to transform a blighted area by engaging

offi cials from the U.S. Department of Transportation,

the Rock County government, the Wisconsin Depart-

ment of Development, and numerous industries

(Agranoff and McGuire 2003). In California, an

emergency collaborative task force involving federal,

state, and local offi cials, private agencies, and other

local representatives was established to address the

outbreak of a deadly poultry-based disease ( Moynihan

2005a ). Th ese and countless other examples represent

typical activities for many public managers in the 21st

century.

Th is article provides a synthesis of the research on

collaborative public management by reviewing

what we’ve learned recently about such management,

as well as what we’ve known for some time.

Collaborative public management is a concept that

describes the process of facilitating and operating in

multiorganizational arrangements in order to remedy

problems that cannot be solved — or solved easily — by

single organizations. Th e focus in this article is the

public manager. Although collaboration takes place

in contexts in which government is not a major

actor or is not an actor at all ( Austin 2000; Lipnack

and Stamps 1994 ), this paper views government as

steering policy making and execution, and thus it

is the entity through which collaborative public

management occurs and management activity is

channeled. Collaboration certainly relies on various

leaders at various times performing diff erent roles,

but in the typical context of collaborative public

management, government is ultimately held account-

able for the satisfactory delivery of public goods and

services. Public managers can’t always command

action, but they are still responsible for their

collaborative outcomes ( McGuire 2002 ). Th is review,

therefore, assumes the governmental perspective in

collaborative management.

Th e fi rst section of this article examines the assump-

tion in the literature that collaborative public manage-

ment is a fresh approach to governing. If we believe

the expanding body of research on the topic, collab-

orative public management is increasing in incidence

and in importance. However, research also suggests

that collaborative management in the public sector

has been occurring for many decades. Th e second

section of the article looks at the structures through

which collaborations are managed. It demonstrates

that, contrary to what is often put forth in the

contemporary network literature, some collaborative

structures actually adopt elements of single, hierarchi-

cal organizations. Th e third section discusses the vast

array of skills that are necessary for eff ective collabora-

tive management but also argues that many such skills

are valuable components of organizational behavior in

both collaborative settings and single organizations.

Th e fourth section examines the positive impacts of

collaboration on program performance while demon-

strating the inherent diffi culties of collaborative

management.

Michael McGuire Indiana University – Bloomington

Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We

Know and How We Know It

Michael McGuire is an associate

professor of public and environmental

affairs at Indiana University – Bloomington.

He is the coauthor (with Robert Agranoff)

of Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments, which

received the 2003 Louis Brownlow Book

Award from the National Academy of

Public Administration.

E-mail : [email protected] .

Articles on Collaborative Public Management

34 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

The New and the Old

The Newness of Collaborative Public Management Judging from the surge of research, it would appear

that collaboration is a relatively recent phenomenon, a

new world in which management principles must be

rewritten and theories of organizing must be updated.

One recent volume argues that governing in this

collaborative, networked era “requires a form of public

management diff erent from what the country has

become accustomed to over the past 100 years”

( Goldsmith and Eggers 2004 ). Similarly, Kettl (1996)

argues that the most important change in administra-

tive functioning over this past century has been in-

creasing interdependence among public organizations,

which has changed the jobs of public administrators,

who must now build critical linkages with other

agencies. Stoker states that there’s a “new kid on the

block, a management that defi nes its task more

broadly than do previous paradigms and achieves

many of its purposes through a dynamic of network

governance” (2006, 43).

If collaborative public management is indeed new and

becoming the prominent form of governing, why is

this occurring? One perspective argues that societal

change is a primary determinant of collaborative

public management. Just as the hierarchical organiza-

tion emerged during the agricultural age and bureau-

cracy was the dominant form of organization during

the industrial age, the nascent information age has

given rise to permeable structures in which people can

link across organizational functions and boundaries.

Th is social change thesis argues that the world is char-

acterized by extreme diversity “where power is dis-

persed, not centralized; where tasks are becoming

de-diff erentiated, rather than subdivided and special-

ized; and where society worldwide demands greater

freedom and individuation, rather than integration”

(Agranoff and McGuire 2003, 23). For many, it’s the

age of the network and collaboration.

Another perspective asserts that the types of problems

that government faces today cannot be addressed

eff ectively through traditional bureaucracies. Solving

seemingly intractable problems such as poverty, health

care, and natural disasters, the argument goes, requires

diff erent mechanisms that are more fl exible, more

inclusive, and more adaptable and operate with

greater speed ( Alter and Hage 1993 ) than those of

conventional government organizations. Th ese

problems — often referred to as “wicked problems” —

have no clear solutions, only temporary and imperfect

resolutions ( Harmon and Mayer 1986 ). O’Toole

(1997) suggests that policies dealing with such

complex issues will increasingly require collaborative

structures for execution. Collaborative structures may

be needed in problem areas in which the public

simultaneously prefers more government action and

less government involvement. As the velocity of

government has increased over the past few decades,

the propensity of citizens to expect greater choice of

services administered through less traditional govern-

ment activities has increased as well ( Goldsmith and

Eggers 2004 ). Th us, according to these arguments,

collaborative public management is emergent.

How New? Although the recent spate of attention to collaborative

public management suggests its newness, there is

ample evidence to suggest that managers have prac-

ticed collaborative public management for quite some

time. Research in intergovernmental relations and

management and policy implementation has de-

scribed public management as being collaborative in

practice. American federalism, for example, is perhaps

the most enduring model of collaborative problem

resolution (Agranoff and McGuire 2003). Writing in

1960, Grodzins argued that “federal-state-local col-

laboration is the characteristic mode of action” and

that “any governmental activity is almost certain to

involve the infl uence, if not the formal administra-

tion, of all three planes of the federal system” (1960,

266 – 67). His metaphor of the marble cake described

a federalism that is cooperative across levels of govern-

ment. Indeed, some have argued that federalism in the

United States has always been cooperative, in that

nearly all the activities of government, even in the

19th century, were shared activities involving all levels

of government in their planning, fi nancing, and ex-

ecution ( Elazar 1962 ; Grodzins 1966). Th e grant-in-

aid system in America certainly is the most prominent

context within which collaboration has occurred since

the 19th century. Th e aid process has long been char-

acterized by the presence of bargaining, cooperation,

and mutual dependence ( Ingram 1977; Pressman

1975 ). Even in the absence of cooperative fi nancing,

however, the three levels of government and nonprofi t

organizations cooperate — and have cooperated — both

informally and offi cially, vertically and horizontally, in

many diff erent ways and through many diff erent

mechanisms for decades.

