Skip to main content
 
  • Share this page on Facebook
  • Print this page

Navigating Complex Networks: A Report on Interviews with Network Managers

Discussion paper for ORL 5.1

JANUARY 2007

 

Published by:

Catchment and Agriculture Services,Practice Change, Tatura, January 2007

ISBN 978-1-74199-190-1

© Copyright State of Victoria, 2007

This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

Find more information about the Department of Primary Industries on the Internet at www.dpi.vic.gov.au

Author: Peter Howden

Acknowledgments:

This paper is part of a larger project Linking Policy and Practice funded by the Victorian Government’s Our Rural Landscape Initiative.

Disclaimer:

This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoriaand its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

Table of Contents

  • 1. Introduction

  • 2. Background and Scope

    • 2.1 The scope of this work
      • 2.1.1 Types of ‘horizontal’ networks
    • 2.2 Why do we need to build network management skills?

  • 3. Methodology

  • 4. Interview Results

    • 4.1 Why (or why not) choose a network approach?
    • 4.2 Joining a Network
      • 4.2.1 Anticipating emerging challenges
      • 4.2.2 Planning your participation
      • 4.2.3 Establishing the network
    • 4.3 Maintaining network momentum
      • 4.3.1 Sustaining collaboration
      • 4.3.2 Managing network challenges
    • 4.4 Exiting
      • 4.4.1 Evaluating the network
    • 4.5 The role of the network manager
      • 4.5.1 The importance of management support
      • 4.5.2 Good networking: innate or teachable?
      • 4.5.3 The consequences of undervaluing the networking role
      • 4.5.4 Trustworthiness
    • 4.6 Other networking situations
      • 4.6.1 The ‘spaces between’ networks
      • 4.6.2 In hierarchical networks

  • 5. Discussion

  • 6. Conclusion

  • 7. Reference List

  • 8. Appendix 1

  • 9. Endnotes

1. Introduction

The literature on networks is replete with case examples and theoretical explorations of the perils and possibilities of collaborative resource management strategies. But how real are these issues to those working on the ground in programs and projects for the Department of Primary Industries (DPI)?

This research follows from Howden (2006) and Hulme’s (2006b) investigation of challenges emerging from Government’s increasing involvement in complex, multi-stakeholder, resource management programs. It is part of Our Rural Landscape (ORL) Project 5.1: Linking Policy and Practice: increasing impact by effectively connecting new products and knowledge to decision-makers.

This paper reports on a series of interviews conducted to test a range of network management challenges identified in the literature, and the strategies suggested to address them, with network ‘managers’ in DPI. The intention is that the data gathered in these interviews will enhance the draft guidelines developed by Howden (2006) while providing case examples of managers in network settings.

2. Background and Scope

The literature on networks is large and contested. In public policy, networks range from hierarchical and contractual relationships (eg. Goldsmith and Eggers 2004; Goodwin et al. 2004), through to interdependent ‘horizontal’ governance relationships that lack formal leadership (see Howden 2006; Hulme 2006b for more detail). Additionally, managing networks is often seen as something that is done intuitively and not as a planned activity that requires deliberate attention. In order to provide some focus to this work then, it is important to first define the network domain in which this work fits, including the networks ‘types’ that are a target for this research, and then outline the rationale for developing the capacity of public officers to manage these networks in a m

4.3.2 Managing network challenges

The challenges that may emerge during the course of a program simulated much discussion during the interviews. Here the five most prominent topics are reported on. They are conflict, divergent goals and agendas, power, ‘disruptive’ personalities and activating key influencers.

Conflict

Conflict of some sort in networks is almost a certainty and was a frustration for many interviewees. Sometimes it is subtle and not (at first) obvious to network managers.

...we do have conflict in our group, but it’s very strange conflict. It’s not overt shouting. It’s just hostile disagreement. It’s silent seething disagreement. I didn't even pick up on it to be honest. It was only...[someone] said to me quietly one day, ‘Do you see the way he rolls his [expletive deleted] eyes?’ (Senior Project Officer)

Conflict is not something that every person is naturally good at recognising or dealing with. Some thought that a common reaction was to ignore it and hope that it went away, or that it did not disrupt the process too much. Others observed that the pressure of short project time-lines forced networks to skip many important relationship-building processes.

And you don’t have time……time’s the biggest factor I reckon, it’s almost like, conflict, ah, don’t deal with it because we …still need to get to this point (laughs) (Project Officer)

Many though did recognise the value in not simply avoiding conflict, but in considering it as a challenge that, if handled appropriately, can build the strength of a network.

...the way you deal with the difference builds the strength of the relationship... (Project Manager)

It is like any relationship, if you can get through whatever it is that’s you know, making it hard at the moment, then surely that you both come through that, or you all come through that with a heightened respect… …you might not agree with the person, but just respecting where they are coming from…(Project Officer)

Conflict is often seen as something that should be ‘managed’ through various processes, including the separation of antagonistic individuals or groups, or even the exclusion of ‘trouble-makers’ from a network. However, conflict, or ‘constructive controversy’ (Flora and Flora 1993), can actually be beneficial to a network, as long as it is not protracted (Howden 2006).

