U8D1-12 - How does culture cross boundaries in public administration organizations? Analyze government examples from the United States and in other countries to support your post. Describe the implications this has for public administrators -SEE DETAILS
Book Reviews 275 Can Agencies Work Together? Collaboration in Public and Nonprofit Organizations Book Reviews | Larry Luton, Editor Joseph W. Grubbs, Grand Valley State University Jane Arsenault, Forging Nonprofit Alliances. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, 1998). 175 pp., $25.95 cloth.
Eugene Bardach, Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. (Washington, DC: The Brookings Insti- tution, 1999). 348 pp., $44.95 cloth, $19.95 paper.
Seymour B. Sarason and Elizabeth M. Lorentz, Crossing Boundaries: Col- laboration, Coordination, and the Redefinition of Resources. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998). 224 pp., $30.95 cloth.
Collaboration by public and non- profit organizations has become a key issue in American public administra- tion. While relationships between di- verse groups certainly are not new phenomena, we have come to recog- nize that an agencyÕs capacity to achieve public outcomes depends upon its ability to establish meaning- ful, effective relationships with other institutions of governance. Practical experience, however, makes it clear that although collaboration within and among organizations continues to be a stepping-stone for success, it never should be taken as a small step. Agen- cies involved in, or searching for, part- nerships in the governmental and non- governmental sectors face a myriad of challenges along their respective paths to collaboration.
For public administrators, the com- plexity of the journey has been inten- sified by a dearth of research on the topic. Recent inquiry has explicated some of the notions associated with networks (OÕToole 1997; Milward andProvan 1998; Milward 1996), but the scope of the research has been limited mainly to rational concernsÑtreating such issues as the economic and so- cial costs of collaboration, mecha- nisms for administrative control, or applications of public-choice models and game theory for the purpose of predicting behavior (for discussion, see Grubbs and Denhardt in press; OÕToole 1997). As a result, public ad- ministration theory has failed ad- equately to inform practice on impor- tant concepts such as coordinating sys- tems of governance, sharing resources and accountability, and integrating or- ganizational cultures.
The three books considered here make important contributions to our collective knowledge by illuminating the conundrums faced by public and nonprofit organizations as they en- gage in strategic alliances. All of the books express a concern for the ways in which agencies find common ground, the diverse strengths each brings to an alliance and how thesestrengths may be joined together in the pursuit of common outcomes.
However, the books differ on what they believe promote successful col- laboration. Such differences reflect the complexity public administrators face as they attempt to build and sus- tain interagency relationships.
Jane ArsenaultÕs Forging Nonprofit Alliances presents a detailed guide to understanding the many forms of interorganizational alliances. At the Òmore loosely integratedÓ end of the spectrum, Arsenault considers joint ventures and management service or- ganizations, and at the Òmore consoli- datedÓ end she considers parent cor- porations and mergers. She discusses optimal conditions for each option, and follows that with step-by-step coaching for the negotiation, design, and implementation of the emerging partnerships. Arsenault also takes ac- count of emotional and normative con- siderations underlying alliances, com- municating valuable information relat- ing to the integration of organizational Joseph W. Grubbs is an assistant professor of public and nonprofit administration at Grand Valley State University. His research focuses on strategic alliances between government and not-for-profit organizations, with an emphasis on issues of interorganizational change. His published work has appeared in the JAI Press series, Research in Organizational Change and Development; the American Review of Public Administration; the International Journal of Public Administration; the online Journal of Public Administration and Management; and forthcoming in Administrative Theory and Praxis and the Journal of Organizational Change Management. 276 Public Administration Review ¥ May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3 cultures. Although her attention re- mains on the nonprofit sector, her in- sights have immediate implications for networked public agencies.
For Eugene Bardach, in Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship, the primary goal in- volves creating a set of conceptual devices for identifying key success factors in the collaborative process.
Bardach measures the level of inte- gration achieved in a variety of part- nerships, based on an analytical framework he refers to as interagency collaborative capacity (ICC), a cal- culation of the integration, discounted by the social costs of the interaction.
He concentrates the ICC measure- ment on collaboratives in the fields of social services, fire prevention, military base reuse, and environmen- tal protection. Bardach then employs a process of Òreverse engineeringÓ to compile the Òsmart practicesÓ from the analysis into a leadership ap- proach that he calls managerial crafts- manship, geared toward achieving effective, value-adding collaboration.