Th ere is also empirical evidence demonstrating the

direct connection in the 1960s between federal policy

making in the United States and the development of

implementation structures that involved multiple

actors. Hall and O’Toole (2000, 2004) examined the

institutional arrangements incorporated into the

legislation enacted by the 89th and 103rd Congresses.

Th ey found that the majority of signifi cant new legis-

lation prescribed the involvement of collaborative

structures for policy implementation. Th e research

demonstrates empirically that “in most cases [for both

Congresses], the implementation of new programs at

the national levels requires U.S. public administrators

to be prepared to work a variety of diff erent kinds of

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Collaborative Public Management 35

actors both within and without government – actors

drawn from diff erent organizational cultures, infl u-

enced by diff erent sets of incentives, and directed

toward diff erent goals” (Hall and O’Toole 2004, 190).

Subsequent research has shown that postlegislation

rulemaking by implementing federal agencies also

led to collaborative administrative arrangements

(Hall and O’Toole 2004).

Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) were among the fi rst

to discuss policy implementation in terms of shared

administration, suggesting the collaborative nature of

public management. Based on an empirical investiga-

tion of the Economic Development Administration’s

attempts to address the unemployment of minorities

in Oakland, California, during the 1960s, their refer-

ence to the complexity of joint action describes the

multiplicity of participants and perspectives from all

levels of government pursuing policy goals that, in

practice, may be confl icting. More than two decades

ago, Hjern and Porter (1981) described implementa-

tion structures operating with representatives of diff er-

ent agencies and exercising considerable discretion in

practice. Collaborative structures used to implement

manpower training in Germany and Sweden during

the 1970s were characterized at that time by multiple

power centers with reciprocal relationships, many

suppliers of resources, overlapping and dynamic divi-

sions of labor, diff used responsibility for actions,

massive information exchanges among actors, and the

need for information input from all actors ( Hanf,

Hjern, and Porter 1978 ). Many policy studies in the

1980s revealed the extent of collaboration in public

policy implementation (Hull and Hjern 1987;

Mandell 1984; O’Toole 1985 ). So, although recent

research often describes collaborative public

management in novel terms, there is a rich

history that precedes it.

Locus of Collaborative Public Management

Collaborative Structures Collaborative public management occurs in various

settings ( Alter and Hage 1993 ),

both in a vertical context

through levels of government

and in a horizontal context in

which an array of public and

private actors are mobilized. It

also involves the distinct

operations of managing upward,

downward, and outward toward

the networked environment

(O’Toole, Meier, and Nicholson-

Crotty 2005). A public manager

may be simultaneously involved

in managing across governmen-

tal boundaries, across organizational and sectoral

boundaries, and through formal contractual obliga-

tions; it is often diffi cult to distinguish where the

boundary lies between these diff erent environments.

In some cases, management takes place in highly

formalized and lasting arrangements, such as a net-

work that is either encouraged ( Schneider et al. 2003 )

or prescribed (O’Toole 1996; Radin et al. 1996) by

law. In others, formal collaborative ties form within

specifi c policy areas. Informal, emergent, and short-

term coordination is also a common component of

collaborative public management ( Drabek and McEn-

tire 2002 ).

One type of collaborative context or “interorganiza-

tional innovation” identifi ed by Mandell and Steel-

man (2003) is intermittent coordination, which occurs

when the policies and procedures of two or more

organizations are mutually adjusted to accomplish an

objective. Interaction occurs at a low level, and the

commitment to each other is kept at arm’s length.

Disaster response is one area in which coordination is

intermittent. A second type of collaborative context is

a temporary task force, which is established to work on

a specifi c and limited purpose and disbands when that

purpose is accomplished. As in intermittent coordina-

tion, resource sharing is usually limited in scope. A

third type of collaborative context, according to

Mandell and Steelman, is permanent or regular coordi-

nation. Such coordination occurs when multiple

organizations agree to engage in a limited activity in

order to achieve a specifi c purpose or purposes

through a formal arrangement. Membership in this

arrangement “is delineated strictly and restricted so

that there is stable coordination” (203). Resource

exchange is more extensive than in the fi rst two

arrangements, but the risk is minimal. Examples of

this type of collaborative arrangement are regional

planning groups or “wraparound” case management

in the social services. Another example of regular

coordination can be found in emergency management

planning and preparedness.

Th e most tightly intermingled collaborative arrange-

ments that Mandell and Steelman (2003) identify are

coalitions and network structures.

Similar in structure, both involve

interdependent and strategic

actions, but the purpose of a

coalition is “narrow in scope and

all actions occur within the par-

ticipant organizations themselves

or involve the sequential or simul-

taneous activity of the participant

organizations,” whereas a network

“takes on broad tasks that reach

beyond the simultaneous actions

of independently operating orga-

nizations” (204). In general, a

network is a structure that involves multiple nodes —

agencies and organizations — with multiple linkages.

A public manager may be simultaneously involved in

managing across governmental boundaries, across organiza-

tional and sectoral boundaries, and through formal contractual obligations; it is often diffi cult

to distinguish where the bound- ary lies between these diff erent

environments.

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

36 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

In a network structure, there is a strong commitment

to multiorganizational-level goals, and resource shar-

ing is risky and extensive. Coalitions disband after the

task is completed or the problem is solved, but net-

works have a long, even indefi nite life span because

the problems they address are either long term or

become redefi ned as the network evolves.

