Network management as a contingent activity. A configurational analysis of managerial behaviors in different network settings

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the Spitex networks.

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA	87.6%	German-speaking Cantons
	12.4%	French-speaking Cantons
CATCHMENT AREA	650.00	Minimum
	755,369.00	Maximum
	31,224.51	Mean
NUMBER OF CLIENTS PER YEAR	11.00	Minimum
	30,300.00	Maximum
	1,046.35	Mean
NUMBER OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS	2	Minimum
	1,970	Maximum
	117.49	Mean

Table 2. Operationalization and calibration.

Condition or outcome		Measure/Items		Calibration
Bridging	Cronbach alpha: .984	Questionnaire items (no accepted scale given; new scale developed based on Bartelings et al. 2017) [How often do you engage in the following activities? 1 = never/7 = very often] Trying to form bridges between Spitex partners. Ensuring that the Spitex partners are facilitated enough to do their job properly; Making sure that the operating rules for partner collaboration work; Making sure that Regular meetings for partner coordination are scheduled. Making sure that the standard operating procedures (like rules, policies, forms) work. Helping the Spitex partners to collaborate regardless their contrasting interests; Solving conflicts among the Spitex partners when they occur; Supporting the commitment of all the Spitex partners on the same objectives; Keeping Spitex partners to want the same goals; Connecting Spitex partners with each other’s; Giving room at the Spitex partners for new ideas; Coaching and supporting Spitex partners.		If BRIDG ≥ 70.231 1(full membership) If BRIDG = 40.000 0.5 (cross-overpoint) If BRIDG ≤ 20.000 0(full nonmembership)
Networking	Cronbach alpha: .85	Questionnaire items (no accepted scale given; new scale developed based on Bartelings et al. 2017) [How often do you engage in the following activities? 1 = never/7 = very often] Looking for new network partners that can enrich the network; Looking for new (private or no profit or institutional) relationships that can enrich the network; Managing the relationships with actors (private or no profit or institutional) external to the network; Going to meetings where you expect to enrich your (private or no profit or institutional) relationships		If NTW ≥ 21.000 1(full membership) If NTW = 12.000 0.5 (cross-overpoint) If NTW ≤ 5.000 0(full nonmembership)
Stabilizing	Cronbach alpha: .952	Questionnaire items (no accepted scale given; new scale developed based on Bartelings et al. 2017)) [How often do you engage in the following activities? 1 = never/7 = very often] Ensuring that the contacts among Spitex partners remain stable; Ensuring that Spitex partners rely on each other’s; Supporting/promoting trust among Spitex partners; Ensuring that the contacts among Spitex partners are long-lasting		If STAB ≥ 27.000 1(full membership) If STAB = 16.000 0.5 (cross-overpoint) If STAB ≤ 7.140 0(full nonmembership)
Connectivity	Cronbach alpha: .904	Questionnaire items (no accepted scale given; new scale developed based on Provan and Milward 1995; Provan and Kenis 2008) [If you think at the network of organizations (e.g. Cantonal governments, municipalities, non-profit organizations) collaborating with your Spitex for the provision of heathcare services… 1 = totally disagree/7 = totally agree] Spitex partners contact each other’s to improve the provision of their services Spitex partners collaborate with each other for the provision of homecare services Some relationships exist among the Spitex partners Spitex partners normally interact to provide their services		If CONN ≥ 28.000 1(full membership) If CONN = 16.000 0.5 (cross-overpoint) If CONN ≤ 8.000 0(full nonmembership)
Trust	Cronbach alpha: .844	Questionnaire items (adapted from Klijn et al. 2010b) [1 = totally disagree/7 = totally agree] In general, all of the Spitex partners (including my Spitex) fulfil their agreements with each other. All of the Spitex partners (including my Spitex) give each other the benefit of the doubt. All of the Spitex partners (including my Spitex) keep in mind the interests of the other parties All of the Spitex partners (including my Spitex) refrain from using the contributions of other parties to their own advantage. All of the Spitex partners in this project (including my Spitex) can assume that the intentions of the other parties are good in principle		If TRUST ≥ 33.003 1(full membership) If TRUST = 26.000 0.5 (cross-overpoint) If TRUST ≤ 15.000 0(full nonmembership)
Development stage	Cronbach alpha: Stage 1: .770 Stage 2: .842 Stage 3: .638	Questionnaire items (no accepted scale given; new scale developed based on Kenis and Provan 2009) [Development stage: please think about the current situation in your Spitex and let us know what you think about the following statements on a scale from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree]		If DEVSTAGE ≥ 3.000 1 (full membership) If DEVSTAGE = 2.000 0.5 (cross-overpoint) If DEVSTAGE ≤ 1.000 0 (full nonmembership)
		Stage 1	Right now, a priority for the development of your Spitex network is strengthening the relationships among the Spitex partners. Right now, a priority for the development of your Spitex network is governing the Spitex partners’ collaboration. Right now, a priority for the development of your Spitex network is strengthening Spitex partners’ to the Spitex mission.
		Stage 2	Right now, a priority for the development of your Spitex network is creating common procedures for the provision of homecare services. Right now, a priority for the development of your Spitex network is developing common processes and structures.
		Stage 3	Right now, a priority for the development of your Spitex network is increasing the number of partners in the network. Right now, a priority for the development of your Spitex network is widening the range of services provided by the Spitex partners (including my Spitex).
Network Performance	Cronbach alpha: .761	Questionnaire items (no accepted scale given; new scale developed based on Provan and Milward 1995; Provan and Milward 2001; Provan and Kenis 2008; Kenis and Provan 2009) [The network activities carried out by your Spitex and its partners in the homecare provision allow….1 = totally disagree/7 = totally agree] … patients to live in their known environment, without being forced to go to hospitals or nursing homes … to properly serve the community … to support patients’ autonomy … to induce patients’ independence … to increase the clients’ quality of life … a reduction in the costs of the homecare assistance		If PFM ≥ 42.000 1(full membership) If PFM = 37.000 0.5 (cross-overpoint) If PFM ≤ 24.700 0(full nonmembership)

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

	N	Min	Max	Mean	std. dev
devstage	96	.05	.95	.34	.32
conn	96	.01	.95	.53	.31
trust	96	.02	.98	.52	.30
bridg	96	.02	.99	.48	.31
ntw	96	.03	.97	.47	.31
stab	96	.02	.96	.50	.32
pfm	96	.02	.95	.56	.31

Table 4. Correlations.