Seymour B. Sarason and Elizabeth M. Lorentz, in Crossing Boundaries:
Collaboration, Coordination, and the Redefinition of Resources, take a di- vergent path from the other two books.
Rather than concentrate on the process of collaboration, they examine the role of an individual facilitator, or a net- work coordinator, in creating a sense of community and shared commitment across organizations. They frame the discourse in a denouncement of the public sector, which they consider as hopelessly bounded by an Òorganiza- tional chart mentality,Ó then turn to the private sector for models of success- ful resource exchange. To aid poten- tial collaborators, they describe the ideal traits of a network coordinator, which include a capacity for appreci- ating organizations in their broader social context, for scanning the envi- ronment to build connections across organizational systems, and for focus-ing on strengths rather than seeing only weaknesses in individuals and groups.
As with collaboration in practice, the participants in the current dialogue bring diverse interpretations of inte- gration. The narratives share an inter- est in how agencies come together to meet mutual outcomes, but the stories are told through distinct voices. One reads as a guidebook for building ef- fective alliances, another as a primer for analyzing successful collaboration, and yet another as a discourse on the individualÕs role in bridging organiza- tional bounds. To explore the unique contributions made by each book, we may concentrate on several of the most pressing concerns affecting inter- agency partnerships: the governance of collaborative ventures, the means of sharing resources, and responsibil- ity, and the cultural implications of network relationships. Collaborative Governance On the issue of governance, an im- portant parallel can be drawn between ArsenaultÕs and BardachÕs notions of collaborative partnerships. Both be- lieve that leadership and patterns of decision making should be systemic in nature. According to Arsenault, the groundwork for the governance sys- tem should be laid as part of the initial negotiations. She suggests integrating into the bargaining process definitive language on the desired outcomes of the partnership, the level of integra- tion required for the outcomes, and the necessary steps for achieving this in- tegration. These elements then should be factored into the design approach.
By dealing with governance issues early, prospective partners may gain an image of how the collaborative will function in the future, rather than con- tinue to focus on their structural dif- ferences. In turn, this may help par- ticipants reach a consensus on other critical elements of the alliance.
Arsenault lays out two possible av- enues for designing the new gover- nance structure: the incremental-par-ticipative and the centralized. She de- scribes the incremental-participative approach as featuring Òbroad-based discussionÓ between participants at all levels of the alliance, a set of pro- cesses that instills a sense of Òowner- shipÓ and builds ÒcommitmentÓ on the part of alliance members (127).
The strength of this approach to man- aging shared-change lies in its capac- ity to reduce anxiety and ensure a consensus of support by incorporat- ing a broad cross section of the orga- nizations. Over time, Arsenault ar- gues that a Òwide-open process É that keeps the group from coming to conclusions too quickly will end up taking less time in the end than a closed process that quickly proposes a full-blown conceptÓ (127). If par- ticipants make the investment in the present term, they may reduce poten- tial barriers during the course of de- sign and implementation.
She contrasts this with the central- ized approach, which she describes as a viable alternative in situations where the time allotment of key collabora- tive members, such as board members of a nonprofit organization or execu- tive leadership of a public organiza- tion, is limited; the experience of the board or executive leadership limits the individualsÕ capacity to make de- cisions, and therefore places the au- thority into the hands of a design team; the participants share the belief that a small group of individuals can be more effective at designing the process than a broader coalition; and the partici- pants share a high degree of trust in the design team. Benefits of the cen- tralized strategy include a significant reduction in the amount of time nec- essary to negotiate and implement the collaborative arrangement, and a guar- antee that the individuals who have the experience and knowledge of a shared change process will play a leading role in its development.
When getting down to practical de- tails of the governance system, Arsenault suggests paying close atten- Book Reviews 277 tion to process and operational con- cerns. She recommends that the par- ticipants, as part of the design, engage line staff and use objective decision criteria when choosing key organiza- tional functions. If the alliance selects approaches from one of the previous organizations, Arsenault warns that a sense of us versus them may be cre- ated, with participants keeping a tally of how many of our and their ways were kept as part of the interorgani- zational change. By using more objec- tive standards, and choosing processes that fit the needs of the new alliance, she argues that participants will have a greater sense ownership, realizing that they have created a new, shared system of operations.