Not all network structures are alike, however. Agranoff

(2003) demonstrates in his study of 12 networks in

various policy areas that four diff erent types of

networks can be delineated by the scope of activities

undertaken within the network. Informational

networks involve multiple stakeholders who come

together for the sole purposes of exchanging informa-

tion and exploring solutions to a problem or set of

problems. Any action that is taken occurs within the

member agencies’ home organizations. Developmental

networks involve information exchange combined with

education that enhances the member organizations’

ability to implement solutions, again at the individual

organization level rather than at the network level.

Outreach networks not only exchange information and

improve the administrative capacity of the network

members but also “carve out programming strategies

for clients (for example, funding packages, usable

technologies) that are carried out elsewhere, usually

by the partner organizations” (11). Although action

strategies are developed in the network, action does

not occur at the network level. Th e most extensive

type of network is known as an action network.

Unlike the other three types, action networks

engage in collective action by formally adopting

network-level courses of action and often delivering

services.

Clearly, there is no one best way to organize for col-

laboration, and public managers need to give careful

consideration to the decisions associated with organiz-

ing collaborative activities ( Imperial 2005 ). Smaller,

fl atter structures such as networks may be best in one

situation, whereas a simple partnership between two

actors may be best in another. Researchers should also

take great care when examining collaboration and

labeling the structures. Networks are the stated unit of

analysis in much of the recent empirical research, but

the term is used, sometimes incorrectly, to describe

many diff erent collaborative confi gurations when task

force or partnership would be a more accurate

characterization.

How Networked? A common argument that is used to distinguish col-

laborative public management structures from tradi-

tional organizations is based in an either/or

proclamation that may be inaccurately applied to

collaborative management (McGuire 2003). Many

observers have pointed out that such structures are

diff erent from hierarchies, which encompass a man-

agement approach based in top-down, command and

control relationships ( Goldsmith and Eggers 2004 ).

In addition, a “top-down or holistic perspective of

management is not likely to be very productive” in a

governing system that is collaborative ( Kickert, Klijn,

and Koppenjan 1997, 11 ). Some argue that interorga-

nizational networks are distinct from markets and

hierarchical systems ( Powell 1990 ). Agranoff and

McGuire (1999) use a classical model of organizing as

the comparison group, noting that such an approach

is based on hierarchical coordination, strict chains of

command, and management that takes place within

the confi nes of separate organizational entities.

Recent empirical research suggests that a clear distinc-

tion between hierarchies and collaborative manage-

ment is not always accurate. Indeed, there is evidence

to suggest that a blending of the two management

approaches in practice is not uncommon. Instead of a

completely fl at, self-organizing network, the presence

of a lead organization, acting as system controller or

facilitator, is often a critical element of eff ectiveness in

collaborative management. Such a network adminis-

trative organization can reduce the complexity of self-

governance and enhance the legitimacy of a network.

Th e larger the network, the more diffi cult it is to

delineate tasks, and the fewer the available network

skills, the more likely that centralized forms of net-

work governance will be adopted ( Provan and Kenis

2005 ). A study of community mental health, for

example, demonstrates that the eff ectiveness of

networks is partly based on the extent to which the

network is coordinated centrally through a core

agency (Provan and Milward 1995). Th ese authors

argue that “centralization appears to facilitate both

integration and coordination, something that decen-

tralized systems have a diffi cult time accomplishing

because of the number of organizations and linkages

involved” (Provan and Milward 1995, 24). Strategic

activity still occurs at the network level when coordi-

nation is more centralized, but administrative and

operational decisions are left to the central organiza-

tion. Lead organizations in economic development

that are themselves administered collaboratively

through a diverse board and with a single director are

associated with greater levels overall of collaboration

(Agranoff and McGuire 2003). Th us, single, more

centralized organizations act as primary coordinators

of what are otherwise collaborative activities.

A merging of hierarchy and collaborative networks is

also present in emergency management. As Moynihan

(2005b) shows, responses to a man-made disaster can

take place through collaboration that is governed by

command and control procedures. His study of the

outbreak of exotic Newcastle disease in the state of

California describes the formation and management

of a task force charged with limiting and eliminating

the disease. Th e task force operated much like the

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Collaborative Public Management 37

collaborative arrangement described by Mandell and

Steelman (2003) , but it did so within the context of a

top-down incident command system. Th e emergency

response network was coordinated hierarchically,

suggesting the existence of a “hierarchical network”

( Moynihan 2005a ).

Collaborative partnerships can take on a number

of features that are more commonly associated with

formalized agencies. Bardach observes that “interorga-

nizational collaborative capacity is very much like an

organization in its own right” (1998, 21). Th at is,

the standard characteristics of a single hierarchical

organization — formalization, specialization,

coordination — are embodied in the ability of agencies

to work together eff ectively. Similarly, a study of six

watershed management pro-

grams found that “collaborative

organizations” were formed as a

strategy for improving water-

shed governance ( Imperial

2005 ). Collaborative organiza-

tions are “organizations com-

posed of other organizations”

that perform a variety of more

traditional functions by institu-

tionalizing rules, procedures,

and processes into a coordina-

tive organizational structure. Th acher (2004) argues

that in practice, such partnerships have a great deal in

common with conventional organizations: A distinct

organizational structure with routines, roles, norms,

and values is developed, and a culture that governs the

collaboration emerges. His case study of the Commu-

nity Security Initiative, a national eff ort designed to

forge partnerships between police departments and

community development corporations, revealed that

partnerships became “traces of a new organization in

the space between those that already existed” (116)

and more accurately resembled inchoate hierarchies

than purely networked collaborative arrangements. A

network management orientation can thus be hierar-

chically focused and rule driven (Herranz 2005).

