The influence of network orchestration and organizational formalization on goal orientation in public service delivery networks: an experimental study

Figures & data

Table 1. Operationalization and measures.

Constructs and items
Network goal orientation
NG1) ‘There was a clear goal of the cross-sectoral collaboration’
NG2) ‘I reasoned from what would be best for society’
NG3) ‘I pursued goals that add the most value to society (in this case: improvement of the situation of the family as a whole)’
NG4) ‘For my organization, realizing a collective action plan was central’
NG5) ‘Integral collaboration with partner organizations was of importance for my organization’
Organizational goal orientation
OG1) ‘The goals of my organization were clearly formulated’
OG2) ‘I reasoned from what would be best to my own organization’
OG3) ‘I pursued the goals that are most important to my own organization’
OG4) ‘I was willing to deviate from the goals of my own organization’ (negatively formulated)*
Network orchestration
Operational work: OW1) ‘The orchestrator assists employees of my partner organizations with fulfilling their tasks if they were part of the common goal’
OW2) ‘The orchestrator assists partner organizations by performing supportive tasks’
Bridging: B1) ‘The orchestrator brings partners together to collaborate’
B2) ‘The orchestrator takes care of information sharing in the network’
B3) ‘The orchestrator monitors the collaboration between partners’
B4) ‘The orchestrator creates common ground between partners’
B5) ‘The orchestrator facilitates the collaboration’
B6) ‘The orchestrator consults with involved partners’
Stabilizing: S1) ‘The orchestrator makes sure that every partner feels involved in the collaboration’
S2) ‘The orchestrator mediates between conflicting partners’
S3) ‘The orchestrator stimulates the exchange of information and resources between partners’
Organizational formalization
OF1) ‘Within the organization I work for, for every situation there are procedures to follow to deal with that situation’
OF2) ‘In the organization I work for, work is done following prescriptions’
OF3) ‘In the organization I work for, rules occupy a central place’
OF4) ‘In the organization I work for, compliance to rules is strictly monitored’
OF5) ‘In the organization I work for, strict procedures are followed’

*Factor analysis revealed one factor after dropping the item ‘I was willing to deviate from the goals of my organization’.

Table 2. Two-way-between groups ANOVA on different dependent variables.

	Sum of Squares	DF	Mean Square	F	P	partial η2
Network goal orientation
Intercept	2511.215	1	2511.215	3440.743	0.000	0.001
Network orchestration (M)	5.745	2	2.872	3.936	0.022	0.067
Organizational formalization (M)	9.985	2	4.992	6.840	0.002	0.111
Interaction	7.381	3	2.460	3.371	0.021	0.084
Error	80.283	110	0.730
Organizational goal orientation
Intercept	1596.327	1	1596.327	1210.054	0.000	0.917
Network orchestration (M)	1.107	2	0.553	0.420	0.658	0.008
Organizational formalization (M)	10.190	2	5.095	3.862	0.024	0.066
Interaction	7.610	3	2.537	1.923	0.130	0.050
Error	145.114	110	1.319

Note: (M) involves manipulated variables.

Table 3. Seemingly unrelated regression.

	Network goal orientation						Organizational goal orientation
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Intercept	5.898**	(0.295)	4.300**	(0.644)	4.665**	(1.197)	4.556***	(0.395)	5.007***	(0.977)	6.055**	(1.813)
Age	−0.013	(0.012)	−0.010	(0.010)	−0.010	(0.010)	−0.008	(0.016)	−0.007	(0.016)	−0.008	(0.016)
Participant (Dummy)	−0.576*	(0.256)	−0.298	(0.221)	−0.284	(0.225)	0.481	(0.343)	0.311	(0.336)	0.351	(0.340)
Gender (Dummy)	0.066	(0.160)	−0.008	(0.136)	−0.006	(0.136)	0.044	(0.214)	0.103	(0.206)	0.108	(0.206)
Network orchestration (P)			0.473**	(0.088)	0.399†	(0.224)			−0.263*	(0.133)	−0.477	(0.339)
Organizational formalization (P)			−0.205**	(0.050)	−0.291	(0.242)			0.190*	(0.076)	−0.056	(0.366)
Interaction					0.017	(0.048)					0.050	(0.073)
F-statistics	7.350**		15.400**		12.870**		0.890		2.630*		2.280*
R^2	0.157		0.395		0.396		0.022		0.100		0.104
Correlation dependent variables							−0.277**		−0.162†		−0.165†

† p < 0.10 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01.

Note: (P) involves perceived variables.

Note: Estimated standard errors are in parentheses.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, D. Cremers, upon reasonable request.