Divergent goals and agendas

Having established a common vision and obtained verbal commitment to collaborative action, it is a mistake to then assume that everyone will always act in the interest of the network.

…because people see networks as an opportunity…to push their own agenda often, because they’re not managed, because they’re not…this really formal, sort of boxed process… (Project Officer)

One thought that this behaviour was not always conscious.

...probably more often or not, people who play these agenda, don't recognise that they're doing it. So by politely asking...and training their mind to think about where they're coming from, you can successfully get them to see that there might be a different position on this. (Project Manager)

At least one participant recognised that efforts to satisfy all demands and achieve consensus across the board may result in outcomes that come at too great a cost to some individuals (or those outside the network) and that don’t effectively address the problem

...our project leader has quite an emphasis on decision making by consensus, but, I'm not entirely sure how well that can be done, or if it is gunna appear like consensus on the surface, but compromising, people being compromised or giving in beneath the surface (Project Officer)

Two participants recognised the skills and methods of a particular professional facilitator in dealing with demanding individuals in networks, but conceded that it was much more challenging when you are not recognised as the facilitator, or as the leader of the network.

Power

While power in networks was much discussed, many participants found it difficult to articulate the range of ways it manifested itself, and few were confident that they were skilled enough to deal with some of its forms.

Generally there was some recognition that the misuse of power reduced the effectiveness of a network. Some pointed to the tendency to confuse political responsibility for a problem (or an element of it) with ‘ownership’ of that problem and any network they instigate to address it.

...it’s the people who set up the group, they're the ones that are setting the agenda all the time, so they're not actually getting any contribution from this other lot...so there's been inertia in that group... (Project Manager)

That is, some organisations fail to recognise that a collaborative network works best on distributed leadership and autocratic control processes can reduce the commitment of other stakeholders to working towards a collective response. Particularly this was most an issue (as noted above) when organisations set up a network on the pretext of collective action and shared ownership, but employ governance processes that bestow direction-setting, or ultimate decision-making, power on themselves.

Like conflict, sometimes power is overt and related to position in an organisation.

No not in a room like that, no way, and not with all of those, you know everyone in our industry … Everyone that’s anyone is in that room and there is no way, or there is very few people that would put their hand up… (Project Officer)

Unless managed appropriately, networks in which individuals from a range of structural levels interact can become an environment that engenders feelings of powerlessness and stifle the participation of individuals that may otherwise be valuable contributors.

At other times power is hidden or not appreciated.

...I haven't heard anyone sort of acknowledge to me, that they understand the power they have in certain positions and how they do or don't use it...how they work with that power... (Program Manager)

Thus while individuals in a network are considered equal partners, this does not mean that there are no power differences. As Mandell (2006) notes, George Orwell’s insight in the book Animal Farm (1946) that ‘all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others’ is entirely appropriate here

‘Disruptive’ personalities

Most participants identified a number of ‘problematic’ personalities in the networks they were involved in, from the deliberately disruptive, to the manipulative, to the ineffectual.

...they might have a very gentle type personality, but underneath it they are very calculating and, um, ambitious. So sometimes they can use tactics that are less than honourable to make themselves look a little bit better... (Project Officer)

…I find that really frustrating…people who are just there for the lunch some times I think, like they’ve got nothing, they’ve got nothing to add, they never do anything (Project Officer)

Few, though, spoke confidently about how these personality types might be managed. Sometimes there is a tension between the value of an individual in terms of the resources they may bring to the network, and the negative effect they may have on network process. This paradox is greater if the person is also influential in multiple networks.

…you just go, I couldn’t work with them…I just don’t want them to be part of this…sort of group. … I don’t know, it’s a hard thing because you might put ten people off-side… (Project Officer)

One thought that managing aggressive or contrary people could be achieved by…

…getting them to put things down on paper…’ah…you want to put that into words for me’… (Project Officer)
 

This, she thought, was useful to help keep focus and to help check that issues being raised were not side-tracking the group into issues that might be peripheral to agreed goals – even if they are important to that individual.

 

Some were philosophical about the role some personality types might play in a network. Here, one participant spoke of her experience with some ‘activist’ friends.

 
…they make me feel uncomfortable, but I think that’s a really good thing because it pushes your envelope a little bit and makes you reassess where you’re at… (Project Officer)
 

Activating influencers

 

Power can be appropriated by aligning yourself strategically with influential individuals – put simply, power by association. It was recognised that activating individuals with power (either real or perceived) was a strategy that some employed to steer a network to their advantage.

 
I know some people are brought in to networks because either they are a good leader, or they have the potential to be able to manipulate it for the person that they are representing as well (Program Manager)

Similarly, the same strategy can be utilised effectively by a network manager seeking to steer a network in a positive way – again, power ‘to’, rather than power ‘over’.

…power is more important if you’ve got it to create an environment… (Project Officer)

Mobilising support from outside of the network is also an ongoing process. Two participants spoke of the strategic value of introducing an influential individual into a network that is in conflict, deadlocked or stalled.