Collaborative Management Skills

The Unique Skills of Collaborative Management Many writers have made the case that collaborative

management skills are unique to the collaborative

context. For example, Agranoff and McGuire (2001a,

2001b; see also McGuire 2002 ) distinguish collabora-

tive management behaviors in terms of their opera-

tional diff erences and organize the behaviors into four

diff erent categories: activation, framing, mobilizing,

and synthesizing. Activation is the identifi cation and

incorporation of the right people and resources needed

to achieve program goals. Th is is similar to what

Scharpf refers to as “selective activation,” which is “an

essential prerequisite for successful interorganizational

policy formation and policy implementation” (1978,

364). Th e right people for the eff ort are those who

possess the policy-making resources — fi nances, knowl-

edge, information, expertise, experience, legal authority,

and labor — on which the collaborative eff ort depends

in order to attain its goals. One important criterion for

determining who becomes involved in collaboration

may be that member agencies off er resources that other

agencies lack. One study reveals the benefi ts of con-

tinually expanding the involvement base through “re-

cruiting” potential members ( Agranoff 2003 ).

Framing includes facilitating agreement on leadership

and administrative roles; helping to establish an iden-

tity and culture for the network, even if it is temporary

or continually changing; and helping to develop

a working structure for the net-

work (i.e., committee involve-

ment, network assignments)

( McGuire 2002 ). Strategic plan-

ning by participants in the col-

laboration is one important way

to develop an overall purpose and

framework for the collaborative

eff ort. Mobilizing behavior on the

part of a public manager is in-

tended to induce commitment to

the joint undertaking and build

support from both key players outside the collabora-

tive eff ort and those who are directly involved ( Innes

and Booher 1999 ). Synthesizing involves engendering

productive and purposeful interaction among all

actors. Th is includes facilitating relationships in order

to build trust and promote information exchange.

Th is operational categorization is similar to that de-

vised by Kickert and Koppenjan (1997) , who diff eren-

tiate network (collaborative) managerial tasks

according to three general activities: intervening in

existing patterns of relations and restructuring rela-

tionships, furthering the conditions for cooperation

through consensus building, and joint problem solv-

ing. Th ey argue that these strategies occur in the pro-

cess of both game management and network

structuring. Game management involves activating

the network by deciding “who should be involved and

who not” (47), arranging interaction, brokering to

match problems and solutions with collaborative

actors, facilitating interaction, and mediation and

arbitration. Th e collaborative manager plays the role

of mediator and stimulates interaction ( Koppenjan

and Klijn 2004 ). Network structuring, or “tinkering

with the network” (51), involves infl uencing formal

policy, infl uencing interrelationships, infl uencing

values and perceptions, mobilizing new coalitions,

and managing by chaos. With regard to network

structuring, it may not be the number of actors in a

collaboration that is important but the arrangement

of the actors (O’Toole 1988).

Mobilizing behavior on the part of a public manager is intended to induce commitment to the joint undertaking and build

support from both key players outside the collaborative eff ort

and those who are directly involved

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

38 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

Negotiation and mediation are also in abundance in

collaborative management. For example, a network

analysis of the Century Freeway Project in

Los Angeles, California, reveals that managers’ success

in that eff ort was based on their ability to fi ll a “multi-

lateral brokerage role,” that is, linking “actors both

horizontally and vertically through the skills of

bargaining and negotiation … in order to maintain

a cohesive whole” ( Mandell 1984, 676 ). Th e tasks

required to facilitate exchange consist of diplomatic

skills involving persuasion and confl ict resolution

(O’Toole 1988).

Similar themes emerge from Goldsmith and Eggers’s

(2004) look at governing by networks. Th ey observe

that some of the main elements of network manage-

ment are big-picture thinking, coaching, mediation,

negotiation, strategic thinking, interpersonal

communications, and team building. Like the

activation and framing behaviors that Agranoff and

McGuire describe, Goldsmith and Eggers’s design

phase includes determining which goals government

hopes to accomplish (mission and strategy), which

tools will be used to activate the network, the

partners needed to help accomplish the goals, the

structure of the collaborative eff ort, and how the

network should be governed and managed. Essen-

tially, “the success or failure of a network approach

can often be traced to its original design” (91). After

the design phase, public managers involved in a collab-

orative eff ort must be concerned with how to link the

organizations together in a functioning network. Th ese

“ties that bind” are created by establishing both formal

communication channels through technology and

informal channels through face-to-face interaction,

coordinating activities across organizations, and build-

ing relationships as a means to share knowledge and

create trust. Th e more points of contact among network

members, it is argued, the better the communication

and the greater the trust.

Williams (2002) conducted empirical research de-

signed to identify and categorize the diff erent compe-

tencies of “boundary spanners” — a term used to

describe key agents who manage within an interorga-

nizational context — in the United Kingdom. Surveys

of collaborators in three policy areas (environment,

crime and community safety, and health promotion)

and in-depth interviews with partnership managers

within a region revealed at least four general compe-

tencies for the “art of boundary spanning” (114):

building sustainable relationships; managing through

infl uencing and negotiation; managing complexity

and interdependencies; and managing roles, account-

abilities, and motivations. Th e skills that make up

these competencies include communicating to create

shared meaning, understanding, empathy, confl ict

resolution, networking, creativity, innovation, em-

powerment, and building trust as the “lubricant.”

Th e important role of the collaborative public man-

ager in building trust is apparent from this review of

collaborative skills. It is generally accepted that in the

absence of a legal charter, partners in a collaboration

join, remain, and work together because of some

element of trust (Agranoff and McGuire 2001b).

However, it is diffi cult to know whether trust exists a

priori and to assess its eff ect on collaboration empiri-

cally (Brass et al. 2004). Some studies suggest that the

success of collaboration depends on a collaborator

trusting another organization, even if not a specifi c

individual ( Zaheer, McEvily, and Perrone 1998 ),

whereas others conclude that trust is grounded in a

positive expectation about the behavior of individual

participants in a collaboration ( Ferguson and Stoutland

1999 ). Short of stating that increased interaction and

communication produce trust ( Goldsmith and Eggers

2004 ), there is no general agreement about what a

public manager can do to build it. Th e management

of trust is thus problematic ( Entwistle and Martin

2005 ).