Similarly, Bardach concentrates on systemic issues of governance in his analysis of ICC. He is concerned with the potential of public and nonprofit agencies to work together as a way of adding public value, defined as increasing efficiency, effec- tiveness or fairness in cur- rently defined missions[,] É introducing programs that re- spond to a new political aspi- ration or meet a need in the organizationÕs task environ- ment É [or] reducing the claims that government orga- nizations make on taxpayers and reclaiming the resources now committed to the organi- zations for alternative public or private uses (Moore, cited in Bardach, 8Ð9). The first issue, according to Bardach, is flexibilityÑthe capacity of a collaborative to view public chal- lenges in new ways, to see an array of responses that has not been seen by individual organizations, and to capi- talize on the potential of collaboration to pattern innovative solutions.
Collaboratives must function in what he calls trial-and-error mode and seek alternative means of problem solving (116). At the staff level, this means creating a team environment that willfacilitate interpersonal implementation networks. At the executive and man- agement level, it means loosening both the administrative grip on agency pro- gramming and categorical limits on financial resources.
Bardach cites as an example of such flexibility, the system of variable over- sight, an innovative document review procedure implemented by an interorganizational collaborative re- sponsible for environmental cleanup at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.
The collaborativeÕs project manage- ment team replaced formal patterns of communication, excessive paperwork and a process of multiparty document review with a more flexible, stream- lined approach to decision making and a more innovative form of problem solving. As a result, collaborative members have reduced the number of steps in the review process from twenty-seven to sixteen, and have pro- duced a cost savings for the Air Force of 15 percent and for the Environmen- tal Protection Agency of 40 percent.
However, Bardach stresses that such flexibility can be achieved only with the requisite level of trust and commitment between the partners, and even then it still may be full of ob- stacles. An agency may espouse dedi- cation to an alliance but then refuse to give up administrative control over budget resources, accountability, and personnel. Bardach points to several cases in his analysis in which this be- came an issue for program staff who were divided between a collaborative on one hand and the original organi- zation on the other. A similar phenom- enon may occur at an organizational level, particularly for government agencies (due to legal obligations to a central administrative or legislative body). The entire agency may be torn between its participation in the col- laborative and the sanction entityÕs system of administrative oversight. As a result, Bardach warns that collaboratives often find themselves under the power of control agencies,rather than empowered to build an ef- fective partnership.
Sarason and Lorentz distance them- selves from the other scholars by chal- lenging the premise that collaboration can occur at an agency level without the Òboundary spanningÓ catalyst of a network coordinator. In language from Vice President GoreÕs lexicon of Re- inventing Government, they suggest that the tendency, particularly among public agencies, is to pigeon hole staff into job descriptions and focus on or- ganizational priorities, rather than ex- ternal outcomes. They write, ÒIn the case of organizational theory and prac- tice, the problem that has proven most intractable has been coordination of people and resources É [which stems from a] paradigm of the organization as consisting of bounded parts within each of which were people possess- ing certain skills not possessed by those in other partsÓ (13). Accordingly, Sarason and Lorentz argue that gov- ernance cannot be left to agency-based systems of decision making, it must be centered around what they call re- source exchange and facilitated by a lead innovator, someone who can make the necessary connections across traditional organizational lines.
The network coordinator envi- sioned by Sarason and Lorentz, a role they personify in the fictional charac- ter, Mrs. Dewar, does not occupy a position of power, in the traditional sense. Rather ÒMrs. DewarÓ uses her influence as a ÒmatchmakerÓ to Òbring people together when they cannot ac- complish their aims alone but can do so if they join forcesÓ (64). To accom- plish this, the coordinator is charged with three primary tasks: 1) to scan Òthe organizational environment to determine where and with whom re- source exchange would be fruitfulÓ; 2) Òto forge a network of individuals whose self-interests would be fur- thered by participating in forums de- voted to possibilities for resource ex- changeÓ; and 3) Òto regard [partner organizations and individuals] no dif- 278 Public Administration Review ¥ May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3 ferently than they would parts of their internal organizationÓ (29). The role involves supporting the network not with direct services but with ongoing facilitation and community building.