When it starts to get difficult someone else comes in, so it doesn't hurt your relationship with the group or network ...they can respond, on your behalf, or DPI's behalf, and that's only when you've got a bad individual... (Senior Project Officer)

Similar to respondents in previous research (Hulme 2006b), some interview participants stressed that it was important to be sure that such individuals are well briefed, support your views, and perhaps provided clarity around any boundaries there might be to the network’s activities.

Importantly though, most responses to questions on this issue focused on networks largely within one organisation, or projects with a clear lead agency, where influential individuals (like a CEO) had clear hierarchical power. However, in a collaborative network, a person with power in one organisation is unlikely to be influential across the wider network.

The corresponding strategy in a collaborative network may be to mobilise a charismatic or influential individual that is a widely respected authority in a related field (or maybe an entirely different field) to provide some focus, or introduce some radical new ideas. In the words of the network discipline, this may be to reframe the thinking in the network to influence it in a new direction.

Perhaps the most ‘vigorously’ discussed part of the interviews, the key points are:

  1.   
  2. Conflict can be destructive if ignored. Managing it effectively can make a network stronger. This means establishing an environment where constructive conflict is encouraged and depersonalised. 
  3. Divergent goals are to be expected in networks. This may mean establishing a process that allows individuals to reassess their goals and to recognise where there are points of convergence and where they may need to agree to disagree. 
  4. Establishing a joint vision does not mean compromising outcomes to the point of ineffectiveness. Invariably network processes will need to deal with some ‘losing’ more than others, or even not achieving their goals at all. 
  5. Because they are notionally ‘egalitarian’ does not mean there is no power in networks. Sometimes these can be overt or they can be hidden. Unless managed effectively power relations in networks they can disempower key network members.
  6. Power can be used positively to influence networks that are stagnant or deadlocked, or to enhance your own influence in a network.

4.4 Exiting

While there was some discussion on defining a clear end (a sunset clause) to a network project and not letting collaborations slowly break up due to a lack of focus, and the importance of making time to celebrate your achievements, this section is only focussed on evaluating networks. For convenience, ‘process evaluation’ is discussed here, although it is a necessary part of planning a network.

4.4.1 Evaluating the network

Processes for evaluating the outcomes of a program are well established across DPI, but few participants were aware of methods of measuring the social capital value of network activities –the ‘value’ in new or enhanced relationships to the network, and to future network activities. There was also little understanding of how you might measure whether the process of collaborative action actually contributed to a better outcome (than would have been achieved by other methods).

…it’s all done by instinct, so it’s like oh, they’ve asked us to participate in something, that’s a sign that they value us…it would be quite useful to have some tips on how can you measure a relationship… (Project Manager)

...I'm certainly mindful of not just... drawing...um conclusions that...you can't back up. You might have an idea that because you did this, that they changed their tracks...but there's not a defining moment...unless you ask them 'was it me?', but you sound like a bit of a tosser... (Senior Project Officer)

Evaluating the outcome

There was some recognition that relationship-building activities have positive long-term benefits, in one example, both reducing the transaction costs of (re)establishing a network to address a newly emerging issue, and in reducing the amount of reporting to stakeholders.

…this time we’ve fired it up a lot earlier because we wasted…oh not wasted…. spent a lot of time in 02-03 herding the cats I suppose.  And this year we went on the front foot with our relationship with [all of our stakeholders]... (Project Manager)

Many, though, observed that defining the social capital value of networks was challenging because of the poor fit with funding cycles and traditional project planning and evaluation methods.

...it is a difficult one, 'cause often when you're forging these relationships, you mightn't see the benefits for a couple of years...so that's beyond your evaluation cycle or your project planning when you need to evaluate at the end of your project... (Senior Project Officer)

Evaluating the process

Some participants recognised signals that their networks were starting to function well.

…I guess…there’s indicators of where they’re starting to seek you out…and it’s not all one way…so all of a sudden they’re keeping you in the loop of what they’re doing, or they’re seeking your advice or input. All of a sudden they’re acknowledging who you are, what you’ve got to offer and are starting to value that… (Project Manager)

Many authors (eg. Klijn and Teisman 1997; Provan and Milward 2001) warn that traditional evaluation criteria such as goal attainment are not adequate to measure the value in networks. Indeed, the application of an inappropriate evaluation process may well give a false impression of how well a network is progressing towards outcomes.

You can make your evaluation say anything and this network has recently been evaluated and it says it’s wonderful, and I just think, well as a participant I don’t agree……but you can’t feed that back because you were never actually asked to even participate in the evaluation (Project Officer)

Indeed, the lack of clear evaluation criteria for collaborative networks has led, according to one participant, to indiscriminate and inappropriate application of this important governance tool.

...that's an example of people observing networks working well, not understanding why they worked well and then lifting them out of their context and putting them at a scale that's never gunna work, in areas that don't have an issue to drive the justification of them, and there are many lessons of that experiment that are yet to be learnt (Project Manager)

Evaluating networks was recognised by most participants as one of the most difficult tasks in managing networks. None were confident in their ability to appropriately evaluate network processes or outcomes.