Vangen and Huxham (2003) off er recommendations

for public managers to follow. Th ey argue that trust is

built through a cyclical trust-building loop. When

there is no history of prior ties, partners must be

willing to take some risk in order to initiate the col-

laboration and aim for realistic goals. Th at is, the

collaboration should fi rst take small steps toward

some modest level of achievement (see also Agranoff

2003 ). Such success reinforces attitudes that the par-

ties to the collaboration can be trusted, thus leading

to more ambitious undertakings. Th e lesson for the

public manager is that trust takes time to develop and

that it grows as the collaboration becomes successful.

Collaborations may begin virtually “trust free,” but

ultimately trust becomes a necessary component of

future success.

Some have argued that the greater the amount of

trust, the less need there is to monitor compliance

( Alter and Hage 1993 ). For example, Gulati’s (1995)

study of more than 2,400 alliances among American,

European, and Japanese fi rms over a 20-year period

demonstrates that over time, partner fi rms develop

looser practices, forgoing in some cases strict, cautious

contracting and relying more on less formal linkages.

In this sense, prior ties lead to greater confi dence

among partners, such that “familiarity breeds trust.”

Th us, previous interaction fosters trust in collaborative

operations. However, the fi ndings from a longitudinal

study of a community mental health center suggests

that this inverse relationship over time between the

presence of trust and the use of (and need for) formal

contracts does not hold for some agencies in the pub-

lic and nonprofi t sectors (Isett and Provan 2005).

Rather than becoming looser and more informal in

collaborative relationships, “the need for formal con-

tracts generally remains constant among publicly

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Collaborative Public Management 39

funded organizations, and trust is not negatively af-

fected by the presence of contracts” (162). Th us, trust

may be still be important, but external issues such as

regulation, mandated compliance, and centralized

coordination may also contribute to the cohesion of a

network. Th e public manager should thus “create trust

where you can; fi nd alternatives where you can’t”

(Moynihan 2005b, 33).

How Unique? Much has been made of the skills that managers need

to operate successfully in collaborative settings. An

assumption is often made that such skills are unique

to collaboration. However, it has been argued that

there are similarities between the skill demands of

collaborative management and those of managing

single organizations (McGuire 2003). For example,

having the right people and resources in place — what

some refer to as “activation” or “initiation” in collabo-

ration — is equally important in hierarchies and in

collaborations. Managers in hierarchies carry out the

personnel function within single organizations to

recruit, screen, hire, and remove actors from an orga-

nization, and, as shown, this function is critical in

collaboration. Similarly, all organizational forms —

hierarchical or collaborative — have a defi ned struc-

ture, even if that structure changes. It is true that in

hierarchies, who reports to whom is defi ned, how

daily tasks are to be performed is reasonably clear, and

the roles that staff members play are made explicit in

job descriptions. A collaborative manager cannot rely

on an organizational chart or consult history for op-

erational guidance, as the boss in a hierarchical orga-

nization can do. However, managers in both contexts

infl uence rules and structure daily. Th e same principle

and application thus apply both to networks and

hierarchies: If the structure does not fi t the task, per-

formance will suff er. Other skills that are often attrib-

uted as “new” for collaboration are common in

hierarchies. Communication among employees within

an organization is one of the foundations of purpose-

ful organizational behavior. Inclusive strategic plan-

ning and management are important in each context.

As in collaborative structures, successful organizations

develop mechanisms to organize and disseminate

information. And as in collaborative management,

managers in hierarchies also must be prepared to

resolve confl ict. So, although new competencies are

needed for collaboration, some of these are already

inherent in the public manager.

The Benefi ts and Costs of Collaborative Public Management

Collaboration as a Positive Force Th e literature on collaboration is often celebratory

and only rarely cautious ( Berry et al. 2004 ). Th ere are

few studies that measure the impact of collaborative

public management on program outcomes, but the

general assumption in much of the public manage-

ment literature is that collaboration is a positive

factor to be pursued by managers. Th at is, because

collaboration is the new form of governance, it

follows that collaboration in and of itself must be

desirable. Th us, many studies, perhaps wrongly in

some cases, equate the presence of collaboration with

the success of a program without adequate empirical

verifi cation.

A few empirical studies have found an association

between collaborative behavior and program out-

comes. Provan and Milward’s (1995) study of four

community mental health systems examines the rela-

tionship between collaboration and eff ectiveness,

which they defi ne as “the degree to which clients and

their families were satisfi ed with the treatment they

received from the community mental health system”

(Milward and Provan 2003). Developing a prelimi-

nary theory of eff ectiveness, the authors found that

the greater the degree of centralized integration and

the presence of direct, nonfragmented control, the

greater the level of satisfaction. Th ese structural factors

are mediated by contextual factors including resource

munifi cence and network stability. Constant change

or relative newness in network development negatively

aff ected satisfaction.

O’Toole and Meier (1999) develop a general model of

public management addressing actions that stabilize

the internal operations of a system, exploit shocks in

the environment of the system, and buff er the system

to minimize the impact of the environmental shocks.

Network management is a specifi c allocation of re-

sources whereby leveraging external opportunities and

buff ering the system from unwanted shocks supple-

ments hierarchical functions. Th e variable that is

conceptualized as the network management compo-

nent in the model is measured as the level of interac-

tion between school district superintendents and other

actors from the school district’s organizational envi-

ronment. Analyzing a data set of more than 500 Texas

school districts over a fi ve-year period, the authors

found that the frequency of interaction was positively

related to school district performance; the greater the

number of actors with whom the superintendents

networked and the greater the level of interaction, the

higher the performance ( Meier and O’Toole 2003 ). In

another large- N study of 237 cities, Agranoff and

McGuire (2003) found a link between the extent of

local economic development policy making and the

level of collaboration, measured in terms of the num-

ber of linkages between governmental and nongovern-

mental actors. Th ough a count of contacts and types

of contacts may constitute imperfect measures of

collaborative management ( McGuire 2002 ), such

measures have been shown to be adequate proxies for

collaborative management research (Meier and

O’Toole 2005).