Sarason and Lorentz discuss the Northern Westchester Resource Net- work as an example of network-facili- tated resource exchange. The purpose of the resource network was to find common ground between the partici- pants, explore ways of sharing the di- verse set of resources brought to the partnership, and determine how such a venture might be coordinated. The coordinator created informal relation- ships between the cast of characters, concentrating on the different sets of assets and building a sense of commu- nity between alliance members and the broader community. Over time, the network has succeeded in transform- ing the way participants view them- selves, their organizations and their service community. Participants now are able more effectively to form col- laborative relationships and search for common approaches in a search for community solutions.
Shared Resources and Responsibility A central theme in all of the books is the need for interagency collaboratives to join resources and systems of respon- sibility. Perhaps Bardach stated it most effectively when he wrote that what Òprevents ICC capacity from even get- ting off the ground, in most cases, is the unwillingness of potential partners to contribute resourcesÓ (163). Categorical restrictions on budget resources, restraint of personnel, refusals to share informa- tion, these are some of the most preva- lent ways in which prospective partners limit the engagement, and in time the effectiveness of a collaborative venture.
In the same way, and as I have noted above, constraints in methods of ac- countability also become a divisive force in strategic alliances. Participants may be pulled by control mechanisms in their original organizations, and thus blockedfrom establishing a mutual sense of re- sponsibility with their partners. But while the books have these concerns in common, each takes a diverse perspec- tive on the nature and solutions to the various challenges.
Bardach identifies a broad range of resourcesÑincluding an agencyÕs turf, or realm of authority, financial assets, its people, and informationÑand ar- gues that, in protecting their resource base, agencies and individuals adopt a variety of defense mechanisms.
Some may argue that single agencies have the ability to increase public value more than a strategic alliance; others simply want to capitalize on their own resource base for career motives; still others may believe that preservation of the existing bureau- cracy outweighs any gains provided through collaboration. Such protec- tionism may take on patterns similar to those in society at-large, as groups adopt an ethnocentric worldview, char- acterized by an ÒusÓ versus ÒthemÓ image of their counterparts.
As an alternative, Bardach recom- mends challenging our traditional paradigms by adopting Òsmart prac- ticesÓ of resource sharing. He cites a variety of examples in which mem- bers of interagency collaboratives succeeded in adding public value by breaking down rigid barriers of ad- ministrative control. Successful re- source exchange is facilitated by de- cisions at the executive and manage- ment levels, but also features Òthe great many line workers whose time and energy are not just their own but also their agenciesÕ resources and who are committed members to col- laborative teamsÓ (185). Bardach continues by stating that, in cases of successful collaboration even the most traditionalist individuals and bureaucratically aligned agencies can be encouraged to join the effort, by helping them understand that strate- gic alliances open doors for career advancement and broaden existing pools of resources.The sharing of resources, however, must be accompanied by a systemic change in the means of holding agen- cies accountable. As assets become shared across collaborative ventures, so too must the sense of responsibil- ity. On the other hand, Bardach advises a similar transformation from the tra- ditional methods. He writes, ÒAl- though traditional methods do provide symbolic reassurance, it is not clear that they are very functional as genu- ine tools of accountability anyway as opposed to being mere methods of pro- tectionismÓ (144). Instead, Bardach recommends adopting some combina- tion of a peer-oriented, results-cen- tered or client-based assessment sys- tem, one that provides for organiza- tional and individual learning. The underlying purpose should be enhanc- ing collaborative capacity, as opposed to substantiating bureaucratic control.
Sarason and Lorentz share BardachÕs concern for resource ex- change. Indeed, the very premise of their research reflects a need to broaden the way we understand per- sonal and organization assets. The au- thors, consequently, challenge us to adopt a set of ideas concerning Òthe means by which we seek to develop and deploy those resources in ways that both enlarge the individualÕs per- spective and increase the pool of re- sources available to the institution for accomplishing its missionÓ (39). First, this requires a redefinition of re- sources, to get us away from the zero- sum game that characterized tradi- tional methods of administration; sec- ond, it encourages us to build relation- ships for exchange that defy existing organizational bounds. The process of redefinition and relationship building, contrary to our previous ways of think- ing, in fact serves as a Òresource en- largingÓ force for participating agen- cies. Networks that succeed in cross- ing boundaries actually experience an expansion of the resource pool.