The key issues identified in this section are:

  1.   
  2. Evaluating networks is complex because there are multiple goals and aspirations across all networks participants and interacting individuals and groups contribute to the processes and outcomes.
  3. The social capital built in networks processes and can be used in later interactions is rarely considered in evaluation processes. Consideration of the positive impact of such things as the trust that has been built (or the negative impact of lost trust) in network processes should be formal part of process and outcome evaluation.

4.5 The role of the network manager

The trials and tribulations of a network manager understandably generated much animated discussion. While again there were a wide range of topics discussed, three main themes are noted here (although there is a large overlap between themes): the organisational legitimacy of the role of the network manager, the skills required of a good network manager and whether it is innate or can be taught, and the issue of trustworthiness as a necessary characteristic of a good network manager.

4.5.1 The importance of management support

Much discussion centred here on what one participant identified as the ‘contradictory messages’ (Senior Project Officer) put out by organisations. On one hand staff are expected to deliver services through managing stakeholders, but on the other this role is often not adequately resourced or recognised formally in project or performance plans.  One participant complained that agencies have to have ‘projects’ to manage relationships at a corporate level, when they should be developing a culture within the organisation where networks become just ‘the way we do things’. Another thought…

…it’s a really sad state of affairs where relationships are not valued in organisations like this, because……if we’re supposed to have relationship with the community…it doesn’t just happen because we decide it’s gunna happen, or without any effort… (Project Officer)

The perceived lack of support was not universal across DPI, one participant suggesting that often it may be the responsibility of the individual to assess the networking needs of a project and to put up an appropriate case for support.

…I think it depends on who your supervisors are… …if you can explain why it’s important…absolutely [my manager] would agree with that…it’s a legitimate activity, you need to do it to achieve…so as long as you can context why it’s important, and how it’s gunna contribute to what it’s all about…(Project Manager)

This includes, she argued, reporting to the funding organisation that what they ask for cannot be delivered without the appropriate support for the likely transaction costs.

… well if you’ve got a project plan that says, I cannot deliver, this, this and this, without having networks, so therefore ten percent of the project pays for that, and the other 80 percent delivers this and ten percent corporate…it’s all in the design of the project (laughs) (Project Manager)

One interviewee suggested there were some exceptional examples in DPI of programs that benefited a great deal from investment in developing networks. Here he describes a project in an industry that now reports having very good relationships, horizontally with stakeholders and delivery partners, and vertically with funding bodies and agency hierarchies.

...at one stage they put 60 percent of their budget just towards developing these networks in the system with the industry, because the industry felt that the department was a bit low on credibility and couldn't do it... ...the sequel to that story is after three years they were putting ninety five percent towards implementation because the stakeholders were saying ‘yeah we trust you’... (Project Manager)

Overall it seemed that support for network managers was not consistent. Those that reported positive experiences had supervisors who understood (had learned) the value of such work. Others reported a constant frustrating battle.

4.5.2 Good networking: innate or teachable?

What are the basic skills that a good network manager should have? Are these skills innate, or can they be taught or enhanced?

…networking is an art…I’m a novice…acknowledgment of what it takes to be effective in a network, whether it’s structured or unstructured, needs to be discussed a lot more, because there is a lot of stress…(Project Officer)

Interviewees were largely divided on this issue. Some clearly recognised ‘special’ skills in their colleagues or employees and compared them with others (or themselves) they though did not have ‘networking’ abilities, or who preferred not to work in that way.

…it’s really interesting, who has the networks and who hasn’t, and who utilises them to…to do their jobs better, and who under-utilises them?…I find that fascinating. Just watching my own team work… [some] …are just amazing networkers. …and their whole style is around talking with people and asking questions…and what they can get from that is fascinating. And then you’ve got totally the opposite people who much prefer to sit at their desk and do it on their own…you just compare the approaches and you can just absolutely see the engagement and the outcomes…versus the person doing it on their own in the office…(Project Manager)

....you've gotta have the ability to be able to sit down and have a chat...and personally I find that hard some times, um, I don't do small talk very well...(laughs) specially with a stranger... (Project Officer)

Another suggested that these skills became evident when her staff were moved from a bureaucratic, hierarchical process to another much more suited to those with ‘networking’ skills.

…that would accord with what I have found with my team, that have been very contained and very held in, once they started to working on [the project] the energy, the passion, the commitment, the creativity that emerged, is what you need to solve these complex problems. (Assistant Director)

Several interviewees, and other informants throughout this research, spoke of a preference to employ people with good networking skills, but that this was difficult because abilities in this area are not always easy to measure, or are not apparent until a person begins.

…well, I recruit looking for it… and it’s hard because it’s a subjective thing, a gut feel…it’s really hard to make that more overt in your recruitment process. …your selection criteria is, you know, demonstrated experience managing and utilising networks…how do you measure that in your interview or a recruitment process (Project Manager)

4.5.3 The consequences of undervaluing the networking role

Several interviewees spoke of the impact on the community, and the on-ground staff, of a lack of attention to how regional network managers are trained and supported.

Dad always says, look here comes another one (Govt officer) we have to train…and they stay there for a year or two and they leave. And that’s exactly because there’s no career structure out there and there is no value in those relationship that have been built or have been built in the past… (Project Officer)

and..

…with some of the projects that happen, you like think, ‘you will be eaten alive by those people out there’…it’s almost like, rude to send some of the people out that we send out I reckon (Project Officer)

Another thought that the level of skill that is required to manage complex networks of stakeholders and community members is frequently underestimated and this has resulted in government officers placed in positions they were ill-equipped to deal with.

...traditionally the department's always seen these sorts of community extension roles as something that, they start off at the bottom doing that, and then you can work your way to do important jobs...I think they have got it 'round the wrong way...it’s really tricky stuff, it's highly political, and it’s all about relationships. How you talk to people and how you deal with people. How you cope with people that are pissed off and upset and angry...and all those emotions. When you’re out of Uni it must come as a bit of a bloody shock, I mean how would you know how to deal with all that stuff... (Senior Project Officer)

This claim was indeed supported by two interviewees, one who was overwhelmed by the amount of work required to manage a complex multi-stakeholder process…

...I was pretty much ready to quit three months ago...

(Researcher)  Why was that?

I wasn't happy with my responsibility levels...and I am doing a job that I wasn't completely equipped to do... (Project Officer)

…another, who was ‘thrown to the wolves’ in an environment where she was not familiar with the complex (informal) rules of a policy network ‘game’.

…I had a terrible incident where I was bullied, but I was green and young… …it was quite interesting how the bullying behaviour came about… …it really pissed me off… A couple of them called me later when they were out of the room to apologise, and it wasn’t personal, it was just the organisation they represented …it’s not that we don’t like you…  …so you’ve got to roll with the punches…

…I thought, I can’t network, I’m hopeless, I’ve got to leave this job…

…and then there was realisation, OK, I’m fine…this is normal behaviour…(laughs) (Project Officer)

The lack of recognition in organisations of the importance of the task of network building and the lack of attention to providing adequate resources to those who do it, has created some disillusionment amongst public officers and uncertainty about their responsibilities.

One participant though, suggested that many just ‘get on with it’ and do the job despite the real or perceived hurdles.

…I dunno…(laughs) …sometimes I think that we think we can’t do things, or that they’re not supported to do things, but I think sometimes if someone’s passionate enough about it that they can drive it to happen…it’s hard to work, and you’re on your own, and you can be hung out to dry many times, but……you can’t tell me that [a supportive manager will] stop you doing something…(Project Manager)

This, though, perhaps applies to those experienced (or naturally skilled) networkers or those with supporting managers, and as noted above, this way of working can come at a cost.

The lesson emerging from the network literature (Howden 2006) are that the role of the public manager in complex networks is becoming increasingly hard, yet it is apparent that this role has been, and continues to be, undervalued. Throughout the research conducted for this project, some participants spoke of public officers moving from extension roles into managing complex networks. The skills are not the same. While some undoubtedly may have been very good extension officers, or successful at managing in the ‘traditional’ style of public administration, for example managing budgets, staffing and projects, the capacities for operating effectively in networks are different (Agranoff and McGuire 1999). Some may be innately more equipped to operate in such social complexity, however, many of the networks that public officers have to deal with often require skills that have to be learned over time. Assuming that a ‘novice’ can learn these skills on the run, underestimating the complexity of a network role, or placing someone in a role that does not suit their management preferences or skills, can result (has resulted) in unnecessary stress on public managers.

4.5.4 Trustworthiness

An issue that emerged across many interviews was that of trust, or the trustworthiness of network managers. Mayer (1995) suggests that the notion of trustworthiness has three elements.

  1.   
  2. Ability: the perceived experience or competence of the trustee 
  3. Benevolence: the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor; and
  4. Integrity: the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable.

These three elements were identified, in different forms, a number of times in the interviews, particularly in relation to the characteristics thought important in a network manager, or that a network manager should work on building.

…the words they used about our staff was that they understand…they understand the context, they’re very professional, they’re approachable, they’re honest…they’re all fundamental…traits…(Project Manager)

..um, building trust obviously...trust and credibility, those things go together, they're different, but they go together (Senior Project Officer)

...part of it is luck, I mean, if you strike a chord with someone, and they trust you, and they trust your experience perhaps, or your ability to have networks with other people that can provide a solution to them…(Senior Project Officer)

Trust is something that usually takes time to build (Howden 2006), and some interviewees thought that trustworthiness was an intangible characteristic that some had and others did not. However, it was widely agreed that certain attitudes and behaviours are more likely to contribute to someone trusting you, and, these seemed to correlate with Mayer’s three elements of trustworthiness.

They key lesson from this section are:

  1. The discussion above and the observation’s of interview participants suggest there are some factors that contribute towards being a good networkers that are innate, some can be learned, and others will take time and experience
  2. However, there can be serious consequences of putting an inexperienced individual into a position they are unprepared for. 
  3. Support from supervisors and investors is essential for network managers to be able establish a ‘trusting’ and effective network environment in which they can influence change – this may include emotional support, and flexibility in time and what is expected of them.
  4. Trust takes time to build, but research on concept of trustworthiness suggests that there are certain attributes and behaviours that can enhance your chances of being trusted.