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

40 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

How Positive? Th e recent literature also explores some of the negative

aspects of collaborative public management. In prac-

tice, collaborating can be less than advantageous. For

example, the extensive empirical research of Huxham

and associates fi nds that the common wisdom of

collaboration often does not

square with collaboration’s com-

mon practice ( Huxham 2003;

Vangen and Huxham 2003) . In

some cases, collaborative

arrangements attain a “collabora-

tive advantage which is con-

cerned with the potential for

synergy from working collabora-

tively” ( Huxham 2003, 401 ). In

many cases, however, “collaborative inertia” is a more

apt description of the collaborative process. Often,

participants in a collaborative endeavor cannot agree

on common aims, the amount of power within the

collaboration is unequal, trust is diffi cult to build, and

participants do not know with whom they are linked.

Th e stark conclusion from this research is that “unless

the potential for real collaborative advantage is clear, it

is generally best, if there is a choice, to avoid collabora-

tion” ( Huxham 2003, 421 ).

A study of the expansion of a harbor in the Netherlands

reveals that governmental organizations may not be

adequately prepared for the movement toward part-

nerships and networked governing ( Teisman and Klijn

2002 ). Th e authors found that governments do not

naturally exchange information or look for mutual

solutions, as is required for eff ective partnerships.

Goals may not be aligned among network partners,

and poor performance by a government agency can

hurt the performance of the network as a whole

( Goldsmith and Eggers 2004 ). In essence, the way

governments continue to conduct business does not

lend itself to the demands of operating in collabora-

tive structures (Keast et al. 2004). Negative relation-

ships may also develop within partnerships, which

some argue may be more important for collaborative

performance than positive relations (Brass et al.

2004). Finally, some groups may benefi t more from

collaborative activity than others, causing some to

assert that there may be a “dark side” to network

management (O’Toole and Meier 2004). Excitement

over the possibilities of collaborative public manage-

ment should thus be tempered by the realization that

such management is diffi cult and not always

benefi cial.

Conclusion Collaborative public management research off ers a set

of fi ndings marked by rapid progress and a continuing

focus on knowledge generation. Although collabora-

tive management has been occurring for quite some

time, the amount of empirical research on the subject

has increased signifi cantly over the past decade. Sev-

eral conclusions emerge from this review.

First, there is an acceptance that collaborative

management is a standard component of public

management in general. Far from being episodic or

occurring in just a few programs,

collaboration in public manage-

ment is as common as managing

bureaucracies, and even more so

in such areas as economic and

community development, the

environment, emergency man-

agement, and the entire gamut of

social and human services. It’s

important to recognize that

bureaucracy is not going away; collaboration still

complements rather than supplants single organiza-

tion management. However, the research reveals that

it is common enough to begin developing a knowl-

edge base akin to what we know about organizational

behavior.

Second, there has been a focus in the literature on

identifying the types of skills that are necessary in

collaborative settings. On this point, practitioners

know more than researchers, but the gap is closing.

Although some basic skills are transferable from single

organizations to collaborative groups, new techniques

and new competencies are required for eff ective

management in such settings.

Th ird, there is a renewed focus on determining the

eff ect of collaboration on program outcomes. Just as

some early implementation research sought to

examine the reasons for policy failure and success,

we are beginning to see research that evaluates

collaborative management within a program context.

From comparative case studies to large- N quantitative

research, there is a growing realization that collabora-

tion is not an end in itself and that only by examining

its impact will general management theory be

advanced. Th us, there is a growing concern for

determining the strength and infl uence of collabora-

tive management instead of simply documenting

its existence.

Overall, there is a general understanding that there is

still much to learn about collaborative public manage-

ment, and the questions left to be answered are nearly

endless. For example, what do collaborative managers

do when faced with an imbalance of power and infl u-

ence among participants within a collaboration? How

do managers ensure accountability in collaborative

settings? Do collaborations in the public sector evolve

over time, such that there is an identifi able cycle or

sequence to their development? Th at is, do collabora-

tions “learn”? Th ese and other questions are sure to

stimulate future research for years to come.

Th e recent literature also explores some of the negative aspects of collaborative public management. In practice, col-

laborating can be less than advantageous.

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Collaborative Public Management 41

References Agranoff , Robert . 2003 . Leveraging Networks: A Guide

for Public Managers Working across Organizations .

Washington, DC : IBM Endowment for the

Business of Government .

Agranoff , Robert , and Michael McGuire . 1999 .

Managing in Network Settings . Policy Studies

Review 16 ( 1 ): 18 – 41 .

— — — . 2001a . 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 Myrna P . Mandell , 11 – 29 . Westport, CT :

Quorum Books .

— — — . 2001b . Big Questions in Public Network

Management Research . Journal of Public

Administration Research and Th eory 11 ( 3 ):

295 – 326 .

— — — . 2003 . Collaborative Public Management: New

Strategies for Local Governments . Washington, DC :

Georgetown University Press .

Alter , Catherine , and Jerald Hage . 1993 .

Organizations Working Together . Newbury Park,

CA : Sage Publications .

Austin , James E . 2000 . Th e Collaboration Challenge .

San Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Bardach , Eugene . 1998 . Getting Agencies to Work

Together: Th e Practice and Th eory of Managerial

Craftsmanship . Washington, DC : Brookings

Institution Press .

Berry , Frances S . , Ralph S . Brower , Sang Ok Choi ,

Wendy Xinfang Goa , HeeSoun Jang , Myungjung

Kwon , and Jessica Word . 2004 . Th ree Traditions of

Network Research: What the Public Management

Research Agenda Can Learn from Other Research

Communities . Public Administration Review 64 ( 5 ):

539 – 52 .

Brass , Daniel J . , Joseph Galaskiewicz , Henrich R .