Another similarity between the Sarason and Lorentz book and the Book Reviews 279 Bardach book is a common position on the issue of accountability. For Sarason and Lorentz, the goal of an interagency collaborative should be to break the Òorganizational chart men- tality,Ó which they argue is especially prevalent in public organizations. The mechanistic way that many public agencies treat human beings as com- ponent parts, and then manage those parts through some superior agent, weakens the self-coordinating capac- ity of the human actor. This leads to accountability systems in which the actor is responsible to the superior agent, not to substantive measures of Òmaterial and personal valueÓ (58).
The goal becomes achieving process efficiency through coordination of the mechanical parts, rather than a sense of responsibility for achieving mean- ingful public outcomes.
To counter this practice, Sarason and Lorentz propose creating nodes of resource exchange as a way of trans- forming our notions of resources and responsibility. This involves Òexploit- ing the interests and capabilities of people and matching them comple- mentarily or for mutual benefit with the interests, capacities and needs of others, thereby increasing the re- sources available to eachÓ (62). The network coordinator serves as a bridge between traditional ways of thinking, organizing and accounting for activi- ties in diverse groups. She therefore helps participating agencies to adopt new methods of measuring individual and organizational performance. By helping us to redefine the way we un- derstand our assets, the network coor- dinator provides more appropriate ways for us to measure the value cre- ated by our public institutions.
Arsenault takes a very practical position on the coordination of re- sources and mechanisms for account- ability in strategic alliances. She inte- grates into her discussion important details on the resource implications and available means of control inher- ent in the various options. Arsenaultexplains that, in regard to resource sharing, the demands for joining as- sets will increase as agencies move from the loosely integrated end of the spectrum, such as with joint ventures and partnerships, to the more consoli- dated end, characterized by parent cor- porations and mergers. In addition, prospective alliance members must be aware of the changing nature of ac- countability as they determine the level of integration required for agen- cies to achieve the desired outcomes. Cultural Integration The books also examine some of the cultural issues underlying interagency collaboration. For example, Arsenault says it may be necessary to integrate the norms and values of organizations participating in strategic alliances, and she warns against an organization im- posing its beliefs upon other groups.
The degree to which culture becomes an issue, she continues, depends upon the level of interaction required in the alliance. Arsenault writes, ÒIn some cases, it can almost be ignored; in oth- ers, cultural integration between or among the partners is necessary to make the consolidation workÓ (40). As well, Bardach views culture as a force that Òcan either enhance or degrade organizational effectivenessÓ (232). To ensure the former, he describes Òsmart practicesÓ for establishing an environ- ment of trust, which he believes of- fers a way of building a Òculture of joint problem solving,Ó and he high- lights important elements of culture formation observed within various collaboratives.
However, each of the authors could have devoted more attention to expli- cating this crucial concept. Engage- ment by diverse groups has significant implications for the systems of mean- ing underlying participating organiza- tions (Grubbs and Denhardt, in press; Ingersoll and Adams, 1992). But these books do not take sufficient account of cultural factors. The authors view culture as a variable rather than as aroot metaphor (Smircich, 1983). The dialogue remains at an operational level. Culture is seen more a matter for negotiation, something to be aligned with other attributes as part of the change process, not as a complex pattern of communication, ritual and beliefs.
Bardach explains that his inquiry was based on grounded theory, which explores interpretations of human ac- tion and the interpersonal meaning at- tached to organizational life, but that he Òwas concerned with phenomena that were much less social-psychologi- cal, much more external and objec- tiveÓ (56). Arsenault takes a similar approach. Borrowing from research into corporate mergers, she considers the Òset of variablesÓ (144) associated with organizational values, the various Òculture typesÓ (149) that may be ob- served in the alliance, and the differ- ent steps alliance partners may take to effectively integrate the diverse value systems. Despite the importance of these topics, they do not tell the entire story. The books could do more to communicate the vast array of inter- pretations associated with organiza- tional engagement, and the meaning of the interaction over time for the re- spective cultures.
Sarason and LorentzÕs premise on culture suffers what I believe to be major flaws in its conceptual base. The authors credit the culture within pri- vate sector groups for enabling mem- bers to identify innovative solutions and to share resources, but suggest that Òthere is little in the public sector from which one can generate hopeÓ (38).