4.6 Other networking situations

While this work is focussed mainly on collaborative networks, a number of interviewees emphasised that the strategies that they employed were applicable in other network situations:

  1.   
  2. In the ‘spaces between’ networks where relationships are maintained outside of formal programs or projects where there is contingent value in networks, for example, in terms of the intelligence or knowledge they provide, or where they might be mobilised in the future to support your work, and
  3. In hierarchical networks where there is a preference to manage by improving relationships – with a feather, rather than a hammer.

These network forms (the 3Cs and the types described above) are, of course, not mutually exclusive and may operate in parallel. Some networks described by participants also appeared to be a hybrid of these forms, perhaps influenced more by unfamiliarity with this way of working rather than by design.

4.6.1 The ‘spaces between’ networks

...so that's how the work works really...there's the official world, but then there's all this other stuff that goes on (Project Manager)

Outside of the world of the 3Cs, which are formal (or semi-formal) networks, most recognised that informal ‘networking’ continues all of the time and that it was important for building the social capital that had immediate and potential value (although they did not use these words).

Building and sustaining social capital & trust

Some participants recognised, for example, the value in maintaining regular contact with ex-colleagues for the ‘intelligence’ value of the connection or maintaining relationships with people you collaborate with often, so that you remain a favoured partner and don’t have to re-establish a relationship.

...maintaining trust...that's an important thing, is people trusting you, so just...making sure you re-stock that... ...so it’s just reminding [him] that in the big, bad world, he can still trust me, so it’s about that, and lots of good things come out of that sort of stuff, for both of us  (Project Manager)

... I'm glad I have good relationships with them, because … you get all that stuff out of the way and it’s like oh, so your doing this, great, okay...yeah, lets continue to work together... (Project Manager)

Some understood that social capital was a transferable asset that is valuable both to you and to your staff or colleagues, for example, in reducing the time it takes to develop relationships.

…when I went to the meeting, the people in the room didn't necessarily know me, but one of my contacts came in to see me specifically… it was immediate (clicks fingers) the others in the room went 'ah!' she understands [this group], so that sort of thing can really help you in your job (Project Manager)

also…

...I've introduced [him] to networks...because [he is] a mate of mine, they start off by accepting him, more than if he had just rolled up by himself (Project Manager)

One participant thought that networking in the spaces between formal networks can be a quite deliberate and instrumental act.

...you put the effort into the network that's related to what you think the return will be... ...it’s pretty cold hearted decision making to tell you the truth (Project Manager)

This is an important point, because (as noted above) networking is very time consuming, and the number of potentially ‘useful’ networks is almost endless. Carefully choosing whom you invest time in building a relationship with, outside of your friendship networks, makes strategic sense.

However, there was still some confusion about whether this form of networking was an acceptable use of your time, or was a legitimate part of a public officer’s ‘normal’ role.

...building that relationship of trust...it'd be going beyond...(long pause)...your core role, you know where you can say, that's not part of my role, it may be, well you know it’s not going to take much time, it is about building those relationships, so, it may be you just, you know, pick up the phone, or chase some information for someone... (Senior Project Officer)

4.6.2 In hierarchical networks

Power imbalance in a network can be the result of a past hierarchical relationship between its members.

…we’d only just started working, and [they] came in and ripped us apart, it was awful. And then we said, well hey, we’re not actually in control, we’re actually ambassadors for you. (Project Officer)

This can result in disempowerment of a network manager, and dysfunctional or rebellious networks, sometimes with disastrous consequences. One participant, for example, reporting the loss of significant funding for a project.

However, sometimes you may have to direc’ a network you have worked collaboratively with in the past, or one in which members recognise they have some power because they are the only providers of a service. In such situations, one interviewee noted, she had a preference for utilising relationship building processes more commonly used in horizontal networks.

… ’cause of the position you hold, there will be a certain amount of aggravation, distrust…and so on. So even though you could command, what you have to do is give something, …so then you start to get trust, you’ll still disagree, but ...well people need to be heard, firstly, even if you disagree with them…(Project Officer)

Some of the skills here are present in effective managers in traditional hierarchical roles (Goodwin et al. 2004), however the difference is that such managers ultimately retain veto power, and this factor, either implicitly or explicitly, influences the behaviour of subordinates. Traditional command and control behaviours can be hard to let go of, or for others, to forget. Government officers have to work extra hard to create an environment for ‘real’ collaboration.

5. Discussion

As noted above, there was significant correlation between the issues identified in the literature and the experiences of participants in this interview process. The problems of working in networks to address complex governance issues appear to cross all disciplines and governance issues.

Most participants in this research were familiar with the concepts underpinning network management; the language varied – the intentions were similar. There was, however, some confusion about what was a real collaborative network governance process. Most described processes that equated with coordinative networks – that is, networks involved in the coordination of service delivery (see page 3), where DPI is still independent. Many could not conceive of situations of total interdependence. In one case, a participant spoke of participating in a planning process to develop a collaborative implementation program between several government agencies, but ultimately at least one partner baulked at giving away any power, or moving away from their focus on service delivery. Many were sceptical of the chance of any real collaborative programs emerging soon – in practice, not just in name. There were several programs and projects described by participants that were set up as networks, but were not operating as true collaborative networks in practice.

There was high degree of frustration expressed by most interview participants in the tensions and stresses of working in networks. This emerged around several key themes, including:

  1.   
  2. A lack of time and funding to properly implement network processes. 
  3. A lack of support from within their organisations in terms of appreciation and recognition of the amount of work that was required. 
  4. The application of managerial planning processes and rules to networks, including fixed milestones, that forced networks into activities they were not ready for, and the introduction of hierarchical management structures (such as Chairpersons) that supported existing power structures. 
  5. The domination of investor organisations of network processes, including the imposition of boundaries (scope of action) on networks that were too restrictive, and/or the overruling or network outcomes, and.
  6. The bullying behaviour of some individuals or groups who refused to move from hierarchical or elite models of managing programs and/or who actively seek to exclude others they feel should have no involvement policy implementation.

Several spoke of the enormous emotional pressures of the job and of feeling that this was often not appreciated be supervisors, investor, or even others in their networks. Of note were several comments that DPI staff (particularly new staff) were often placed in network management positions that they were not equipped to handle, and that there was a tendency for some DPI managers to considerably undervalue the skills and experience required to manage stakeholder and community relationships.

Some thought that some of these difficulties might be overstated and that it was the responsibility of the network manager to be aware of and plan for a network process, and to negotiate appropriate resources and support from investors or supervisors. One though did concede that this might mean many frustrations and failures, and that you could not easily negotiate with external partners who did not have a culture of collaboration in their organisations.

Across the interviews there was a fairly good appreciation of the range and scope of skills required to manage networks, although there was some resistance to the idea that network management should be more deliberate. Particularly, some recognised that many (including themselves?) were innately good at operating in networks and they were not sure that a planning tool would improve their practice. They perhaps thought that a more ‘seat-of-the-pants’ method was more appropriate in dynamic social networks – although further questioning often revealed frustration, uncertainty and disorganisation in their methods.

6. Conclusion

It was notable that the interview process elicited a great deal of animated discussion on the perils and triumphs of network management. Interviewees were passionate about their roles, and value for DPI in managing their networks effectively.
 While it was clear that most participants did not recognise network management as a discipline with an underpinning body of theory and research, there was much understanding that there is a lot of skill in the role and a need for much more support for DPI staff who are managing complex networks.

This report will enhance the Guide for network managers currently being developed. Quotes from the interviews will be used to add ‘colour’ to the guide from the real life experiences of network managers in governance network. This work is also forms part of an ongoing program of research to build the skills of network managers in DPI, through the development of tools and related workshops and capacity building programs.

7. Reference List

Agranoff, R 2003, 'Understanding Networks: A Guide for Public Managers', report for IBM Endowment for the Business of Government, IBM Endowment, Arlington, VA.

Agranoff, R and McGuire, M 1999, 'Managing in Network Settings', Policy Studies Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 18-41.

Agranoff, R and McGuire, M 2001, 'After the Network is Formed: Process, Power and Performance', in MP Mandell (ed.), Getting Results Through Collaboration, Quorum Books, Westport Ct., pp. 11-29.

Barr, N 2005, 'The Changing Social Landscape of Rural Victoria', Department of Primary Industries, Bendigo.

Colliver, R 2001a, 'Building Networks', unpublished report for the 'Working the Networks' Project, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.

Colliver, R 2001b, 'Networking', unpublished report for the 'Working the Networks' Project, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.

Craig, A and Vanclay, F 2005, 'Questioning the Potential of Deliberativeness to Achieve 'Acceptable' Natural Resource Management Decisions', in R Eversole and J Martin (eds), Participation and Governance in Regional Development: Global Trends in an Australian Context, Ashgate-Gower Asia Pacific, Newport NSW, pp. 155-173.

Emirbayer, M and Goodwin, J 1994, 'Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency', American Journal of Sociology, vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 1411-1454.

Flick, U 2002, An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, London.
 Flora, CB and Flora, JL 1993, 'Entrepreneurial Social Infrastructure: A necessary Ingredient', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 529, pp. 48-58.

Goldsmith, S and Eggers, WD 2004, Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Goodwin, N, 6, P, Peck, E, Freeman, T and Posaner, R 2004, 'Managing across diverse networks: Lessons from other sectors', Health Services Management Centre, Birmingham, UK.

Howden, PF 2006, 'Understanding and Operating in Networks: a Focus on the Role of the "Networker". Discussion paper for Our Rural Landscape (ORL) program 5.1', Department of Primary Industries, Bendigo.

Hulme, A 2006a, 'How effective is your network? A rapid assessment tool', Department of Primary Industries, Box Hill.

Hulme, A 2006b, 'Operating in Practice and Policy Networks: The DPI Perspective.' Report for milestone 2.8 for Our Rural Landscapes Program 5.1, Department of Primary Industries, Box Hill.

Imperial, MT 2005, 'Using Collaboration as a Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs', Administration & Society, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 281-320.

Jackson, PM and Stainsbury, L 2000, 'Managing Public Sector Networked Organisations', Public Money & Management, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 11-16.

Jessop, B 2002, 'Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety, and Requisite Irony'. Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, UK, vol. 2006.