Greve , and Wenpin Tsai . 2004 . Taking Stock of

Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel

Perspective . Academy of Management Journal 47 ( 6 ):

795 – 817 .

Drabek , Th omas E . , and David A . McEntire . 2002 .

Emergent Phenomena and Multiorganizational

Coordination in Disasters: Lessons from the

Research Literature . International Journal of Mass

Emergencies and Disasters 20 ( 2 ): 197 – 224 .

Elazar , Daniel J . 1962 . Th e American Partnership:

Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Nineteenth

Century United States . Chicago : University of

Chicago Press .

Entwistle , Tom , and Steve Martin . 2005 . From

Competition to Collaboration in Public Service

Delivery: A New Agenda for Research . Public

Administration 83 ( 1 ): 233 – 42 .

Ferguson , Ronald F . , and Sara E . Stoutland . 1999 .

Reconceiving the Community Development Field .

In Urban Problems and Community Development ,

edited by Ronald F . Ferguson and William T .

Dickens , 33 – 75 . Washington, DC : Brookings

Institution Press .

Goldsmith , Stephen , and William D . Eggers . 2004 .

Governing by Network: Th e New Shape of the Public

Sector . Washington, DC : Brookings Institution Press .

Grodzins , Morton . 1960 . Th e Federal System . In

Goals for Americans: Th e Report of the President’s

Commission on National Goals , 265 – 82 . Englewood

Cliff s, NJ : Prentice Hall .

— — — . 1966 . Th e American System . Edited by Daniel

J . Elazar . Chicago : Rand McNally .

Gulati , Ranjay . 1995 . Does Familiarity Breed Trust?

Th e Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual

Choice in Alliances . Academy of Management

Journal 38 ( 1 ): 85 – 112 .

Hall , Th ad E . , and Laurence J . O’Toole . 2000 .

Structures for Policy Implementation: An Analysis

of National Legislation, 1965 – 66 and 1993 – 94 .

Administration & Society 31 ( 6 ): 667 – 86 .

— — — . 2004 . Shaping Formal Networks through the

Regulatory Process . Administration & Society 36 ( 2 ):

186 – 207 .

Hanf , Kenneth , Benny Hjern , and David O . Porter .

1978 . Local Networks of Manpower Training in

the Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden . In

Interorganizational Policy Making: Limits to

Coordination and Central Control , edited by

Kenneth Hanf and Fritz W . Scharpf , 303 – 41 .

London : Sage Publications .

Harmon , Michael M . , and Richard T . Mayer . 1986 .

Organization Th eory for Public Administration .

Glenview, IL : Scott, Foresman .

Herranz , Joaquín , Jr . 2005 . Network Management

Strategies for Public Managers. Paper presented at

the Eighth National Public Management Research

Conference, Los Angeles, September 29 – October 1 .

http://pmranet.org [ accessed August 17, 2006 ].

Hjern , Benny , and David O . Porter . 1981 .

Implementation Structures: A New Unit of

Administrative Analysis . Organization Studies 2 ( 3 ):

220 – 33 .

Hull , Christopher J . , with Benny Hjern . 1987 .

Helping Small Firms Grow: An Implementation

Approach . New York : Croom Helm .

Huxham , Chris . 2003 . Th eorizing Collaboration

Practice . Public Management Review 5 ( 3 ): 401 – 23 .

Imperial , Mark T . 2005 . Using Collaboration as a

Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed

Management Programs . Administration & Society

37 ( 3 ): 281 – 320 .

Ingram , Helen . 1977 . Policy Implementation through

Bargaining: Th e Case of Federal Grants-in-Aid .

Public Policy 25 ( 4 ): 499 – 526 .

Innes , Judith E . , and David E . Booher . 1999 .

Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive

Systems: A Framework for Evaluating

Collaborative Planning . Journal of the American

Planning Association 65 ( 4 ): 412 – 23 .

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

42 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

Isett Kimberly Roussin , and Keith G . Provan . 2005 .

Th e Evolution of Dyadic Interorganizational

Relationships in a Network of Publicly Funded

Nonprofi t Agencies . Journal of Public

Administration Research and Th eory 15 ( 1 ): 149 – 65 .

Keast , Robyn , Myrna P . Mandell , Kerry Brown , and

Geoff rey Woolcock . 2004 . Network Structures:

Working Diff erently and Changing Expectations .

Public Administration Review 64 ( 3 ): 363 – 71 .

Kettl , Donald F . 1996 . Governing at the Millennium .

In Handbook of Public Administration , 2nd ed .,

edited by James L . Perry , 5 – 18 . San Francisco :

Jossey-Bass .

Kickert , Walter J . M . , and Joop F . M . Koppenjan .

1997 . Public Management and Network

Management: An Overview . In Managing Complex

Networks , edited by Walter J . M . Kickert , Erik-

Hans Klijn , and Joop F . M . Koppenjan , 35 – 61 .

London : Sage Publications .

Kickert , Walter J . M . , Erik-Hans Klijn , and Joop

F . M . Koppenjan . 1997 . Introduction: A

Management Perspective on Policy Networks . In

Managing Complex Networks , edited by Walter J . M .

Kickert , Erik-Hans Klijn , and Joop F . M .

Koppenjan , 1 – 13 . London : Sage Publications .

Koppenjan , Joop , and Erik-Hans Klijn . 2004 .

Managing Uncertainties in Networks . London :

Routledge .

Lipnack , Jessica , and Jeff rey Stamps . 1994 . Th e Age of

the Network . New York : Wiley .

Mandell , Myrna P . 1984 . Application of Network

Analysis to the Implementation of a Complex

Project . Human Relations 37 ( 8 ): 659 – 79 .

Mandell , Myrna P . , and Toddi A . Steelman . 2003 .

Understanding What Can Be Accomplished

through Interorganizational Innovations: Th e

Importance of Typologies, Context, and

Management Strategies . Public Management Review

5 ( 2 ): 197 – 224 .

McGuire , Michael . 2002 . Managing Networks:

Propositions on What Managers Do and Why

Th ey Do It . Public Administration Review 62 ( 5 ):

599 – 609 .