	DEVSTAGE	CONN	TRUST	BRIDG	NTW	STAB
DEVSTAGE	,1	,011	,018	,133	,045	,115
CONN	,011	1	,427**	,360**	,341**	,495**
TRUST	,018	,427**	1	,185	,227*	,446**
BRIDG	,133	,360**	,185	1	,487**	,717**
NTW	,045	,341**	,227*	,487**	1	,439**
STAB	,115	,495**	,446**	,717**	,439**	1

Table 5. Overview of necessary conditions.

	Presence of outcome variable: PFM
Conditions tested:	Consistency	Coverage
DEVSTAGE	0.485988	0.808687
~DEVSTAGE	0.722649	0.610310
CONN	0.682341	0.726251
~CONN	0.569098	0.673099
TRUST	0.709021	0.770547
~TRUST	0.556430	0.643364
BRIDG	0.631286	0.733824
~BRIDG	0.625144	0.676007
NTW	0.623992	0.734855
~NTW	0.627447	0.670427
STAB	0.663340	0.740519
~STAB	0.590979	0.664580

Table 6. Truth table.

DEVSTAGE	CONN	TRUST	BRIDG	NTW	STAB	Number	PFM	Raw consist.	PRI consist.	SYM consist
1	1	1	0	1	1	4	1	0.974661	0.921348	0.921348
1	1	0	1	1	0	2	1	0.943647	0.810996	0.810996
0	1	1	0	1	1	3	1	0.936215	0.728916	0.749226
1	0	1	0	0	0	3	1	0.933213	0.784257	0.784256
1	1	1	1	1	1	8	1	0.927843	0.795876	0.795876
1	1	0	0	1	0	3	1	0.924873	0.730909	0.730909
1	1	1	1	0	1	3	1	0.923213	0.752137	0.752137
1	1	0	1	1	1	4	1	0.917391	0.744624	0.744624
0	0	1	1	1	1	2	1	0.91251	0.680672	0.680672
1	1	0	1	0	1	3	1	0.908443	0.68085	0.680851
0	1	1	0	0	1	4	1	0.905466	0.645783	0.647343
0	1	1	1	1	1	7	0	0.896166	0.696734	0.712241
1	0	0	0	0	0	5	0	0.891869	0.674242	0.674242
0	1	1	0	0	0	2	0	0.891837	0.580475	0.580475
1	0	0	1	0	1	3	0	0.886973	0.658959	0.697247
0	1	0	1	1	1	3	0	0.876502	0.578588	0.578588
0	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0.828042	0.456067	0.456067
0	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	0.812723	0.459793	0.459793
0	0	0	0	0	0	9	0	0.692898	0.328436	0.345475

Table 7. Overview of the configurations leading to (perceived) high network performance.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
DEVSTAGE	○	●	●	●	○		●
CONN	●	●	●	○	○	●	●
TRUST	●	○		●	●	●	●
BRIDG	○		●	○	●	○
NTW		●		○	●	●	●
STAB	●	○	●	○	●	●	●
Raw coverage	0.299578	0.193901	0.278481	0.198312	0.228040	0.308017	0.267549
Unique coverage	0.034523	0.023590	0.020138	0.040468	0.025892	0.004603	0.006713
Consistency	0.892062	0.917423	0.884288	0.933213	0.912510	0.945819	0.930620
Solution coverage: 0.539893 Solution consistency: 0.849427

Black circles represent the presence of a causal condition. and white circles represent the negation of a causal condition; blank cells represent irrelevant conditions.

Note: in the case of DEVSTAGE a negation of the condition implies a ‘young’ network (i.e. a network in its early stage of development).

Table 8. Managerial approaches to (perceived) high network performance.

	STABILIZE	STABILIZE & CONNECT	STABILIZE & DEVELOP
	1	3	6	7
DEVSTAGE	○	●		●
CONN	●	●	●	●
TRUST	●		●	●
BRIDG	○	●	○
NTW			●	●
STAB	●	●	●	●

Bartelings, J. A., J. Goedee, J. Raab, and R. Bijl. 2017. “The Nature of Orchestrational Work.” Public Management Review 19 (3): 342–360. doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1209233.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Provan, K. G., and H. B. Milward. 1995. “A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1): 1–33. doi:10.2307/2393698.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Provan, K. G., and P. Kenis. 2008. “Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management and Effectiveness.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (2): 229–252. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klijn, E. H., B. Steijn, and J. Edelenbos. 2010b. “Trust in Governance Networks: Its Impacts on Outcomes.” Administration and Society 42 (2): 193–221. doi:10.1177/0095399710362716.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kenis, P., and K. Provan. 2009. “Towards an Exogenous Theory of Public Network Performance’.” Public Administration 87 (3): 440–456. doi:10.1111/padm.2009.87.issue-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Provan, K. G., and H. B. Milward. 2001. “Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks.” Public Administration Review 61 (4): 414–423. doi:10.1111/puar.2001.61.issue-4.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar