The design of opportunities for civil servants’ inter-departmental networking behavior

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

Table 1. Variables operationalization.

	Variables	Operationalization
Dependent variables respondents’ professional external advice seeking	Frequency of external advice-seeking	“In the last 6 months… how often did you interact, in the following way, with an employee from another government ministry? 1. Consult an employee of another government department about the execution of the tasks that have been assigned to you. 2. Ask an employee of another government department for information that is relevant for your work. 3. Consult an employee of another government department about possible solutions for challenges that you confront in performing your work. 4. Ask an employee of another government department to put you in contact with an official in his or her department/ their superior, in order to perform your job.” *Possible responses ranged from never (=1) to daily (=6).
	Count of external advisors	“Name the ministries of up to 10 people, from the ministry in which you work or other ministries, whom you most frequently approached for professional advice during the preceding 6 months.”
Independent variables	Cadets (H1)	Membership of the Cadets program versus matched sample of non-Cadets.
	Past work in a different ministry (H2)	“In how many of the following ministries, including their independent sub-units, have you worked for six months or more, prior to your current position?” *Respondents’ answers were coded into three categories: no past work in another ministry (0), past work in 1 ministry (1), and past work in 2 or more (2).
	Geographical centrality (H3)	“Where physically is the office in which you work most days of the week”? Main government offices were rank as more/less central (e.g., the central government offices in Jerusalem, Givaat Ram, were ranked as the most central location). *Respondents’ answers were coded into three categories: high, medium, and low geographical centrality.
Control variables	Advice count	The overall number (1–10) of colleagues from whom the respondent sought frequent professional advice.
	Interfacing role	The extent to which respondents perceive their role as such that formally requires regular communications with other ministries.
	Seeking intra-org advice	“And in relation to the department in which you are working, how frequently did you act, in the last 6 months …in the following way? 1. Consult another employee of your ministry, who is not your superior, about the execution of the tasks that have been assigned to you. 2. Ask another employee of your department, of similar rank to yours, for information that is relevant for your work. 3. Consult another employee at your ministry, of similar rank to yours, about possible solutions for challenges that you confront in performing your work. 4. Ask an employee of your ministry, of similar rank to yours, to put you in contact with their superior in order to perform your job. *Possible responses ranged from never (=1) to daily (=6).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

	All				Cadets			Matched sample			Sig diff
Variables	Values	N	% Or mean	SD	N	% Or mean	SD	N	% Or mean	SD
	Group	270			81			189
Frequency of external advice seeking (index)	1 to 6	268	2.7565	1.0369	81	3.3148	0.9003	187	2.5147	1.0001	<0.001
Frequency of external advice seeking (fs*)	−1.47 to 2.62	268	−1.2518	0.8594	81	0.45	0.75	187	−0.195	0.832	<0.001
Count of external advisors	0 to 10	270	3.6815	2.7407	81	4.8395	2.6761	189	3.1852	2.6220	<0.001
Advice count	0 to 10	270	5.4556	3.3278	81	6.5926	2.8495	189	4.9683	3.4051	<0.001
Geographical centrality	Low	107	40%		28	35%		79	42.5%		IS
	Medium	53	20%		12	15%		41	22.0%
	High	106	40%		40	50%		66	35.5%
Past work in a different ministry	None	116	43%		25	31%		91	49%		<0.05
	1 ministry	120	44%		47	58%		73	40%
	2 or more	30	11%		9	11%		21	11%
Interfacing role	1 to 5	269	3.4312	1.2518	81	3.7160	1.1751	188	3.3085	1.2668	<0.05
Gender (male = 1)	Male	140	52%		43	53%		97	51%		IS
	Female	130	48%		38	47%		92	49%
Tenure	0 to 8	265	3.6673	2.3280	78	3.2697	2.2373	187	3.8331	2.3508	IS
Seniority (=no. of subordinates)	0 to 30	270	2.5963	4.6494	81	2.0494	3.8920	189	2.8307	4.9296	IS
Seeking intra-org advice	1 to 6	264	3.5009	0.9561	80	3.7848	0.9309	185	3.3797	0.9434	<0.01
Seeking intra-org advice (fs*)	−1.8 to 1.46	263	0	0.7115	80	0.194	0.684	183	−0.085	0.708	<0.01
Involved in youth movement	1 to 5	267	2.9176	1.6340	81	3.0988	1.6778	186	2.8387	1.6127	IS
Involved in student association	1 to 5	268	1.6903	1.1339	81	1.7778	1.2649	187	1.6524	1.0736	IS

Notes: fs = factor scores.

Table 3. Linear mixed-effect model: frequency of inter-departmental advice seeking.

	1	2	3	4	5
Cadet graduate	0.644***	0.610***	0.631***	0.528***	0.455***
	(0.108)	(0.109)	(0.109)	(0.087)	(0.086)
Geographical centrality med		−0.047	−0.035	−0.101	−0.124
		(0.135)	(0.133)	(0.108)	(0.106)
Geographical centrality high		0.252**	0.248**	0.220**	0.227**
		(0.111)	(0.110)	(0.095)	(0.091)
Past work in 1 ministry			−0.065	−0.080	−0.069
			(0.105)	(0.082)	(0.081)
Past work in 2 or more ministries			0.390**	0.409***	0.329***
			(0.163)	(0.127)	(0.126)
Interfacing role (GroupM)				0.420***	0.380***
				(0.033)	(0.033)
Male					0.024
					(0.076)
Tenure (GroupM)					−0.010
					(0.018)
No. of subordinates (GroupM)					0.019**
					(0.009)
Seeking internal advice (GroupM)					0.308***
					(0.056)
Involved in youth movement					0.031
					(0.024)
Involved in student association					0.020
					(0.033)
Constant	−0.198***	−0.275***	−0.303***	−0.257***	−0.366***
	(0.061)	(0.083)	(0.097)	(0.084)	(0.116)
Sd(office)	0.06034	0.0000	0.0000	0.1255	0.1078
N offices	25	25	25	25	25
N	268	265	264	264	253
−2Log Likelihood	−325.501	−321.650	−317.906	−256.744	−245.477
AIC	659.002	655.301	651.813	531.488	520.953
BIC	673.366	676.779	680.420	563.671	573.954

Notes: entries are non-standardized linear mixed-effect model coefficient, with SE in parentheses;

GroupM = group mean centering; the frequency of inter-departments advice seeking (DV) and seeking internal advice (IDV) are based on factor-scores; *p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01.

Figure 2. Respondents’ frequency of advice seeking with a composite index (1–6).

Notes: regressions predictions from an equivalent to model 5 of Table 3 run with a composite index of the frequency of advice seeking.

Table 4. Linear mixed-effect model: number of external advisors (1–10).

	1	2	3	4	5
Advice count (GroupM)	0.563***	0.564***	0.569***	0.531***	0.521***
	(0.037)	(0.038)	(0.038)	(0.037)	(0.040)
Cadet graduate	0.680**	0.679**	0.746***	0.666**	0.658**
	(0.273)	(0.278)	(0.283)	(0.271)	(0.285)
Geographical centrality med		−0.051	−0.074	−0.095	−0.172
		(0.357)	(0.358)	(0.345)	(0.353)
Geographical centrality high		−0.223	−0.240	−0.298	−0.299
		(0.335)	(0.336)	(0.326)	(0.320)
Past work in 1 ministry			−0.313	−0.318	−0.310
			(0.254)	(0.243)	(0.258)
Past work in 2 or more			0.048	0.051	0.004
Ministries			(0.397)	(0.379)	(0.396)
Interfacing role (GroupM)				0.474***	0.415***
				(0.098)	(0.103)
Male					0.354
					(0.241)
Tenure (GroupM)					−0.012
					(0.056)
No. of subordinates (GroupM)					0.061**
					(0.030)
Seeking internal advice (GroupM)					0.027
					(0.178)
Youth movement					0.076
					(0.077)
Student association					0.199*
					(0.105)
Constant	3.503***	3.593***	3.716***	3.772***	3.032***
	(0.233)	(0.295)	(0.322)	(0.320)	(0.402)
Sd(office)	0.8471	0.8893	0.889	0.936	0.7233
N offices	25	25	25	25	25
N	270	266	265	265	251
−2Log Likelihood	Log Likelihood	−565.404	−559.123	−557.001	−547.104
AIC	AIC	1,140.807	1,132.247	1,132.001	1,114.208
BIC	BIC	1,158.799	1,157.331	1,164.219	1,150.005

Notes: entries are non-standardized linear mixed-effect model coefficient, with SE in parentheses;

GroupM = group mean centering; *p < .1; **p < .05; ***p < .01