Describing this dilemma, Sarason and Lorentz write, It is quite another story in the public sector. For example, if you were to observe a random sample of private companies in a particular sector, you would be hard put to conclude that they confront and handle coordination problems simi- larly É Again, we are not 280 Public Administration Review ¥ May/June 2000, Vol. 60, No. 3 painting a rosy picture but merely calling attention to di- versity in organizational cul- tures. If you were to do a simi- lar study in public organiza- tionsÑlocal, or state, or fed- eral, or schools, or nonprofit human service agenciesÑyou would be hard put to avoid concluding that they are amazingly similar in organi- zational structure, in ration- ales for that structure, and in the frequency and severity of the coordination problems they encounter. (51) While we may be able to draw par- allels in the cultures and structural ori- entations of groups that are organized upon a traditional, hierarchical frame- work of power, such conclusions as presented here reflect a lack of under- standing. They also overlook an array of cases from the public and nonprofit sectors in which individuals and groups have crossed the boundaries to build effective, meaningful relation- ships for resource exchange. Why Worry About Culture? The focus on mostly operational variables reflects a more substantive set of concerns regarding the way pub- lic administration research conceives interagency collaboration. First, the books encourage us to view interorganizational relationships mostly as a function of the current agenda for public management (e.g., the New Public Management or Rein- venting Government). The Sarason and Lorentz bookÑand even to a cer- tain degree the Bardach bookÑspeaks of collaboration in the vernacular of the latest reforms, and both books fea- ture a discussion of the National Per- formance Review, or Osborne and GaeblerÕs Reinventing Government (1992), as part of their conceptual ba- sis. As a result, they encourage a view of alliances between diverse groups that is framed by the principles of re- inventionÑa view of alliances simplyas strategies for institutions of gover- nance to do more with less, to create leadership systems based on steering not rowing, and to treat citizens as customers.
Second, and as a consequence, they regard collaboration in instrumental terms, thus failing to appreciate the symbolic significance of the change for affected organizations, for organi- zational members, or for the citizens they serve. They are more concerned with the way strategic alliances are formed, and with their capacity to en- hance process effectiveness and inter- agency performance, as opposed to the meaning of collaboration for human actors. Individuals bring to a collabo- rative relationship vastly different worldviews; their interpretations of the purpose, context and consequence of the intercultural exchange vary ac- cording to the complex Òwebs of sig- nificanceÓ (Geertz 1973, 5). By fram- ing the inquiry within the parameters of reinvention, these books miss sig- nificant implications of collaboration for those most affected.
Third, the driving assumptions of reinvention, that we can adopt prin- ciples of private sector management into the public service, raise cautions for the relationship between the pub- lic administrator and citizen. While many of the partnerships described in the books, particularly BardachÕs, had as an espoused value the creation of effective ties with the public, the pre- vailing view of citizens as customers potentially confines the public to a passive role. The notion that we should build our interagency collaboration from such a base may prevent us from recognizing a potentially active, con- structive role for the public in the gov- ernance process.
The three books considered here offer valuable lessons. But the most important lesson may be implicit: The narratives reveal that individuals will bring to the issue of collaboration dis- tinct interpretations, based on their life experience, cultural heritage, and otherinfluences. If we neglect this diversity, we may lose an important building block for joining human actors in a shared purpose. We also may miss a valuable opportunity to transform our public and nonprofit organizations into more open, citizen-oriented institu- tions of governance. References Adams, Guy B., and Virginia Hill Ingersoll. 1992. The Tacit Organiza- tion. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Grubbs, Joseph W., and Robert B.
Denhardt. In press. Collaboration and Allegory: Extending the Metaphor of Organizational Culture in the Context of Interorganizational Change. Re- search in Organizational Development and Change. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Milward, H. Brinton, ed. 1996. Sympo- sium on the Hollow State: Capacity, Control, and Performance in Interor- ganizational Settings (Special issue).
Journal of Public Administration Re- search and Theory 6(2).
Milward, H.B., and Provan, K.G. 1998.
Principles for Controlling Agents: The Political Economy of Network Struc- ture. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2): 203Ð21.
OÕToole, Laurence J., Jr. 1997. Treating Networks Seriously: Practical and Re- search Based Agendas in Public Ad- ministration. Public Administration Review 57(1): 45Ð52.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992.
Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Smircich, Linda. 1983. Concepts of Cul- ture and Organizational Analysis. Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly 28(3):
339Ð58.