Keast, R, Mandell, MP, Brown, K and Woolcock, G 2004, 'Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations', Public Administration Review, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 363-371.

Kickert, WJM and Koppenjan, JFM 1997, 'Public Management and Network Management: An Overview', in WJM Kickert, E-H Klijn and JFM Koppenjan (eds), Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage Publications, London, pp. 35-61.

Klijn, E-H and Teisman, GR 1997, 'Strategies and Games in Networks', in WJM Kickert, E-H Klijn and JFM Koppenjan (eds), Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage Publications, London, pp. 98-118.

Mandell, MP 1999, 'The Impact of Collaborative Efforts: Changing the Face of Public Policy Through Networks and Network Structures', Policy Studies Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 4-17.

Mandell, MP 2006, 'Do Networks Matter: The Ideals and Realities'. paper presented to the conference Governments & Communities in Partnership, Melbourne September 25-27, 2006.

Mayer, RC, Davis, JH and Schoorman, FD 1995, 'An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust', Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 709-734.

McGuire, M 2002, 'Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It', Public Administration Review, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 599-609.

Petris, S 2005, 'Making Sense of Recent Developments Public Sector Governance', Department of Primary Industries, East Melbourne.

Provan, KG and Milward, HB 2001, 'Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks', Public Administration Review, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 414-423.

Sarantakos, S 1998, Social Research, 2nd edn, Macmillan Publishers, South Yarra.
 

Schneider, M, Scholz, J, Lubell, M, Mindruta, D and Edwardsen, M 2003, 'Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program', American Journal of Political Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 143-158.

8. Appendix 1.

Question List – Networks Interviews

Remind of specific definition of networks

We recognise that networking is an everyday process that many do intuitively. This research is specifically about the process of managing the complex relationships around a program or project in which you have to collaborate with a range of other people/stakeholders – perhaps because of shared interests, a joint project, or resource interdependencies. You may be notionally the responsible agency or, more likely, part of a multi-agency group where leadership is negotiated/shared.

Introductory/exploratory question

  • Tell me a little about the networks you are involved in.

Understanding When a Networks Approach is Useful

  • (Accepting that collaboration may be a requirement of a job) How do you usually decide when you need to apply a networked/cooperative approach?
  • Can you think of a time when it was not likely to be appropriate (or did not work)? Why?

Prompting question: Can collaboration produce a worse result than not collaborating? What sort of problems can it cause? What are the implications?


Understanding types of networks and network roles

  • Do you experience different types of networks – eg. in terms of how they function; what their responsibilities are; your level of influence in them; or their stability or longevity?
  • Does you think your role changes in each of these types? In what way?

Prompting question: Are there differences, for example, between those networks that are very task oriented (a project) and those that are place-based with multiple interrelated issues and stakeholders? What about those networks where you have little influence? How do you have impact there?


Planning a network process

  • What do you think is important for you to have in-place before you commence a network process?

Prompting question: for example – resources, support, knowledge, information?


Anticipating and responding to challenges (and opportunities)

  • From your experience, what sorts of challenges might emerge in a network process? Can you prepare for them?

Prompting question: for example blockers, turf protection, conflict, inertia?

  • What sorts of challenges have you had with networks in the past? How have you dealt with them? Are you familiar with any other ways these sorts of problems have been dealt with innovatively?

Prompting question: focus on three points of entry – people/relationships/rules & institutions


Monitoring network progress

  • How do you monitor how the network is working

Prompting question: how do you know everyone is up to speed, understand the issue and the process


Sustaining the network:

  • What are the general requirements to keep a network functioning on a day to day basis? What is/was your role? What are the pressures on this aspect of a network process?

Prompting question: is, for example, the ‘real’ time commitment allowed for? How do you balance the different needs?

  • What about the different network types? Do the pressures change, when, for example, others are taking major leadership roles in the network?

Prompting question: Have you been frustrated when a network bogs down under someone else’s command?


Evaluating Network Performance

  • How do you know if the network has succeeded?

Prompting question: Whose goals should be met? How do you tell? How important is evaluating: the process? The outcomes? Meeting of organisational goals?


Finally

  • Generally, what about the everyday process of maintaining networks? How important is it to you? What are your key tips for success? What are the challenges? Do you think there is value in explicitly planning your social network environment? Is it better as an iterative/intuitive process

Additional – (only appropriate people) What is the role of Government in such processes?

Prompt? – government officers have potentially three roles- their substantive role, their network role and their notional role as a representative of the people (equity etc) – these can clash

Footnote

1 Wicked problems that those not ‘owned’ by a single agent; not easily defined; nor are they (easily) solvable, and tend to require joint action from government, industry, community and individuals (eg. non-point source pollution). Unlike wicked problems, there tends to be an understanding of the origins of complex problems and (sometimes) general agreement that actors need to work together to solve them. However, the members of the network may have conflicting business, organisational or personal goals and different understandings of how the problem might be addressed.

2 It is important to emphasise here that using the term ‘managers’ does not imply that the individual is in charge of the network, only that they will seek to ‘manage’ that network to achieve the goals of the department they represent.

 

ISBN 978-1-74199-190-1