— — — . 2003 . Is It Really So Strange? A Critical

Look at the “Network Management is Diff erent

from Hierarchical Management” Perspective. Paper

presented at the Seventh National Public

Management Research Conference, Washington,

DC, October 9 – 11 . http://pmranet.org [ accessed

August 17, 2006 ].

Meier , Kenneth J . , and Laurence J . O’Toole . 2003 .

Public Management and Educational Performance:

Th e Impact of Managerial Networking . Public

Administration Review 63 ( 6 ): 689 – 99 .

— — — . 2005 . Managerial Networking: Issues of

Measurement and Research Design . Administration

& Society 37 ( 5 ): 523 – 41 .

Milward , H . Brinton , and Keith G . Provan . 2003 .

Managing the Hollow State: Collaboration and

Contracting . Public Management Review 5 ( 1 ): 1 – 18 .

Moynihan , Donald P . 2005a . Th e Use of Networks in

Emergency Management. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Political Science

Association, September 1 – 4, Washington, DC .

www.apsanet.org/section_610.cfm [ accessed

August 17, 2006 ].

— — — . 2005b . Leveraging Collaborative Networks in

Infrequent Emergency Situations . Washington, DC :

IBM Center for the Business of Government .

O’Toole , Laurence J . 1985 . Diff usion of

Responsibility: An Interorganizational Analysis . In

Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary

Systems , edited by Kenneth Hanf and Th eo . A . J .

Toonen , 201 – 25 . Dordrecht, Netherlands :

Martinus Nijhoff .

— — — . 1988 . Strategies for Intergovernmental

Management: Implementing Programs in

Intergovernmental Management . International

Journal of Public Administration 11 ( 4 ): 181 – 210 .

— — — . 1996 . Hollowing the Infrastructure:

Revolving Loan Programs and Network Dynamics

in the American States . Journal of Public

Administration Research and Th eory 6 ( 2 ): 225 – 42 .

— — — . 1997 . Treating Networks Seriously: Practical

and Research-Based Agendas in Public

Administration . Public Administration Review

57 ( 1 ): 45 – 52 .

O’ Toole , Laurence J . , and Kenneth J . Meier . 1999 .

Modeling the Impact of Public Management:

Implications of Structural Context . Journal of

Public Administration Research and Th eory 9 ( 4 ):

505 – 26 .

— — — . 2004 . Desperately Seeking Selznick:

Cooptation and the Dark Side of Public

Management in Networks . Public Administration

Review 64 ( 6 ): 681 – 93 .

O’Toole , Laurence J . , Kenneth J . Meier , and Sean

Nicholson-Crotty . 2005 . Managing Upward,

Downward, and Outward: Networks, Hierarchical

Relationships, and Performance . Public

Management Review 7 ( 1 ): 45 – 68 .

Powell , Walter W . 1990 . Neither Market nor

Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization . In

Research in Organizational Behavior , vol. 12 , edited

by Barry M . Staww and Larry L . Cummings , 295 –

336 . Greenwich, CT : JAI Press .

Pressman , Jeff rey L . 1975 . Federal Programs and City

Politics: Th e Dynamics of the Aid Process in Oakland .

Berkeley : University of California Press .

Pressman , Jeff rey L . , and Aaron Wildavsky . 1973 .

Implementation . Berkeley : University of California

Press .

Provan , Keith G . , and Patrick Kenis . 2005 . Modes of

Network Governance and Implications for

Network Management and Eff ectiveness. Paper

presented at the Eighth National Public

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Collaborative Public Management 43

Management Research Conference, Los Angeles,

September 29 – October 1 . http://pmranet.org

[ accessed August 17, 2006 ].

Provan , Keith G . , and H . Brinton Milward . 1995 . A

Preliminary Th eory of Interorganizational

Eff ectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four

Community Mental Health Systems .

Administrative Science Quarterly 40 ( 1 ): 1 – 33 .

Radin , Beryl A . , Robert Agranoff , Ann O’M .

Bowman , C . Gregory Buntz , J . Steven Ott ,

Barbara S . Romzek , and Robert H . Wilson . 1996 .

New Governance for Rural America: Creating

Intergovernmental Partnerships . Lawrence :

University Press of Kansas .

Scharpf , Fritz . 1978 . Interorganizational Policy

Studies: Issues, Concepts, and Perspectives . In

Interorganizational Policy Making: Limits to

Coordination and Central Control , edited by

Kenneth Hanf and Fritz W . Scharpf , 345 – 70 .

London : Sage Publications .

Schneider , Mark , John Scholz , Mark Lubell , Denisa

Mindruta , and Matthew Edwardsen . 2003 .

Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and

the National Estuary Program . American Journal of

Political Science 47 ( 1 ): 143 – 58 .

Stoker , Gerry . 2006 . Public Value Management: A New

Narrative for Networked Governance? American

Review of Public Administration 36 ( 1 ): 41 – 57 .

Teisman , Geert R . , and Erik-Hans Klijn . 2002 .

Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric

or Governance Scheme? Public Administration

Review 62 ( 2 ): 197 – 205 .

Th acher , David . 2004 . Interorganizational

Partnerships as Inchoate Hierarchies: A Case Study

of the Community Security Initiative .

Administration & Society 36 ( 1 ): 91 – 127 .

Vangen , Siv , and Chris Huxham . 2003 . Nurturing

Collaborative Relations: Building Trust in

Interorganizational Collaboration . Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science 39 ( 1 ): 5 – 31 .

Williams , Paul . 2002 . Th e Competent Boundary

Spanner . Public Administration 80 ( 1 ): 103 – 24 .

Zaheer , Akbar , Bill McEvily , and Vincenzo Perrone .

1998 . Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Eff ects of

Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on

Performance . Organization Science 9 ( 2 ): 141 – 59 .

15406210, 2006, s1, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x by L

iberty U niversity O

nline, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [26/07/2025]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense