Collective Leadership in the Public Sector: A Descriptive Study of Structure, Roles, and Functions in Twelve North Carolina Collaboratives by Stephanie Duea Smith A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public Administration and Public Policy Auburn, Alabama August 9, 2010 Collective Leadership, Interorganizational Collaboratives, Community Collaboratives, Public Network Management Copyright 2010 by Stephanie Duea Smith Approved by Dr. Linda Dennard, Chair, Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Administration Dr. Thomas J. Barth, Professor of Public and International Affairs Dr. Rene P. McEldowney, Associate Professor of Political Science Dr. Hua Xu, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Administration Dr. James Johnson, Adjunct Instructor of Political Science ii Abstract This descriptive study examined collective leadership in twelve North Carolina interorganizational collaboratives. Inquiry into the twelve participant entities focused on organizational structure, leadership roles, and leadership functions. The collaborative domain continues to gain popularity as a venue to address complex social problems. A challenge this trend represents for public leaders is the need to better understand the nature of these collaborative entities in order to effectively participate in the collective leadership activity and manage the effort so that ultimately the collaborative succeeds. Twelve distinct collaboratives were identified and then determined to be appropriate case studies for in-depth examination. Quantitative and qualitative aspects were implemented as independent components during data collection and analysis. Findings from this study include: interorganizational collaboratives need structure; they also need an organizational driver who manages the collaborative and the interaction among members absent traditional control mechanisms associated with hierarchical relationships; collaborative leadership teams tend towards transformational leadership style in the conduct of their role; and a need to include problem solving as part of the leadership activities that are accomplished in these environments. iii Acknowledgments This journey has been an adventure. More importantly, it has been yet another rich opportunity to appreciate family, friends and colleagues. I have special thanks for Dr. Linda Dennard and Dr. Tom Barth, both of whom knew little about me when they said ?yes? and agreed to see me through this journey; to Drs. McEldowney, Xu, and Johnson who also said ?yes?; and to Dr. Anne Permaloff and Dr. Carl Grafton who played a key part in my commitment to finish. To my friends and colleagues at UNCW who encouraged, guided, and supported me through this process and who were responsive in times of need ? Dr. Laurie Paarlberg, Dr. Janie Canty-Mitchell, Dr. Kae Livsey, Dr. Barbara Jo Foley, Ms. Emily Beamon, and so many others ? thank you. And to my family and friends, I thank you and will always remember that your love and caring for me and my family during this journey was critical to me reaching this destination. Now on to the next adventure ? iv Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. viii Chapter 1 ? Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 ? Literature Review .................................................................................................... 10 Traditional Bureaucratic Structures .............................................................................. 11 Interorganizational Collaborative Networks ................................................................. 15 Public Network Management ........................................................................................ 21 Interorganizational Leadership ...................................................................................... 31 Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 42 Chapter 3 ? Methodology ........................................................................................................... 46 Sampling ....................................................................................................................... 46 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 49 Procedures ...................................................................................................................... 53 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 54 Safeguarding Human Subjects ....................................................................................... 58 v Chapter 4 ? Results ..................................................................................................................... 59 Focus and Age ................................................................................................................ 59 Interorganizational Structure ........................................................................................ 60 Leadership Roles ........................................................................................................... 66 Leadership Functions ..................................................................................................... 73 Chapter 5 ? Discussion ............................................................................................................... 84 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 84 Structure ......................................................................................................................... 84 Roles .............................................................................................................................. 90 Functions ........................................................................................................................ 94 Chapter 6 ? Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 97 References ............................................................................................................................... 101 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 104 Appendix 1, Survey One ? Leading Interorganizational Collaborative Networks .................. 110 Appendix 2, Survey Two ? TMLQ ? Permission Letter .......................................................... 118 Appendix 3, TMLQ Validating Study Abstract ....................................................................... 120 Appendix 4, Interview Questions ............................................................................................ 122 Appendix 5, Definitions ............................................................................................................ 123 Appendix 6, Code List and Definitions .................................................................................... 124 vi List of Tables Table 1, Organizational Functions in Classical and Behavioral Approaches .............................. 4 Table 2, Leadership Theory and Research through the Years ..................................................... 6 Table 3, Nature of Bureaucratic Entities .................................................................................... 12 Table 4, Bureaucratic and Interorganizational Collaborative Organizations ............................. 19 Table 5, Network Management Sequences ................................................................................ 27 Table 6, Interorganizational Network Leadership Activities ..................................................... 35 Table 7, Typology of Effective Governance and Management Characteristics ........................ 39 Table 8, Participant Collaborative Entities and Issue Domain .................................................. 47 Table 9, TMLQ Sample Questions ........................................................................................... 52 Table 10, Initial List of Codes for Open-ended Interview Questions ........................................ 56 Table 11, Final List of Codes for Open-ended Interview Questions ......................................... 57 Table 12, Issue Domain, Year Formed, and Age ....................................................................... 60 Table 13, Basis of Authority ...................................................................................................... 63 Table 14, Leadership Model ...................................................................................................... 66 Table 15, Leadership Responsibility .......................................................................................... 67 Table 16, Collaborative driver and Role Title ........................................................................... 69 Table 17, TMLQ ? Score Leadership Style, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction ............................ 71 Table 18, TMLQ ? Correlations ................................................................................................ 72 Table 19, Leadership Continuation Plan .................................................................................... 78 Table 20, Leadership Selection .................................................................................................. 79 vii List of Figures Figure 1, Traditional Organizational Chart ................................................................................ 14 Figure 2, Interorganizational Domain ........................................................................................ 16 Figure 3, Membership ................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 4, Prevalence of Written Strategic Tools ........................................................................ 64 Figure 5, Prevalence of Organizational Groupings .................................................................... 65 Figure 6, Leadership Activities associated with Collaborative Structure .................................. 76 Figure 7, Leadership Activities associated with Managing the Collaborative .......................... 77 Figure 8, Leadership Activities associated with Interaction among Participants ...................... 80 Figure 9, Leadership Activities associated with Collaborative Power ...................................... 81 Figure 10, Role Assignment to Leader Actions ......................................................................... 82 viii List of Abbreviations NAO Network Administrative Organization POSDCoRB Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting TMLQ Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire UNCW University of North Carolina Wilmington 1 INTRODUCTION Interorganizational collaborative networks are presumed to be a more effective organizational response to complex social problems whose solutions exceed the capacity of any single organization to provide. And while governments, communities, and private funders employ collaborative networks to solve complex problems, there is little evidence that this organizational response is effective. Success or failure of traditional organizations is often credited to leadership. Much has been written on leadership and the preponderance of research and theory has focused on ?a formal leader who either influences or transforms members of a group or organization ? the followers ? in order to achieve specified goals? (Connelly, 2007). But interorganizational collaborative networks are fundamentally different than traditional organizations and existent leadership theory does an inadequate job of informing practice in the interorganizational collaborative network environment. The purpose of this research study was to address this inadequacy and explore the question, ?how are interorganizational collaborative networks led?? More than 50% of networks fail due to poor management and yet network management and leadership is understudied (Saz-Carranza et al, 2007). In Connelly?s (2007) examination of the literature on interorganizational collaborative leadership, he concluded that more research ?explicitly examining leadership in the collaborative domain? is needed. And from a public network management perspective, Robert Agranoff (2007) studied fourteen ?public management networks? in depth and notes that ?more and more public organizations are choosing the network form for collaboration? ? and ?as a result, considerably more needs to be known about their management ? what they do and how it is done.? 2 Agranoff?s call for additional study is relevant in that historical approaches to the study of public administration have in part focused on the manager?s role within the ?walls? of an organization. Less is known of the leadership structure outside traditional organizational walls and within the interorganizational collaborative domain. Since this research study was conducted based on the public administration perspective, it is appropriate to review key aspects of its history. The following summary of public administration research and theory highlights the historical focus on leadership and management within traditional public organizations. Since public leadership literature has drawn heavily on traditional theories of leadership it is appropriate to also include a summary of leadership theory. Historical Approaches to Public Administration. There have been three broad approaches to the study of public administration ? classical, behavioral, and administration-as-politics (Fry, 1989, p.2). The classical approach is characterized, in general, as holding a mechanical view of the relationship between man and the organization and a prominent value of efficiency in public sector operations (Fry, 1989, p. 3-4). Some of the theorists from this period include Woodrow Wilson, Frederick Taylor, Luther Gulick, and Max Weber ? all of whose writings and research contributed to the original definition of public administration. Woodrow Wilson believed that politics and administration should be separate and challenged his contemporaries to search for a science of administration. Regarding management, he believed that public sector management was much like management in other venues and as such asserted that business techniques were applicable in public organizations (Fry, 1989, p.2). Scientific Management and the Departmentalists were two defining movements in the quest for a science of administration. 3 Frederick Taylor, the father of Scientific Management, focused on the performance of routine and repetitive physical tasks that were accomplished in the organization. He used time- in-motion studies to determine the ?one best way? of performing any task (Fry, 1989, p. 55-56). Where Frederick Taylor focused on efficiency in the performance of tasks, Luther Gulick, from the Departmentalist movement, focused on formal organizational structure. Gulick used the organizational chart to identify the tasks necessary to accomplish an organizational objective and the grouping and coordination of those tasks in a way that would maximize organizational efficiency (Fry, 1989, p. 83-87). The lexicon of the Departmentalist movement included terms such as chain-of-command, span of control, and line and staff positions (Fry, 1989, p.3). Max Weber?s work is related (but not limited) to the classical approach (Fry, 1989, p.4). His work regarding the formulation of the ideal-type bureaucracy is consistent with organizational efficiency value that characterizes the classical approach. The Behavioral Approach is the second approach to the study of public administration and is characterized, in general, by the focus on organizational structure and management ? versus effort towards defining the field of public administration as seen in the Classical Approach (Fry, 1989, p. 5). The component perspectives of the Behavioral Approach include the Human Relations Movement, Organizational Humanism, Decision-Making, and Contingency theory. The contrast between Classical and Behavioral Approaches regarding key organizational functions is illustrated in Table 1. 4 Table 1 Organizational Functions in Classical and Behavioral Approaches Classical Behavioral Decision making Executive Participatory Supervision Production-oriented Employee-oriented Job Scope Specialization Enlargement Employee Autonomy Restricted Span of Control Wide Span of Control Employee Control Centralization Decentralization Much of the research during this era focused on human needs and how to effectively motivate man in the organization. Major observations of the relationship between man and the organization include forces affecting behavior are internal and external to the organization, social and psychological rewards beyond money are necessary to motivate man, and organizational man may be more malleable but not necessarily compliant (Fry, 1989, p. 6). Signature theorists of the Behavioral Approach include, Elton Mayo?s Hawthorne Plant Studies (Fry, 1989, p. 7), Mary Parker Follett?s determination that authority is pluralistic and cumulative, arising from below (Fry, 1989, p. 7), and Chester Barnard?s perspective that authority lies in the consent of the governed (Fry, 1989, p. 8). The third approach to the study of public administration has been called the Administration-as-Politics Approach. During this period, the politics-administration dichotomy of the Classical Approach is rejected and the focus turns to the administrator?s involvement in policy and political processes (Fry, 1989, p. 11). Theorists of the Administration-as-Politics 5 Approach, in general, believe that it is impossible and undesirable to separate politics from administration (Fry, 1989, p. 11). The public administrator is viewed in a policy advocacy role, having to function in a pluralistic political environment (Fry, 1989, p. 11). Further, it is the political milieu in which the public administrator is required to operate that differentiates public and private administration (Fry, 1989, p. 11). However, these three broad approaches to the study of public administration have focused more on the nature of public organizations, the role of organizational man, and the role of the administrator than on public leadership. Matthew Fairholm (2004) noted that ?in the face of technicism, strict policy implementation, and a fear of administrative discretion, it has often been a significant struggle to discuss the philosophy of leadership in public administration.? Leadership Theory. As noted previously, much public leadership literature has drawn heavily on traditional leadership theories that apply to any sector. While there are different ways to organize leadership theory and research, Montgomery Van Wart (2003) captured the essence of leadership theory and research through the years by highlighting its focus, time frame, characteristics, and influences as seen in Table 2. Much like the approaches to public administration, leadership theory has bounded the leader to inside organizational walls even though the walls may span globally. 6 Table 2 Leadership Theory and Research through the Years (Van Wart, 2003, p. 18) Era Time Frame Characteristics Era Influences Great Man Pre ? 1900 Emphasis on emergence of a great figure Notions of rational social change by who has substantial effect on society uniquely talented and insightful individuals Trait 1900 ? 1948 Emphasis on the individual traits and skills Scientific methodologies in general and scientific management in particular Contingency 1948 ? 1980s Emphasis on the situation variables leaders Rise of human relations theory, must deal with, especially performance and behavioral science (e.g. motivation follower variables. Shift from traits and skills theory), and use of small group to behaviors experimental designs in psychology Transformational 1978 ? present Emphasis on leaders who create change in Loss of American dominance in deep structure, major processes, or overall business, finance, and science and culture. Leader mechanisms may be the need to re-energize various compelling vision, brilliant technical industries which had slipped in insight, and/or charismatic quality complacency 7 Table 2 (cont?d) Leadership Theory and Research through the Years (Van Wart, 2003, p. 18) Era Time Frame Characteristics Era Influences Servant 1977 ? present Emphasis on the ethical responsibilities to Social sensitivities raised in the followers, stakeholders, and society. 1960s and 1970s Business theories tend to emphasize service to followers; political theorists emphasize citizens; public administration analysts tend to emphasize legal compliance and/or citizens Multifaceted 1990s ? present Emphasis on integrating the major schools, Highly competitive global especially the transactional schools (trait and economy and the need to provide behavior issues largely representing a more sophisticated and holistic management interests) and transformational approach to leadership schools (visionary, entrepreneurial, and charismatic) 8 However, a distinct focus on leadership of collaboratives is missing. There is a need to focus continued research effort on leadership in public administration and specifically as it occurs in interorganizational collaborative network environments. From the public administration and leadership research, we understand the nature of public organizations ? the bureaucracy, the organization of people, communication, information, and processes along hierarchical lines, the political milieu of public leadership ? and we understand better the knowledge, skills, and abilities of successful leaders. But interorganizational collaborative networks differ in nature and in leadership structure. Interorganizational Collaborative Networks. Interorganizational collaborative networks are complex organizational entities generally characterized as having multi-sectoral member organizations, communication and information flows along relational versus hierarchical lines and shared power structure where formal leader-follower relationships are non-existent. Given the complex nature of these networks, it is no surprise that many of these entities either fail or have short life-cycles and thus fall short of achieving substantive outcomes. Leading in an interorganizational collaborative environment is complex, and unlike traditional organizations, there is no formal organizational structure that readily identifies the leader or permits any one person to accomplish leadership actions in the way that is accepted in traditional organizations. While the literature on interorganizational leadership and public network management is expanding, there remain questions in regard to how interorganizational collaborative entities are led. The desire to better understand how these entities are led was the major impetus behind this research study. 9 This descriptive, multi-case study examined collective leadership in twelve North Carolina interorganizational collaborative entities. Each of the twelve collaboratives was composed of member organizations representing a variety of sectors; each had a name that represented the collective effort; and each collaborative was focused on an issue domain whereby working together rather than separately was determined to be the path towards achieving the purpose and providing benefit to the local community. A focused literature review on interorganizational collaborative networks, public network management, and interorganizational leadership provided the foundation for and directed the purpose of this research study. Using quantitative and qualitative data collection tools and analysis processes, a better understanding of how these twelve collaboratives are led was achieved. The schematic below provides a visual map of how the investigator moved from the broad question of ?how are collaborative networks led?? to more specific research questions and ultimately to the research findings. E X PL O R A T I O N L I T E R A T U R E S T R E A M S R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I O N S PA R T I C I PA N T C O L L A B O R A T I V E S F I N D I N G S H e a l t h P o l i c y Y o u t h V i o l e n c e S TR U C TU R E : W h a t e l e m e n t s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e a r e C o m m u n i t y H e a l t h - a S TR U C TU R E p r e v a l e n t ? C o m m u n i t y H e a l t h - b I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o l l a b o r a t i v e N e t w o r k s R O L E S : H o w a r e t h e s e e n t i t i e s C o m m u n i t y H e a l t h - c l e d ? I s t h e r e a n " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l L e a d i n g P u b l i c S e c t o r P u b l i c N e t w o r k d r i v e r " ? I s l e a d e r s h i p a c o l l e c t i v e R e g i o n a l S e w e r C o l l a b o r a t i v e N e t w o r k s M a n a g e m e n t p h e n o m e n o n ? W h a t a t t r i b u t e s R O L E S o r b e h a v i o r s c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e H o m e l e s s n e s s I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o l l e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p r o l e ? L e a d e r s h i p N o n p r o f i t C a p a c i t y B u i l d i n g F U N C TI O N S : W h a t l e a d e r s h i p A r t s f u n c t i o n s a r e p r e v a l e n t i n t h e s e F U N C TI O N S e n t i t i e s ? E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t S c h o o l H e a l t h R e g i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t 10 LITERATURE REVIEW The review of literature that follows constitutes the foundation and rationale for examining how interorganizational collaborative networks are led. The relevance of this topic is supported by current research by scholars who recognize the need to better understand how interorganizational collaborative networks are led in order to influence leadership development and ultimately performance of these entities (Agranoff, 2007; Connelly, 2007; Imperial & Koontz, 2007; Saz-Carranza & Vernis, 2007). Interorganizational collaborative networks can exist in many policy arenas such as social service, health, and the environment and include examples such as community-based public health collaboratives, watershed management programs, and children, youth, and family collaboratives. This research study focused on leadership, and specifically collective leadership, in a variety of interorganizational collaborative networks. The study is grounded in a public administration perspective and therefore the search and subsequent review of the literature was focused in the areas of public network management and interorganizational leadership. Network environments lack a formal organizational structure that readily identifies the role of the leader or permits any one person to accomplish leadership actions in the same way that is seen in traditional organizations. It stands to reason then that leadership structure will differ between traditional and network organizations given the fundamental differences in the nature of these two organizational entities. This review of the literature begins with a comparison of the general features of bureaucratic organizations and those of network organizations. A discussion of leadership functions in both organizational entities follows. 11 TRADITIONAL BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURES Historically, the role of public administration has been bound by the traditional bureaucratic form of organization. Charles Davis (1996) organized the main features of bureaucratic organizations along six dimensional themes: (1) nature of organization and composition; (2) authority structure of organization; (3) internal decision-making in organizations; (4) conflict resolution; (5) human development; and (6) leadership and competence. Davis?s capture of the essence of bureaucratic organization is illustrated in Table 3. 12 Table 3 Nature of Bureaucratic Entities (Davis, 1996, pgs. 119-123) Dimension Description Organization and Composition Organization is understood as a reified instrument of mechanical parts. The composition is conceived essentially as functionaries or dependents of managerial leadership/control. Authority Structure of Organization The authority structure of bureaucracy is hierarchical. Interaction between persons is based in position status and characterized by obedience and passivity to managerially imposed objectives. Internal Decision-Making Decision making rests with management and/or technical expertise. Conflict Resolution Conflict resolution is resolved by managerial control over the work force by appeal to status position, rules, coercion, demotion, dismissal, failure to acknowledge a difference exists, etc. Human Development Development, to the extent accepted, is generally restricted to personal cognitive and emotional growth and interpersonal skills applicable directly to the organization?s needs as defined by management. Leadership and Competence Management is leadership. Competence is in the function-role position or in expertise or specialization. Bureaucratic organization is a common environment of public leadership. However, approaches to the study of public administration have focused more on the nature of public organization, the role of organizational man, and the role of the administrator than on public 13 leadership. And as noted previously, much public leadership literature has drawn on traditional leadership theories in a bureaucratic setting that apply to any sector. Peter Northouse, in his book Leadership: Theory and Practice (2001), is representative of the literature that presents and analyzes leadership theory and provides discussion of how it applies to real-world scenarios. Some of the major approaches to leadership included in the book are trait, style, and situational approaches, contingency and path-goal theory, and transformational and team leadership. Northouse identifies several components as central to the phenomenon of leadership ? leadership is a process, it involves influence, it occurs within a group context, and it involves goal attainment (pg. 3). These components are evident in his operational definition of leadership used in the book ? ?leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common good? (pg. 3). On the surface it might appear that Northouse?s definition of leadership could be generalized to leadership of interorganizational collaborative networks. However, the challenge in doing so lies in his use of the organizationally-based leader-follower relationship as the foundation that underpins his discussions of the various approaches and theories of leadership. While there is a relational component in interorganizational collaborative networks, it occurs within a shared or collective leadership phenomenon versus a leader-follower construct. Northouse?s perspective of leadership theory illustrates its applicability to public administration. While public leaders may demonstrate characteristics of the various approaches and theories of leadership in their influence of organizational members towards achieving organizational goals, ultimately, they lead organizations based in hierarchical (i.e. leader- follower) relationships. Leadership in this environment is in part embodied in a single administrator who possesses ultimate responsibility and authority for the organization, its people 14 and processes, and is held accountable for organizational behavior be it success, failure, noncompliance, etc. The leadership structure of these bureaucratic organizations is visually depicted in an organizational chart. The organizational chart reflects a hierarchical framework (see Figure 1) for superior-subordinate relationships, communication patterns, as well as key nodes in organizational decision making processes. Figure 1 Traditional Organizational Chart It is within this structure that the public leader accomplishes functions of planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting (POSDCoRB) with subordinate members in order to move the organization towards mission accomplishment. 15 Dwight Waldo?s definition of the bureaucratic organization is consistent with Davis?s definition albeit not as cleanly dissected into thematic pieces. Waldo defines bureaucracy as ?large-scale, formal, complex, task-specialized, and goal-oriented organizations with emphasis on the rule of hierarchy and reliance on discipline and supervision? (Fry, 1989, pg 236). But Waldo foresaw a changing society and anticipated the need for public administration to move beyond the walls of bureaucracy. Waldo predicts that ?organizations of the future would be less bureaucratic; increasingly of a mixed public-private nature; and more ?chains, complexes, or systems of organizations? than unitary organizations? (Fry, 1989, pg 242). In contrast to the visual cues of hierarchical leadership structure and processes displayed by a traditional organizational chart, interorganizational collaborative networks are often described as being nonhierarchical. INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS The emergence of interorganizational collaborative networks is consistent with Waldo?s prediction. These collaborative networks are composed of member organizations whose representatives interact in an interorganizational domain while remaining grounded in their primary organization (Saz-Carranza & Vernis, 2007) (see Figure 2). 16 Figure 2 Interorganizational Domain But can there be structure without hierarchy? Robert Agranoff (2006, 2007) uses a grounded theory approach to study the operations of fourteen public management networks and noted that networks require some form of organization. Agranoff (2007) finds that the networks studied ?are not randomly organized or ad hoc bodies but are self-organizing entities that are normally enabled or chartered, have distinct nonhierarchical authority structures, employ regularized cross-agency communications systems, and have distinct internal power structures along with a set of internal arrangements? (p.83). Further, Agranoff notes that these fourteen networks ?operated with some form of council or board? and that ?the real work in all of the networks studied was done in either standing committees or focused workgroups? (Agranoff, 2006, pg. 58). Expanding on this observation, it would appear that interorganizational In t e r o r g an i z a ti o n al N e tw o rk Do main O r g an i z a ti o n al D o main O r g an i z a ti o n al R e p r e s e n t a ti v e O r g an i z a ti o n al R e p r e s e n t a ti v e O r g an i z a ti o n al R e p r e s e n t a ti v e 17 collaborative networks have structure and that the network structure reflects the entity?s collaborative versus hierarchical nature. The nature of network entities is often described as self-organizing, involving shared power, consensus and mutual adjustment based decision-making, relational, and voluntary participation by member organizations. As such, the literature indicates that leadership of collaborative networks should be fundamentally different. Using Davis?s traditional bureaucratic structure dimensions as an organizing construct, the nature of interorganizational collaborative networks is described below: Nature of Organization and Composition: Organization is composed of legally autonomous organizations from public, governmental, private, and community sectors. Member organization participation is voluntary in nature and ?based on a commitment to a broad mission which cannot be achieved without joint and strategically interdependent action by all parties? (Mandel, 1999). Authority Structure of Organization: The authority structure is shared and expertise based (Agranoff 2004, 2006). Additionally, a cohesion factor developed through trust and program rationale is essential to network authority (Mandel, 1999; Agranoff, 2001). Internal Decision-Making in Organization: Decision making is consensus focused and group based (Agranoff, 2001; Saz-Carranza & Vernis, 2007) and entails working across organizational boundaries (Connelly, 2007). Conflict Resolution: Conflict resolution is attempted through negotiation, mediation, and facilitation of communication (Mitchell et al, 2000). 18 Human Development: Development is based in joint learning ? organizations and individuals learn how to collaborate by collaborating (Imperial, 2005). Leadership development is purposeful (Alexander et al, 2001). Leadership and Competence: Leadership is less a personal phenomenon and more a collective phenomenon focused on activities and actions in a shared power environment (Connelly, 2007; Saz-Carranza & Vernis, 2007). As the two organizational entities ? traditional bureaucratic and interorganizational collaborative network ? are compared, it appears that the leadership role would fundamentally differ in the two organizational environments, given the absence of hierarchical control mechanisms that compel compliance in bureaucratic organizations. Table 4 below highlights the differences between the two entities. 19 Table 4 Bureaucratic and Interorganizational Collaborative Organization Dimension Bureaucratic Organization Interorganizational Collaborative Organization and Composition ?Organization is understood as a reified Organization is composed of legally instrument of mechanical parts. The autonomous organizations from public, composition is conceived as governmental, private, and community functionaries or dependents of managerial sectors. Member organization participation leadership/control? (Davis, 1996). is voluntary in nature and ?based on a commitment to a broad mission which cannot be achieved without joint and strategically interdependent action by all parties? (Mandel, 1999) Authority Structure ?Hierarchical. Interaction between persons Shared and expertise based (Agranoff, 2004, is based in position status and 2006). Additionally, a cohesion factor characterized by obedience and passivity developed through trust and program to managerially imposed objectives? rationale is essential to network authority (Davis, 1996) (Mandel, 1999; Agranoff, 2001). Internal Decision Making ?Rests with management and/or technical Consensus focused and group based expertise? (Davis, 1996). (Agranoff, 2001; Saz-Carranza & Vernis, 2007) and entails working across organizational boundaries (Connelly, 2007). 20 Table 4 (cont?d) Bureaucratic and Interorganizational Collaborative Organization Dimension Bureaucratic Organization Interorganizational Collaborative Conflict Resolution ?Resolved by managerial control over the Attempted through negotiation, mediation, work force by appeal to status position, and facilitation of communication (Mitchell rules, coercion, demotion, dismissal, et al, 2000). failure to acknowledge a difference exists, etc.? (Davis, 1996) Human Development ?Generally restricted to personal cognitive Based in joint learning ? organizations and and emotional growth and interpersonal individuals learn how to collaborate by skills applicable directly to the organization?s collaborating (Imperial, 2005). Leadership needs as defined by management?. development is purposeful (Alexander et al, (Davis, 1996) 2001). Leadership and Competence ?Management is leadership. Competence is Leadership is less a personal phenomenon in the function-role position or in expertise and more a collective phenomenon focused or specialization? (Davis, 1996). on activities and actions in a shared power environment (Connelly, 2007; Saz-Carranza & Vernis, 2007). 21 Understanding the nature and organization of traditional bureaucracies and interorganizational collaborative networks permits a closer examination of what is known about the leadership structure in these entities. The public network management and interorganizational leadership literature streams guide the exploration into what the literature says about how interorganizational collaborative networks are led. Waldo?s prediction that public administrators would need to adapt to changes in the nature of bureaucratic organization continued to be echoed in the 1990s with calls for administrators to better understand the interconnectivity of issues, problems, policies, and programs and to develop transorganizational management practices that would more appropriately match challenges of an interconnected world. However, as Robert Agranoff (1991) notes, ?the problem is that public administration traditions have been rooted in the operation of single organizational structures? (pg. 540). The following review of public network management is concentrated on the work of Robert Agranoff and the joint research of Agranoff and Michael McGuire. While their research references support from scholars such as Laurence O?Toole and Kenneth Meier (?Managerial Strategies and Behavior in Networks?, 2001), Keith Provan and Brinton Milward on evaluation of network structure and effectiveness, Joop Koppenjan and Erik-Hans Klijn (Managing Uncertainties in Networks, 2004), and many others, Agranoff and McGuire are the scholars who emphasize public network management as a literature stream. PUBLIC NETWORK MANAGEMENT Robert Agranoff (1991), in his article ?Human Services Integration: Past and Present Challenges in Public Administration?, examines the human services integration movement and 22 the interorganizational challenges these integration efforts present for public administration. In his review of the literature, Agranoff traces the evolution of services integration efforts and highlights the complexity surrounding services integration for clients with multiple needs. Regarding the social and health problems of the homeless, hungry, and those with AIDS, he stated that ?study after study indicated that these primary problems were bound up in webs of related problems: large numbers of mentally ill lacking care and basic living, families without shelter and income, long-term unemployed without food, and persons with AIDS who suffer a host of discriminatory actions. For example, in AIDS responses, the need to overcome a patchwork system of public, nonprofit, for profit, and volunteer groups by networking is necessary to orchestrate out-of-hospital services? (pg. 538). Agranoff noted that responding to webs of related problems ?requires the ability to network and develop systems of response? (pg. 538). Agranoff (1991) concludes the article by identifying major interorganizational challenges to public administration. These challenges include: ?designing more coherent public policies; strategic planning and policy development that focuses on target needs or populations; operational planning, programming, and budgeting on a functional or target problem basis; creation of systems that can meet multiple needs of clients; operation and maintenance of interorganizational systems, sometimes through new ?supra? organizations and sometimes as lateral overlays on existing organizations; and encouraging the development of broader perspectives by those who must deliver specialized services to clients? (pg. 540). To these formidable challenges, Agranoff posits that ?a form of transorganizational management is required that places emphasis on the development and operations of systems? (pg. 540). 23 In their article, ?Managing in Network Settings?, Agranoff and McGuire (1999) suggest that managing in networks ?requires different capacities, skills, and knowledge from that of single organization management? (pg. 19) and that it is ?more than interorganizational coordination? (pg. 30). These authors conducted a multi-phase networking study of city government involvement in economic development policy networks in two hundred and thirty seven Midwestern cities exploring among other things, the nature of management within networks. To begin, they offer the following distinction between classical management approach and network management: ?The classical management approach, which has informed both public and business administration for more than a century, is mostly intraorganizational and based primarily in the activities of planning (establishing organizational goals), organizing (structuring and designing the organization), and leading (achieving the goals). This approach is based on coordination through hierarchies, strict chains of command, and management that takes place within the confines of separate(d) organizational entities (Mandell, 1988). In contrast, network settings are not based in a central authority and cannot be guided by a single organizational goal. The primary activities of the network manager involve selecting the appropriate actors and resources, shaping the operating context of the network, and developing ways to cope with strategic and operational complexity (Kickert, et al., 1997: 12). While networks coordinate and facilitate, rarely is real authority granted to a manager across the network of organizations as a whole. Nor is such a move possible or feasible. Each organization representative brings and keeps his/her authority, managing together? (Agranoff & McGuire, 1999, pg. 21). Agranoff and McGuire (1999) describe the interorganizational domain of the public manager as networks involving ?officials from within the same government but representing another agency, representatives of profit making or non-profit organizations located within the jurisdiction, and representatives from organizations in all sectors located outside of the jurisdiction? (pg. 23). From a public manager perspective, Agranoff and McGuire (1999) identify several network structure and composition components that need to be managed. First, potential partners for network involvement are numerous given that public managers and representatives of other 24 organizations may be involved in multiple network activities at any point in time. As a result, ?the existence of multiple networks based in multiple purposes suggests that managers need to have a sense of which partners are most compatible with the purpose of the network? (pg. 24). A second component to be managed is the network?s capacity for flexibility and adaptation to emerging opportunities or problems. The challenge in network management ?involves managing flexible structures toward collective efficiency and outcomes? (pg. 24, 25). A third component has to do with the public manager?s primary organization and the support the manager receives to be externally engaged. The ability to manage externally and to be involved in support-building activities needs the support of the public manager?s organization and more specifically the support of the organization?s administrator (pg. 25, 26). The fourth component acknowledges the dimensions of network management that are derived from focusing collaborative effort on goal directed activities. These dimensions of network management are technical, political, and cost dimensions. Agranoff and McGuire (1999) conclude the article by noting ?as government is shifting from operation of hierarchical bureaucracies to governance through networks of public and nonpublic organizations, it is imperative that we begin to understand what is meant by ?managing? in networks, how to improve network operation, and when and why to utilize a network? (pg. 34). These same authors ? Agranoff and McGuire ? wrote an article, ?Big Questions in Public Network Management Research? (1999) in which the authors acknowledge that the study of interorganizational network management is relevant and in this article they ?seek to organize the state of the field on management of public networks by reviewing extant studies? (pg. 296). In this article, the authors define networks as ?multiorganizational arrangements for solving problems that cannot be achieved, or achieved easily, by single organizations? (pg. 296). It is 25 important to note that these authors take a distinctive position on who leads public networks ? ?Public management networks are led or managed by government representatives? (pg. 296). Consistent with earlier writings where the authors draw a distinction between management perspectives, Agranoff and McGuire (1999) state that ?the classical, mostly intraorganizational-inspired management perspective that has guided public administration for more than a century is simply inapplicable for multiorganizational, multigovernmental, and multisectoral forms of governing? (pg. 297). They further suggest that ?network management is in need of a knowledge base equivalent to the hierarchical organizational authority paradigm of bureaucratic management? (pg. 297). In this article, the authors raise seven questions related to network management: 1. What are the critical functional equivalents to traditional management processes? Is there a POSDCoRB equivalent set of tasks that replaces the standard planning, organizing, and so forth? 2. Are the approaches to groupware ? that is, group development that reaches a mutual understanding and transcends the more immediate and interactive bases of coordination and communication through hierarchy ? substantively different from those derived from the applied behavioral science approaches that emanate from human relations research? 3. How do networks provide flexibility beyond rapid adaptation or procedural accommodation? 4. In what ways do networks employ mutual self-responsibility, and does this substitute for the loss of public agency accountability? Is there residual accountability that falls between the cracks of organizations, and does it fall in any direction? 26 5. What is the cohesion factor in networks that is the equivalent to legal-rational authority in organization? 6. How does the often neglected or misunderstood role of organizational power in network management come into play? 7. Do public management networks produce results that otherwise would not have occurred? Do networks discover processes and solutions that would not have emerged from work through a single organization? (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999) While the authors do not fully answer the questions they pose, they did identify ?common network management sequences like activation, framing, mobilizing, and synthesizing? and further stated that ? we need to know more about how these processes unfold? (pg. 322). The four management functions identified by Agranoff & McGuire (1999) are illustrated in Table 5. 27 Table 5 Network Management Sequences Tasks Description Activation Selective activation of potential participants and stakeholders (i.e. activating the right people with the right resources); Deactivation; Facilitate fluid leadership roles Framing Used during the formation of the network; Used as a management tool when network effectiveness diminishes or is suboptimal; Establishing and influencing the network?s operating rules, values and norms, and perceptions of participants; Introduce new ideas, create shared purpose or vision, suggests new perspectives on problems, recommend alternative decision-making mechanisms Mobilizing Develop and achieve a set of common objectives based on a view of the strategic whole; Build internal and external support for the network; Forge agreement on the role and scope of network of network operations; Motivate, inspire, and induce commitment (human relations component) Synthesizing Creating the environment and enhancing the conditions for favorable, productive interaction among network participants; Achieve cooperation to fulfill the strategic purpose of the network; Facilitate and further interaction; Reduce complexity and uncertainty; Promote information exchange; Change incentives to cooperation; Develop new rules and procedures of interaction; Change positions, relations, and roles of participants; Help the network to be self-organizing; Engender effective communication among participants 28 Agranoff and McGuire join efforts again in their 2003 article, ?Inside the Matrix: Integrating the Paradigms of Intergovernmental and Network Management? where they examine the intergovernmental and network management literature and advocate a unified theory of collaborative public network management (pg. 1401, 1403). The authors use their previous study of collaborative public management in 237 cities as well as other empirical studies to ?demonstrate the theoretical connection between intergovernmental and network management? (pg. 1415). Agranoff and McGuire focus on ?the complexity of networking, the extent of locally initiated intergovernmental collaboration, the role of government institutions, and the significant linkage between specific policy approaches and intergovernmental network activity? (pg. 1403) and in part conclude that while ?governments are still the most influential institutions in collaborative structures because of the legal authority it possesses, in many contexts it must act as the facilitator of operations rather than the system steerer or controller? (pg. 1415). Robert Agranoff continues his work on collaborative public management with an empirical study of fourteen public management networks comprised of federal, state, and local government managers working with nongovernmental organizations e.g. nonprofits, for-profits, universities (2006, 2007). He opens the article, ?Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers? with a succinct capture of the state of development in the field of collaborative public management ? ?(1) that ?the age of the network? has arrived, (2) that hierarchy and markets are being supplemented by networks, (3) that public managers are enmeshed in a series of collaborative horizontal and vertical networks, and (4) that networks need to be treated seriously in public administration? (2006, pg. 56). The purpose of the article is to take a closer look at how networks are organized and managed. Based on his study of the fourteen networks, Agranoff addresses the following ten important features of collaborative management: 29 1. The network is not the only vehicle of collaborative management. 2. Managers continue to do the bulk of their work within the hierarchy. 3. Network involvement brings several advantages that keep busy administrators involved. 4. Networks are different from organizations but not completely different. 5. Not all networks make the types of policy and program adjustments ascribed to them in the literature. 6. Collaborative decisions or agreements are the products of a particular type of mutual learning and adjustment. 7. The most distinctive collaborative activity of all of the networks proved to be their work in public sector knowledge management. 8. Despite the cooperative spirit and aura of accommodation in collaborative efforts, networks are not without conflicts and power issues. 9. Networks have their collaborative costs, as well as their benefits. 10. Networks alter the boundaries of the state only in the most marginal ways; they do not appear to be replacing public bureaucracies in any way. (Agranoff, 2006) Agranoff concludes the article in part by noting that upon examinations of these fourteen public management networks, they are largely self-organizing, they require structure, and they need to be managed like organizations but in collaborative, nonhierarchical ways (2006, pg. 63). The article ?Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers? was a focused capture of some of the insights Agranoff gained from his study of fourteen public management networks. The broader study was later captured in his book, Managing within 30 Networks (2007). There were several themes that provided structure to the details of the study and findings as they were expressed in the book. Two of the six themes are highlighted below. First, Agranoff concludes that networks are differentiated and he introduces a fourfold typology ? Informational, Developmental, Outreach, Action ? corresponding to the primary purpose of the network (2007, pg. 10). Agranoff observes that the distinctions among the fourteen public management networks are basic to his analysis and find the typology useful for comparisons (pg. 10). And secondly, Agranoff notes that ?Whereas networks are nonhierarchical and largely self-organizing (Weiner, 1990), the process of structuring and operating does not automatically happen. The absence of clear lines of authority and mutual tasking does not mean that a sequence of actions and managerial actions do not ensue (Agranoff and McGuire, 2001b; Kickert and Koppenjan, 1997). Someone must guide the process, the work needs to be divided, courses of action need to be agreed to, agreements are carried out. Do these sound like management processes? Indeed they do. Just how different is network management from traditional management? If the processes are similar in name are they similar or different in substance? In the information era Drucker says that contrary to Frederick W. Taylor one hundred years ago, ?One does not ?manage? people. The task is to lead people? (2001, 81). The task here is to find out when, if, and how such leadership is different or similar? (pg. 4). Agranoff observes that networks ?must go beyond the formalities of officers and rules in order to devolve a structure that holds the group together and provides means that support its actions. He concludes that management in these fourteen public management networks was ?simultaneously similar to and different from management in hierarchical organizations? (pg. 124). With respect to leading the network, Agranoff noted that ?even though authority is more equal in network members and is also based on expertise, someone still needs to come forward and help orchestrate a vision, follow through on the work plan, contact key partners, orchestrate meetings, and so on? (Agranoff, 2007, pg 93). He found that in his study of these fourteen public management networks, all but two networks had such a person. Agranoff observed that ?the two 31 networks that struggled the most and were both reconstituted after periods of dormancy had no champion? (2007, pg. 93). Agranoff?s observation regarding the significance of leadership in interorganizational collaborative networks was previously noted by Eugene Bardach (Getting Agencies to Work Together, 1998) who in his study of interagency collaboration of state and local governments determined that ?if good leadership is not absolutely essential for helping an interagency collaborative to thrive, it surely helps? (pg. 224). Working through a public administration lens, the literature on public network management provides the best understanding of interorganizational collaborative networks with Agranoff and McGuire the leading scholars in this area. Their focus in part has been to better understand the nature of public collaborative networks, to better understand the public manager?s role in these networks, and to contribute empirically-derived knowledge on the management of public networks. However, in the preponderance of their scholarship cited above, Agranoff and McGuire work from the premise that the public manager, who is grounded in a governmental organization, manages the network. In preparing to study leadership structure in select community-based interorganizational collaborative networks, an understanding of public network management needs to be supplemented by knowledge gained from the interorganizational leadership literature. The interorganizational leadership literature focuses more on leading in the interorganizational domain without necessarily grounding leaders in any particular category of organization. INTERORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP David Connelly (2007), in his article ?Leadership in the Collaborative Interorganizational Domain?, examines the literature concerning interorganizational leadership. He notes that ?leadership in regards to interorganizational systems is often mentioned but rarely studied? (pg. 32 1231) and finds the existing literature on interorganizational leadership to be scant (pg. 1234). Connelly includes a review of the participative systems literature which provides a more structural perspective and ?because it helps shed light on the unique conditions found within the interorganizational domain and as such the environment any ?inter-leader? would be required to understand? (pg. 1234). Connelly?s purpose in this article is to ?shed light on a type of leadership that is increasingly common but perhaps not as well studied as other leadership environments? (pg. 1233) and acknowledges that questions such as ?what role does leadership play in collaborative endeavors always seem to surface when interorganizational collaboration is discussed? (pg. 1234). Connelly acknowledges that ?interorganizational and intergovernmental researchers have addressed the role of leadership in their work, but rarely in a formal and structured manner? (pg. 1245). He further notes that ?A consistent finding of this research is that leadership is an important, if not critical, element in the success or failure of interorganizational systems. Yet, in most cases, this is as far as the research has pursued the question. Consequently, little if any research has begun from the premise that leadership matters and thus asked questions for the purpose of enhancing our understanding of the role of leadership in the interorganizational sphere? (pg. 1246). To the question ?is leadership in the interorganizational setting inherently different from leadership in more traditional organizational settings?? Connelly answers yes, there is a difference. His review of the literature finds consensus around six guiding principles for any leader engaged in the interorganizational domain: 33 1. The need to establish a common culture while not compromising the unique culture of each participating organization. 2. The creation of a common vision/strategy with respect to the outcomes of the system. 3. A need for open communications. 4. The need for trust among all parties so as to maintain commitment from all participants. 5. Flexibility and an entrepreneurial outlook in terms of processes and in many cases final outcomes. 6. A belief that alliances/networks build alliances/networks. (Connelly, 2007) Connelly concludes the article in part by noting that interorganizational leadership and relations is a complex topic and that additional ?empirical research explicitly examining leadership in the collaborative domain is needed? (pg. 1253). Saz-Carranza et al (2007), in ?Leadership in Interorganizational Networks?, accomplish a review of interorganizational network research with a particular emphasis on leadership. The authors note that ?Despite the rising popularity of networks and their inherent challenges, however, network management and leadership is an understudied field. This lack of research is even more surprising when considering that interorganizational networks often fail due to poor management and that leadership is often suggested to be a central factor for network success? (pg. 1). Saz-Carranza et al (2007) suggest that leadership of networks focuses on activities and actions rather than on individuals and see leadership as a collective phenomenon (Saz-Carranza & Vernis, 2007, pg. 7). 34 The authors acknowledge that the research streams that best address network management include the public and policy networks literature by Agranoff and McGuire (Saz- Carranza & Vernis, 2007, pg. 3) whose influence is evident in the consistency found in the identification and definition of leadership activities. Saz-Carranza et al identify and define leadership activities that must be carried out to manage collaboration ? facilitating, framing, activating, and mobilizing. Table 6 below illustrates the leadership activities, the focus of the activity, and associated description (Saz-Carranza et al, 2007, pgs. 7-8) as identified by Saz- Carranza et al. 35 Table 6 Interorganizational Network Leadership Activities Activity Focus Description Facilitating Interaction among participants Build unity, avoid disunity; Managing inequalities; Motivating participation; Making peace; Supporting member involvement; Communicating to/with members; Facilitating decision making; Creating inclusive and open processes Framing Network structure Unifying activity; Influencing institutions, rules, values, perceptions, and processes; Creating infrastructures for collaboration; Setting operating structure; Setting up organizational procedures; Set the platform for interaction; Setting engagement rules, common norms, and a shared identity and vision leading to common meaning Activating Managing the network Selecting and attracting of members Mobilizing Network power Capturing necessary resources and support; Building network power (e.g. legitimacy, knowledge, access) 36 These leadership activities are somewhat similar to the four management tasks identified by Agranoff and McGuire (1999) in ?Big Questions in Public Network Management Research?. Although one group of scholars emphasize management tasks and the other group leadership activities, both speak to the same ends, a better understanding of how interorganizational collaborative entities are led. Although Saz-Carranza et al approach network leadership from the perspective of activities carried out by networks, they stop short of examining how leadership as a collective phenomenon is divided among the different individuals within the network and why (Saz- Carranza & Vernis, 2007, pg. 9). To further distinguish the interorganizational perspective, a focus on an example of a collaborative effort in the health field is useful. Example ? Collaborative Community Health Partnerships. Jeffrey Alexander et al (2001) note that ?although many aspects of collaborative community health partnerships have received attention from researchers and practitioners, one that deserves greater emphasis is leadership? (pg. 160). In their article ?Leadership in Collaborative Community Health Partnerships?, suggest that ?collaborative community health partnerships possess distinctive characteristics that call for a type of leadership unrecognized or rarely discussed in the collaborative leadership literature.? Their findings were based on case study research on four partnerships in the national demonstration of the Community Care Network vision. Partnerships included ?an array of service delivery organizations and community stakeholders, e.g. hospitals, health systems, physician groups, insurers, business alliances, schools, churches, social service agencies, and community interest groups? (pg. 161). Alexander et al draw distinctions between leadership in traditional organization and collaborative community health partnerships. They note ?in a traditional organization, leadership 37 is typically linked to formal hierarchical position. Formal position supplies both the legitimate authority and the means by which managers and other high-level professionals define the goals and strategies of the organization and influence subordinates and external stakeholders. Leaders can assign goals, hire and fire, allocate responsibilities, and give or withhold monetary incentives or contracts? (pg. 160). Their findings suggest five leadership themes that distinguish collaborative community health partnerships from traditional organization: 1. Systems thinking ? looking beyond narrow interests and focus primarily on the needs and priorities of the community as a whole. 2. Vision-based leadership ? used to gain the support of two critical stakeholder groups, partnering organizations and the broad community. 3. Collateral leadership ? reduces the time burden on a formal partnership leader and is identified as leadership roles taken on by other partnership members. For example: a. Formal leaders ? skilled in efficient decision making and moving discussion quickly to closure. b. Staff leaders ? experienced in consensus building and ensuring that all parties have a chance to exercise voice. c. Advocate leaders ? skillful in protecting and advancing perspectives that are at risk of going unheard. 4. Power sharing ? fosters joint ownership and collective responsibility through sharing power to set priorities, allocate resources, and evaluate performance. 5. Process-based leadership ? using interpersonal skills and effective communication mechanisms to achieve action and ultimately goals. (Alexander, et al, 2001) 38 Other research has focused on governance and management of effective community health partnerships. For example, Mitchell and Shortell (2000) take an evaluative view of these partnerships and ?apply a multidisciplinary perspective to construct a typology of effective governance and management characteristics of community health partnerships? (pg. 243). Their construct (see Table 7 below) is based on the alignment of the partnership?s governance and management tasks with the environment. 39 Table 7 Typology of Effective Governance and Management Characteristics Governance Tasks Management Tasks Environment (health system at large as well as local community) Determining purpose and scope Creating a shared Community capacity/infrastructure vision/mission Setting strategic direction Engaging and maintaining Political systems member interest Choosing size and composition Implementing organization Legal systems structures, coordination, integration Determining resource levels Managing communication Economic systems and procurement channels,conflict, external links, change over time Choosing governance structures Monitoring progress, evaluation, Social systems for coordination and integration accountability Establishing accountability parameters 40 The authors note that the governance function is primarily focused on the alignment between the partnership and external stakeholders whereas the management function focuses on aligning internal members (pg. 278). This framework is somewhat consistent with previous scholars? address of leadership and management activities in interorganizational collaboratives. Mitchell and Shortell conclude that the governance and management of a community health partnership must improve the network?s ability to achieve its goals by aligning environmental forces, partnership strategy, and partnership capabilities. In looking at twenty-five community partnerships associated with the Community Care Network Demonstration Program, Shortell et al (2002) identify key governance and management characteristics that separate top performing partnerships from low performing ones. The distinguishing characteristics were 1. Ability to manage size and diversity 2. Ability to attract and rely on multiple components of leadership 3. Ability to maintain focus 4. Ability to manage and channel conflict 5. Ability to recognize life cycles and ?hand off the baton? 6. Ability to ?patch? (refers to repositioning assets, competencies, and resources to address changing needs and priorities) (Shortell, et al, 2002) Additionally, Shortell et al note that leadership is important to partnership success and find that the more successful partnerships have ?a committed core leadership, a consistent ?organizational driver?, and practice subsidiary leadership (refers to the practice of delegating to 41 people and groups closest to a given problem the authority and resources to deal with the problem? (pg. 69). They further conclude that ?The sites making the greatest progress usually had a dedicated executive director (or equivalent position) who enjoyed the respect of the whole group. At the same time, there was also an organization that provided important stability and legitimacy for the partnership over time. This organization would often stay in the background and maintain a low profile so that the partnership itself could establish its identity and influence? (pg. 69). This observation regarding the role of a stabilizing and legitimatizing organization is somewhat consistent with what Keith Provan and H. Brinton Milward identify as an organization that fulfills the role of network coordinator (1995 and 2001). In their comparative study of four community mental health systems, Provan and Milward conclude that ?networks integrated and coordinated centrally, through a single core agency, are likely to be more effective than dense, cohesive networks integrated in a decentralized way among the organizational providers that make up the system? (pg. 24). The authors put a label to this single core agency in a later publication and incorporate the core agency into a framework for network evaluation. Provan and Milward (2001), in their article ?Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks?, argue that ?networks must be evaluated at three levels of analysis: community, network, and organization/participant levels? (pg. 414). At the network level of analysis they include assessment of the creation and maintenance of a network administrative organization (NAO). Provan and Milward define NAO as an organization whose key role includes disseminator of funds, administrator, and coordinator of the network. They further note that 42 ?While the existence of a distinct NAO is not critical to network success, it generally indicates the network is a viable from and resources have been committed to developing the network. While small networks can survive and prosper in the absence of an NAO, such an absence means that network governance is left to network participants. In this case, the community has no designated agent to guide, coordinate, and legitimize network activities or to monitor service provision? (pg. 419). Provan and Milward take the perspective that organizations make up networks and therefore when evaluating these interorganizational collaborative networks, they suggest a framework that includes evaluation of a network administrative organization. While not directly addressing a shared power leadership structure of public networks, Provan and Milward see the NAO as central to network structure. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The public network management and the interorganizational leadership literature streams were examined in order to better understand the nature of interorganizational collaborative networks and the leadership role associated with these entities. A sample of scholarship that focuses on community health collaborative networks was also included to demonstrate that similar leadership issues (e.g. structure, roles, and functions) exist regardless of issue domain. Since this research is grounded in public administration, the traditional bureaucratic organization and public manager was used as the point of departure from which to examine interorganizational collaborative entities and their associated leadership roles. A depth of knowledge exists regarding the nature of traditional bureaucratic structure, the role of the public manager, and associated management functions. And while there is a degree of consensus in the literature on the characteristics of interorganizational collaborative networks, 43 the comparison of the two organizational entities along the six dimensional themes used by Charles Davis is new and provides a systematic approach to examining the two domains. The ability to understand the difference in traditional bureaucracy and collaborative network structure can further guide additional study examining how these collaborative entities are led. Public administration and management scholars note that leadership of interorganizational collaborative networks is characterized more by a shared structure focused on activities and actions than it is on the role and activity of any one person as seen in traditional bureaucratic structure. As such, any examination of leadership in the interorganizational collaborative domain requires an operational definition of leadership, and more specifically, collective leadership. Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, and Murry (2000), in their study ?Assessing Team Leadership and Predicting Group Performance?, defined leadership as a process of all members of the team collectively influencing each other toward accomplishing its goals. In a later study, the same authors with the addition of a fourth researcher defined team leadership as the collective influence of members in a team on each other (Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, and Jung, 2002). Borrowing from these authors and for purposes of this research, collective leadership is defined as a process whereby members of a leadership team collectively influence each other toward accomplishing its goals. A direct correlation of the public manager functions of planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting as accomplished in traditional organization structure to those accomplished in a collaborative network entity is elusive. While there appears to be some agreement as to the functions that need to occur in interorganizational collaborative networks, the grouping terminology differs. For example, Agranoff and McGuire (1999) identify 44 four functions ? activation, framing, mobilizing, and synthesizing ? whose associated activities closely resemble Saz-Carranza et al (2007) leadership functions of facilitating, activating, framing, and mobilizing. Mitchell and Shortell (2000) also demonstrated a degree of consistency with their governance and management tasks. This research study sought to confirm the existence of these leadership activities in the twelve participant collaboratives. Noting the degree of similarity in the above approaches, the framework for examining leadership activities in interorganizational collaborative entities used in this study drew from the above referenced scholarship. What appears to be lacking in the literature is depth of understanding in how interorganizational collaborative networks are led. The examination of both the public network management and the interorganizational leadership literature was directly relevant to this research study which sought to add to the body of knowledge. Based on this literature review, the following questions guided this research study of collective leadership in twelve North Carolina interorganizational collaboratives: (1) What elements of organizational structure are prevalent? (2) How are these entities led? a. Is there an ?organizational driver?? b. Is leadership a collective phenomenon? c. What attributes or behaviors characterize the collective leadership role? (3) What leadership functions are prevalent in these entities? The relevancy of this research is supported by current literature and associated conclusions that call for additional study of how interorganizational collaborative networks are led. This research will contribute to the field of public administration by confirming existing 45 literature and suggesting a framework for future examination of leadership structure in the interorganizational collaborative network domain. 46 METHODOLOGY This research is a descriptive, multi-case study. Support for this research strategy was drawn from Robert Yin (1994) who suggested that the case study is the preferred strategy when the research question takes the form of ?how? and ?why? and focuses on contemporary events. Quantitative and qualitative aspects were implemented as independent components during data collection and analysis. In combining both quantitative and qualitative results, a better understanding of how these twelve collaborative entities are led was achieved. For purposes of this research, the operational definition of interorganizational collaborative networks is defined as organizational entities composed of member organizations from public, governmental, private, and community sectors whose collective effort is focused on a public issue domain. SAMPLING A directory or roster of North Carolina collaborative entities is non-existent and therefore required an identification and selection process based on individual knowledge of collaborative initiatives. The participants in the study were identified primarily through media venues, university leaders and faculty, and community leaders. Examples of such individuals were the Vice Chancellor for Public Service and Continuing Studies at the University, faculty in a Public Administration program, the Executive Director of a North Carolina Regional Council of Government, and the Director of a North Carolina state-wide community health program. The participant population also represents a purposive sample. The investigator?s intent was to select collaboratives whose focus represented a variety of issue domains. In the process of seeking variety among the participants, the investigator was selective in which collaborative entities to pursue. 47 The sample size (N=12) for this research project was justified by the type of study undertaken. Several researchers (Yin, 1994; Polit and Beck, 2004; McNabb, 2008) mention that a small sample size is indicated in case studies because of the in-depth data collection strategies employed to achieve greater understanding of the phenomena. Twelve North Carolina interorganizational collaboratives were recruited for this research study. The focus of the collaboratives represented a variety of issue domains relevant to communities (see Table 8). Table 8 Participant Collaborative Entities and Issue Domain Issue Domain N = 12 School Health 1 Homelessness 1 Youth Violence 1 Arts 1 Nonprofit Organization Capacity Building 1 Regional Sewer System 1 Regional Local Government Collaboration 1 Regional Economic Development 1 Health Policy 1 Community Health 3 48 The participant entities identified themselves in Survey One as one of four types of collaborative based on their purpose ? Informational, Developmental, Outreach, or Action (Appendix 5). A brief summary of each North Carolina collaborative is included below. Data from this research study was collected as confidential and therefore descriptions focus on the individual collaborative type and purpose. School Health. The school health collaborative was identified as an Outreach collaborative. This collaborative provides technical assistance to local centers whose purpose is to provide medical and mental health services to school-aged youth. Homelessness. This collaborative was identified as an Action collaborative. The plan that underpins their efforts is evidence-based and seeks to end the cycle of homelessness in their respective region. Youth Violence. The youth violence collaborative was identified as an Action collaborative. The plan that supports the entity?s action was in part based on a county-level community needs assessment and focuses on children ages 0 ? 12. Arts. This collaborative was identified as an Action collaborative. Its purpose is to unite city and county arts and cultural activities for the benefit of the community at large. Nonprofit Organization Capacity Building. This collaborative was identified as a Developmental collaborative specifically geared towards building local nonprofits capacity (e.g. training in board leadership, management best practices, grant writing, etc.) and funder confidence. Regional Government. All three of the regional collaboratives ? sewer system, local government collaboration, and economic development ? were identified as Action collaboratives. The membership of these three collaboratives is primarily governmental leaders and in two of the 49 collaboratives, their purpose is very specific, i.e. sewer system and economic development. In the third entity, regional local government, the collaborative activity focuses more on bringing members together to address issues, regardless of domain, that impact the region and benefit from a regional response. Health Policy. This collaborative was identified as an Informational collaborative whose purpose is to provide forums for members to discuss (e.g. exchange information, understand the problem, understand how member organizations are addressing the problem, etc.) relevant health and health policy issues that affect the regions? communities and move towards resolution. Community Health. There were three community health collaboratives in this study ? community health ? a, community health ? b, and community health ? c. Two of the collaboratives ? a and b ? identified themselves as Action collaboratives while community health ? c was identified as a Developmental collaborative. These collaboratives, in general, work to improve the health and well-being of their communities by focusing on priorities derived from their respective community health assessment. DATA COLLECTION Three instruments ? two surveys and one structured interview ? were used to collect data from the twelve participant collaboratives. The instruments were implemented as independent components and data were collected in three consecutive phases. Phase One, Survey One. The first survey ? Leading Interorganizational Collaborative Networks (Appendix 1) ? was administered as an online survey using a university license for Select Survey tool. The purpose of this survey was to collect information that would create a demographic profile of each participant collaborative. There were a total of nineteen questions that addressed structure, roles, and functions. The person who took this survey was a member of 50 the collaborative?s leadership team and the person responsible for moving and orchestrating the collaborative, hereafter identified as the collaborative driver. Note that the collaborative driver in each entity had a specific role title, e.g. strategic director, program coordinator, etc. (see Table 16). The respondent was not asked to provide personal information but instead was asked to provide the collaborative name. Survey questions were adapted from Robert Agranoff?s (2007) study of fourteen public management networks. The primary influence of his research on survey development was in determining the type of demographic data to collect on the participant collaboratives in order to examine their structure. Additionally, the questions that focused on prevalence of leadership activities were drawn from Agranoff and McGuire (1999), Mitchell and Shortell (2000), and Saz-Carranza et al (2007), who suggested that specific types of leadership activities occur within collaborative entities. An ?Other? option was included with the leadership activities questions in an effort to determine if respondents identified additional activities that were not included in the literature. Prior to deploying the survey to the twelve participant entities ? and specifically to the collaborative driver of each ? the questions were reviewed independently by three researchers (a professor in the Public Administration program, a political science professor who is experienced in survey methodology, and an assistant professor in the School of Nursing) for clarity, sequence logic, and format. Following this review, the questions were inputted into the online survey tool. The same three researchers were asked to take the online survey to ensure the mechanics of accessing, taking, and submitting the survey were glitch-free. Phase Two, Survey Two. The second survey ? Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) ? was also administered as an online survey using a university license for 51 Select Survey tool. The purpose in using this tool was to gain an understanding of the participant entities collective leadership role. For this study, role is defined as a set of behaviors. The TMLQ is a copyrighted instrument (1996 Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass) with investigator-purchased permissions from the publisher, Mind Garden. The letter granting permission is in Appendix 2. The investigator also met publisher requirements for putting the instrument online. The abstract from the TMLQ validating study is in Appendix 3. The TMLQ was used to collect ratings on leadership behaviors exhibited by the leadership teams from the participant collaboratives. Respondents were asked to evaluate each item with regard to their team?s leadership behavior using a five point rating scale: 0 (Not at all); 1 (Once in awhile); 2 (Sometimes); 3 (Fairly often); and 4 (Frequently or always). Leadership effectiveness items were rated using a five point rating scale: 1 (Not effective); 2 (Only slightly effective); 3 (Effective); 4 (Very Effective); and 5 (Extremely effective). And leadership satisfaction items were rated using a five point scale: 1 (Very dissatisfied); 2 (Somewhat dissatisfied); 3 (Neither satisfied or dissatisfied); 4 (Fairly satisfied); and 5 (Very satisfied). The TMLQ ratings were used to yield measures of transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant (laissez-faire) leadership styles, overall effectiveness of the leadership team, and satisfaction with the leadership abilities of the team. Publisher permissions prohibited inclusion of the entire instrument in a dissertation; however, reproduction of five sample items was authorized (see Table 9). 52 Table 9 Sample Items in the Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Scale Item Transformational Members of my team emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission Transactional Members of my team work out agreements about what?s expected from each other Passive-Avoidant Members of my team avoid controversial issues that would produce conflict Effectiveness The overall effectiveness of the team can be classified as: Satisfaction In all, how satisfied are you with the leadership abilities of the team that you are rating? The investigator asked the collaborative driver, who completed Survey One ? Leading Interorganizational Collaborative Networks ? to identify their collaborative?s leadership team. The collaborative driver and the persons they identified were asked to complete the TMLQ. The respondents were not asked to provide personal information but instead were asked to provide the collaborative name. Phase Three, Personal Interview. The eleven question interview (Appendix 4) was conducted with the same person who completed the first survey for their respective collaborative ? i.e. the collaborative driver. The purpose of the interview questions was to determine who, from the respective leadership teams, facilitated key leadership actions such as decision making, conflict resolution, etc. The same interview questions were asked in each of the interviews and all respondents were sent the questions prior to the scheduled interview. Interviews lasted fifty minutes to an hour. All interview responses were documented in field notes and none were taped. 53 Ten of the eleven interview questions were restrictive in nature and solicited specific role and role-related information. For example, interview questions included: What role is focused on facilitating decision making? What role is focused on conflict resolution? What role is focused on leadership development? Interview question number eleven on the other hand was more open- ended and asked interviewees to share pearls of wisdom and/or pitfalls to avoid in regard to leading interorganizational collaboratives more effectively. Role-based and related interview questions were developed based on the dimensions of interorganizational collaborative organizations as listed in Table 4 and focused on the dimensions of Internal Decision Making, Conflict Resolution, and Human Development. Questions focused on the three dimensions of Organization and Composition, Authority Structure, and Leadership and Competence were included in Survey One ? Leading Interorganizational Collaborative Networks. PROCEDURES As described earlier, each of the collaboratives was identified through media (e.g. collaborative highlighted in a newspaper article or newsletter), community leaders, and/or university leaders and faculty. The investigator discovered that all participant collaboratives had a website with contact information. After placing a telephone call to the collaborative, the investigator asked to speak with an appropriate person in regard to the collaborative?s participation in a research study. Once that person was identified (it turned out to be, in all instances, the collaborative driver) and they agreed to consider participation, a personal or telephonic meeting was scheduled to discuss the study in more detail. In preparation for the meeting, the investigator sent an email to the collaborative driver which gave limited background information on the investigator and 54 provided a summary of the research study?s purpose and process. It was during this scheduled meeting that the investigator ensured the collaborative met the operational definition which was the requirement for eligibility to participate in the study. When the investigator was notified that the collaborative would participate, arrangements were made as to the timing of the first survey. On the agreed upon date, the investigator sent an email with the survey link to the point of contact. Completion of the first survey triggered the sending of the second survey to the collaborative?s leadership team. The second survey ? the TMLQ ? was kept open forty-five days from the date the link was emailed to respondents. A minimum of one follow-up email was sent to participants, with additional reminder messages sent if requested by the respective collaborative driver. Scheduling of the interview (phase three) occurred when the respondent rate reached 100% or the forty-five days expired and follow-up contacts were not yielding additional responses. The one-hour structured interview was accomplished with the same person who completed survey one ? the collaborative driver. The formal interview began following the interviewee?s signing of the consent. Interview questions were focused on roles within the collaborative?s leadership team, not on any person. Interviewee responses were documented in field notes. DATA ANALYSIS As stated previously, data collection was accomplished using quantitative and qualitative tools ? two online surveys and an interview ? driving a requirement for both quantitative and qualitative data analysis strategies. The first step was to assign a code to each of the twelve collaboratives. The collaboratives were coded by numbers one through twelve. 55 Survey One. Twelve data sets were generated from the first survey. In using the online Select Survey tool, the investigator had the ability to export the survey data in a variety of formats. The data were first exported to a Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheet where it was coded and then exported into SPSS. Frequencies at the aggregate level were determined for each of the survey items. Survey Two. Thirty-nine total data sets, from across the twelve participant collaboratives, were generated from the second survey, the TMLQ. Similar to the first survey, the data were first exported to a Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheet where the data was coded and then exported to SPSS where it was analyzed using descriptive statistics and correlations. Interview. Responses from all interviewees to the restrictive questions (i.e. questions numbers 1 ? 10) were organized in matrix format in a Microsoft Excel file. Interviewee responses to question number eleven, the open-ended question followed a coding and check- coding process (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 55-69) and were coded by the investigator and followed by check-coding with a second researcher (a recently retired professor experienced in qualitative research) in an effort to provide a reliability check and limit investigator interpretation bias. Interviewee responses included single words, short phrases, and full sentences (n=104). The process of coding responses to interview question number eleven began with the creation of four codes (see Table 10) which were based on the four themes used in Survey One ? Leading Interorganizational Collaborative Networks (questions #16-19) ? to address leadership activities in the participant collaboratives. Definitions for each of the codes were consistent with the associated activities for each as identified in the literature review (Appendix 6). Intercoder 56 reliability was determined by using the formula: number of agreements divided by (total number of agreements plus disagreements), with the goal of reaching at least 75%. Table 10 Initial List of Codes for Open-ended Interview Question Name Code Collaborative Structure CS Managing the Collaborative MC Interaction among Participants IP Collaborative Power CP Interviewee responses were coded individually by the investigator and the second researcher, followed by a determination and discussion of agreements and disagreements. Initial intercoder reliability was 47%. Following discussion of the codes and associated definitions, the investigator and the second researcher agreed that the definition of collaborative structure (CS) described activities that would occur at the beginning (e.g. in establishing or setting up the collaborative) and would have involvement from the leadership team in addition to the collaborative driver. Additionally, there was agreement that, for this group of data, there was no clear delineation between activities associated with managing the collaborative (MC) and those associated with the focus on participant interaction (IP). As a result, both coders agreed that MC and IP categories were primarily collaborative driver oriented and therefore, in those instances where items were coded by one researcher as MC and by the other research as IP, coding was determined to be in 57 agreement. A final point of agreement at this stage in the process was that the definition for collaborative power (CP) talked to activities that would occur after the collaborative was established and, like activities associated with collaborative structure, would involve the leadership team in addition to the collaborative driver. Based on the above items of agreement and specifically the agreement reached on the coding of specific MC and IP items, the recalculated intercoder reliability reached 67%. Additional dialogue ensued prior to the next round of coding. Both researchers agreed that several items were more about personal leadership skills (an emerging theme) than about the four established codes and agreed to create and assign code PLS to the appropriate items. During this dialogue, there was also agreement to delete four items from the coding process. In the case of three items, it would have been near impossible to achieve acceptable intercoder reliability without the addition of significant context; and in the fourth case, the item was a duplicate phrase. Following this discussion, intercoder reliability reached 84% and at this point the process completed with comments (n=100) assigned to one of five codes (see Table 11). Table 11 Final List of Codes for Open-ended Interview Question Name Code Collaborative Structure CS Managing the Collaborative MC Interaction among Participants IP Collaborative Power CP Personal Leadership Skills PLS 58 SAFEGUARDING HUMAN SUBJECTS The investigator used Auburn University?s Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocols during the conduct of this research study. IRB-approved scripts were used to recruit participants either by voice or by email. Survey respondents consented prior to taking the survey. The consent letter was imbedded in the survey and respondents had to read the information and then indicate their consent by selecting the ?Yes? or ?No? option following the consenting statements, all prior to advancing to the survey questions. Interviewees were consented at the time of the interview using the IRB-approved consent letter. 59 RESULTS The following presents findings from the study of twelve North Carolina collaboratives. The chapter is organized by the subheadings focus and age, interorganizational structure, leadership roles, and leadership functions and includes data derived from the two surveys and the interview. In most instances, the data is aggregated across the twelve collaboratives; however, where relevant, the data is displayed for each participant entity. FOCUS AND AGE The twelve participant collaboratives demonstrated variety in issue focus and range in age. Together, the collaboratives focused on issues related to health, social service, arts, nonprofit organizations, or issues of regional government importance. In addition, each of the twelve entities demonstrated range in terms of years in existence with the youngest collaborative being in existence for only one year and the oldest collaborative entity being in existence for thirty-eight years (see Table 12). 60 Table 12 Collaborative Entities ? Issue Domain, Year Formed, and Age (in years, rounded to 2010) Issue Domain Year Formed Age Health Policy 2009 1 Youth Violence 2008 2 Community Health ? c 2008 2 Regional Sewer 2007 3 Homeless 2006 4 Nonprofits 2006 4 Arts 2004 6 Community Health ? b 2001 9 Economic Development 2000 10 School Health 1998 12 Community Health ? a 1998 12 Regional Collaboration 1972 38 INTERORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Questions regarding organizational structure were included in Survey One ? Leading Interorganizational Collaborative Networks. Responses to these questions yielded information regarding a collaborative?s membership, basis of authority, use of strategic tools, organizational 61 groupings, and the leadership model ascribed to by the collaborative. These categories of collaborative structure components were evident in the literature which guided the inquiry. Membership. The literature suggested that interorganizational collaborative entities are composed of legally autonomous organizations from a variety of sectors. Additionally, member organization participation is said to be voluntary and based on a commitment to the collaborative?s mission. Collaboratives were determined to be eligible to participate in the study based on meeting the operational definition of interorganizational collaborative entity which in part required that the collaborative membership included member organizations from a variety of sectors. Figure 3 illustrates sector representation across the twelve participant groups. For example, 83 percent of the collaborative entities had member organizations from county government and 67 percent had representation from city government. 62 Figure 3 Collaborative Entity Membership Basis of Authority. A key characteristic that differentiates bureaucratic organizations from interorganizational collaboratives is the basis of authority. Bureaucratic organizations are viewed to be legitimate entities whose existence is based on legal authority. Interorganizational collaboratives on the other hand, exist based on member willingness to commit to a shared focus. Efforts to capture this commitment and legitimize the collaborative?s existence often take the form of written agreements, evidence of Internal Revenue Code exempt status, etc. The twelve participant collaboratives exhibited a variety in legitimizing sources of authority (see Table 13), ranging from governmental charge to establishing 501c3 status. Two of the three collaboratives that answered the survey question with an ?Other? response indicated that their collaborative authority was based on a combination of governmental and an umbrella 63 not for profit organization and the third collaborative indicated their basis of authority extended from an umbrella not for profit organization. Table 13 Collaborative Entities ? Basis of Authority Entity Authority Nonprofits State Government Community Health ? b State Government Regional Sewer Intergovernmental Regional Collaboration Intergovernmental Regional Economic Intergovernmental School Health 501(c)(3) Arts 501(c)(3) Community Health ? a 501(c)(3) Homeless Other Youth Violence Other Community Health ? c Other Health Policy None ? Informal Group Strategic Tools. A key feature of interorganizational collaboratives, as indicated in the literature, is that the members commit to a shared purpose, agreeing that joint effort will achieve success more than member organizations acting alone. The survey question that addressed the presence of strategic tools was intended to discern which written tools had been established to 64 guide collaborative effort. All participant groups reported having at least one written strategic document and eight reported having all four (see Figure 4). Figure 4 Prevalence of Written Strategic Tools Organizational Grouping. The literature indicated that collaboratives require structure that will hold the group together and support its actions (Agranoff, 2006 and 2007). Participant groups had at least one organizational grouping in addition to the leadership team. Less than half of the participants (n=5) captured their collaborative structure in an organizational chart. Figure 5 reflects the prevalence of organizational groupings across the twelve participants. 65 Figure 5 Prevalence of Organizational Groupings Internal Authority Structure. In bureaucratic organizations, the authority structure is hierarchical, and in general this hierarchical structure influences the nature of participant interaction. Additionally, leadership and management structure adheres to this hierarchical model. In interorganizational collaboratives, the literature suggests that authority structure is shared and is expertise based (Agranoff, 2004 and 2006) and that leadership structure is a collective phenomenon in a shared power environment (Connelly, 2007; Saz-Carranza et al, 2007). Participant groups were asked to indicate which leadership model their respective collaborative ascribed to ? hierarchical or shared ? or indicate in the ?other? box comments that, for example, described another model followed but not listed (see Table 14). Two-thirds of the 66 participant groups indicated that their respective collaboratives followed a shared model of leadership. Table 14 Collaborative Entities ? Leadership Model Entity Leadership Model School Health Shared Homeless Shared Youth Violence Shared Community Health ? a Shared Nonprofits Shared Regional Sewer Shared Regional Collaboration Shared Health Policy Shared Regional Economic Shared Arts Hierarchical Community Health ? b Hierarchical Community Health ? c Hierarchical LEADERSHIP ROLES In examining the twelve collaborative entities, two primary leadership roles appeared to be central to the collaborative. Results from all three data collection instruments indicated in large part the active presence of collaborative driver and collective leadership roles. 67 In Survey One, respondents were asked if there was a person or persons who is/are most responsible for establishing, moving, and orchestrating the collaborative entity (see Table 15). Survey response options included (a) Yes ? a single person; (b) Yes ? shared; (c) Yes ? organization (in other words, is an organization versus a person(s) primarily responsible for the collaborative); (d) No; and (e) Other (with comment box). One half of the collaborative entities studied indicated that responsibility for the collaborative was shared. Table 15 Collaborative Entities ? Leadership Responsibility Entity Primary Responsibility for Orchestrating Collaborative Youth Violence Yes ? Shared Community Health ? a Yes ? Shared Nonprofits Yes ? Shared Regional Sewer Yes ? Shared Regional Collaboration Yes ? Shared Regional Economic Yes ? Shared School Health Yes ? Organization Homeless Yes ? Organization Community Health ? b Yes ? Organization Community Health ? c Yes ? Organization Arts Yes ? Single Person Health Policy Yes ? Single Person 68 Collaborative driver. Several scholars have recognized the importance of having a consistent ?organizational driver? who guided and managed the collaborative (Agranoff, 2007; Shortell et al, 2002). For purposes of this study, the term collaborative driver was used synonymously with organizational driver. While only two out of the twelve groups indicated a single person being primarily responsible for orchestrating the collaborative (see Table 15), all twelve entities reported having a person who fulfilled the collaborative driver role. Interview responses to question numbers six and seven, ?Is there a person who is responsible for moving and orchestrating the collaborative?? and ?What is this person?s role called?? are listed in Table 16. 69 Table 16 Collaborative Entities ?Collaborative driver and Role Title Entity Collaborative driver Role Title Health Policy Yes Chairman Arts Yes Board President Regional Sewer Yes Executive Director Regional Collaboration Yes Executive Director Regional Economic Yes Executive Director School Health Yes Executive Director Homeless Yes Strategic Director Youth Violence Yes Strategic Director Community Health ? a Yes Program Director Nonprofits Yes Program Director Community Health ? b Yes Coordinator Community Health ? c Yes Coordinator Administrative Organization. Although four of the twelve participant entities indicated on Survey One that an organization had primary responsibility for the collaborative (Table 15), it was from the interview process that seven out of the twelve collaborative entities indicated the presence of what Provan and Milward (2001) identified as a network administrative organization, whose key role included disseminator of funds, administrator, and coordinator of the network. 70 Collective Leadership. The TMLQ was used to assess collective leadership in the twelve participant collaboratives. Survey responses were aggregated and scored using the TMLQ scoring key. Descriptive statistics and correlations on the instrument?s three leadership style scales and the effectiveness and satisfaction scales are in Table 17 and 18. There were thirty-nine respondents, which represented a forty-five percent response rate. Cronbach's alpha for the TMLQ scale was 0.871. 71 Table 17 Descriptive Statistics ? Leadership Style, Effectiveness and Satisfaction, N=39 Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation Transformational Leadership 2.08 4.00 3.3378 0.53079 Transactional Leadership 1.30 4.00 2.2178 0.62253 Passive-Avoidant Leadership 0.00 2.25 0.8914 0.57777 Team Effectiveness 2.00 5.00 4.00 0.858 Satisfaction with leadership 1.00 5.00 4.15 1.113 abilities of the team 72 Table 18 Pearson Correlations (N=39) Transformational Transactional Passive- Leadership Satisfaction with Leadership Leadership Avoidant Team Leadership abilities Leadership Effectiveness of the Team Transformational 1.000 Leadership Transactional 0.569** 1.000 Leadership Passive-Avoidant -0.688** -0.331* 1.000 Leadership Leadership Team 0.695** 0.379* -0.597** 1.000 Effectiveness Satisfaction with 0.536** 0.113 -0.442** 0.413** 1.000 Leadership abilities of the Team 73 There were several findings from the TMLQ. Not surprising, transformational leadership style was positively correlated with transactional leadership style (r = 0.569, p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with passive-avoidant style (r = -0.688, p < 0.01). Additionally, the transformational leadership style was positively correlated with team effectiveness (r = 0.695, p < 0.01) and satisfaction with the leadership abilities of the team (r = 0.536, p < 0.01). A similar finding occurred with the transactional leadership style in relationship to the passive-avoidant style. And although the transactional style was positively correlated with team effectiveness (r = 0.379, p < 0.05), the relationship was not as strong as that seen with the transformational style. Additionally, where the transformational style had a positive correlation with satisfaction with the leadership abilities of the team, there was no significant relationship between the transactional leadership style and satisfaction with the team?s leadership abilities. LEADERSHIP FUNCTIONS The literature suggests that leadership in interorganizational collaboratives is a collective phenomenon focused on activities and actions (Connelly, 2007; Saz-Carranza et al, 2007). A framework developed from other researchers findings (Agranoff and McGuire, Saz-Carranza et al, Mitchell and Shortell) was used to determine the prevalence of four leadership functions and their associated activities: a focus on collaborative structure, a focus on managing the collaborative, a focus on participant interaction, and a focus on collaborative power. Before identifying the prevalence of leadership activities in their respective collaboratives, respondents were first asked to identify their current developmental stage (Florin et al, 1993 and Kegler et al, 1998) from among the following eight options: (1) Initial mobilization ? e.g. recruiting of active participants and engaging key community constituencies or sectors 74 (2) Establishing organizational structure ? e.g. establishing structure and operations which produces among members a collaborative team, cohesive and task focused (3) Building capacity for action ? e.g. building member capacity through changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills and establishing linkages with other organizations (4) Planning for action ? e.g. identifying community needs, crystallizing goals and objectives, choosing an array of strategies to achieve goals, and having an implementation plan (5) Implementation ? e.g. developing a sequential work plan that sets timelines, allocates resources and assigns responsibilities and implementing activities in a manner that involves key organizational players, networks and broad citizen participation (6) Refinement ? e.g. using evaluation data for program refinements that incorporates community reactions, identifies gaps, and adds strategies that build towards a comprehensive and coordinated array of programming strategies across community sectors (7) Institutionalization ? e.g. having processes for leader succession and recruitment of new members and integrating functions into ongoing missions of existing organizations (8) Other (with comment box) (Florin et al, 1993 and Kegler et al, 1998) Having respondents identify their respective collaborative?s current developmental stage served as a reference point (e.g. provided the ?snapshot in time? parameter) for answering the subsequent survey questions regarding leadership activities. This limited the potential respondent 75 dilemma of ?well this particular activity was prevalent when we were first starting up but now it isn?t ? how should I answer the question?? The following paragraphs illustrate the findings on the prevalence of leadership activities in the twelve participant collaboratives. The activities are organized by their associated leadership function: a focus on structure, management, participant interaction, and power. Focus on Collaborative Structure. Several activities have been associated with the leadership function of focusing on collaborative structure. These include establishing operating rules, processes, and procedures; creating infrastructure for collaboration; setting the platform for interaction; setting engagement rules, common norms; creating shared identity, shared purpose; and establishing decision making processes. Respondents were asked to indicate which activities were prevalent in their collaborative. They were also given the opportunity to identify other leadership activities relevant to collaborative structure. Figure 6 illustrates the prevalence of leadership activities associated with a focus on collaborative structure across all twelve respondents. None of the respondents identified activities beyond what the literature identified. 76 Figure 6 Leadership Activities associated with Collaborative Structure Focus on Collaborative Management. Several activities have been associated with the leadership function of focusing on managing the collaborative. These include selective activation of members (e.g. recruitment); selective deactivation of members; leadership development; implementing organization structures, coordination, integration; managing communication channels; managing conflict; managing change over time; and monitoring progress, evaluation, and accountability. Respondents were asked to indicate which activities were prevalent in their collaborative. They were also given the opportunity to identify other leadership activities relevant to managing the collaborative in addition to those listed. Figure 7 illustrates the prevalence of leadership activities associated with managing the collaborative across the twelve groups. None of the respondents identified activities beyond what the literature identified. 77 Figure 7 Leadership Activities associated with Managing the Collaborative Specific to leadership development, the literature indicates that this activity is purposeful. When respondents were asked if they had a plan that guided purposeful changes in leadership, seven of the collaboratives indicated either yes or other and provided explanatory comments (see Table 19). 78 Table 19 Collaborative Entities ? Leadership Continuation Plan Entity Leadership Continuation Plan Arts Yes Community Health ? a Yes Community Health ? b Yes Regional Collaboration Yes School Health Other ? in the planning process Homeless Other ? mandated by the strategic plan Youth Violence Other ? understood that current leaders will recruit Nonprofits No Regional Sewer No Community Health ? c No Health Policy No Regional Economic No On a related note, respondents were also asked to indicate how leaders in their respective collaboratives were selected. Response options included popular vote by collaborative members, first-come-first-served volunteer, and selection of the best fit candidate from a pool of candidates (see Table 20). 79 Table 20 Collaborative Entities ? Leadership Selection Entity Leader Selection Homeless Best Fit Youth Violence Best Fit Nonprofits Best Fit Regional Economic Best Fit Arts Best Fit Community Health ? a Popular Vote Regional Collaboration Volunteer School Health Other Community Health ? b Other Community Health ? c Other Regional Sewer Other Health Policy Other Respondents who chose the ?Other? option provided comments indicating leaders were identified through: a nominating committee process and then voted on by the leadership team; election process by general membership; a process outlined in the strategic plan; political process. 80 Focus on Participant Interaction. Several activities have been associated with the leadership function of focusing on interaction among participants. These include building unity; managing inequalities; motivating participation; creating inclusive and open processes; achieving cooperation; reducing complexity and uncertainty; promoting information exchange; engendering effective communication among participants; and changing positions, relations, and roles of participants. Respondents were asked to indicate which activities were prevalent in their collaborative. They were also given the opportunity to identify other leadership activities relevant to a focus on participant interaction in addition to those listed. Figure 8 illustrates the prevalence of leadership activities associated with a focus on participant interaction across the twelve groups. None of the respondents identified activities beyond what the literature identified. Figure 8 Leadership Activities associated with Interaction among Participants 81 Focus on Collaborative Power. Several activities have been associated with the leadership function of focusing on collaborative power. These include developing and achieving a set of common objectives; capturing resources; building internal and external support; forging agreement on the role and scope of network operations; and motivating, inspiring, and inducing commitment. Respondents were asked to indicate which activities were prevalent in their collaborative. They were also given the opportunity to identify other leadership activities relevant to a focus on collaborative power in addition to those listed. Figure 9 illustrates the prevalence of leadership activities associated with a focus on collaborative power across the twelve groups. None of the respondents identified activities beyond what the literature identified. Figure 9 Leadership Activities associated with Collaborative Power Interview responses confirmed the existence of the four leadership functions and their associated activities discussed above. The results from the coding process (which was applied to 82 the open-ended question, #11) indicated that 91% of the items eligible for coding fell into one of the four categories of leadership activities associated with collaborative structure, management, participant interaction, and power. The other 9% were assigned to the category Personal Leadership Skills, which included descriptive items determined to be specific to the collaborative driver. Responses from the restrictive-type interview questions indicated that the collaborative driver was the primary role that facilitated other key leadership actions related to decision making, conflict resolution, leadership development and change (Figure 10). Only in a few instances was there another role identified. Figure 10 Role Assignment to Leader Actions Of note, the role focused on facilitating changes in leadership was attributed to the collaborative driver only 50% of the time. In the other participant entities, changes in leadership were facilitated by nominating committees, a combination of roles (e.g. collaborative driver and 83 vice-chair, the leadership team as a whole, etc.), by an election/resignation process if members were elected by political process, or not at all. In this last case, the collaborative entity has been in existence for only two years and had not experienced changes in leadership. 84 DISCUSSION The purpose of this research study was to examine how interorganizational collaboratives are led. The investigator examined twelve North Carolina collaborative entities using a combination of quantitative and qualitative tools to gather and then analyze data. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The specific questions that guided the inquiry into the twelve participant entities were: (1) What elements of organizational structure are prevalent? (2) How are these entities led? a. Is there an ?organizational driver?? b. Is leadership a collective phenomenon? c. What attributes or behaviors characterize the collective leadership role? (3) What leadership functions are prevalent in these entities? Recall from the introduction of this study that the points of departure for examining structure, roles, and functions in interorganizational collaboratives were the bureaucratic organization and the public leader therein. In the paragraphs that follow, answers to the above research questions will be addressed, and comments will often link back to the traditional organization and the public leader. STRUCTURE What is the organizational structure of these entities? The findings of this study suggest that elements of organizational structure, much like those seen in bureaucratic organizations, are evident in the twelve participant entities. These results are consistent with the literature which indicates that while interorganizational collaboratives may be self-organizing, they require 85 structure. The essence of an organization?s structure is in part captured in its mission statement and organizational chart. The mission of an organization communicates to internal and external audiences the purpose of the organization and answers the question, ?why do we exist?? An organization?s mission also serves to direct activity within the organization and focus the effort of its members. Other strategic tools ? e.g. vision, goals, program objectives ? might also be evident and either complement the mission by providing differing levels of specificity or in the absence of a mission statement might serve as the venue to communicate the organization?s purpose. In the twelve participant organizations studied, survey results showed differing combinations of strategic tools used in defining purpose, directing activity, and focusing effort. The need to create and then communicate organizational purpose through a mission statement or other tools is critical to interorganizational collaboratives and possibly in ways different than that seen in bureaucratic organizations. For example, interorganizational collaboratives are composed of legally autonomous organizations who voluntarily participate based on a commitment to a shared purpose. Establishing a mission that induces commitment is a key part in first bringing members to the table but then in keeping them there. One collaborative driver emphasized this point during the interview by stating ?Be purpose driven ? have clear goals . If there is no purpose, there is no reason to meet.? Another interviewee stressed the importance of communication ?to ensure a common understanding of what you?re about? and the need to continuously assess member understanding of this common purpose. From purpose flows structure. The organizational chart is a visual cue of structure that tells a story about the organization. For example, from viewing the chart, one might determine who leads the organization, who the key players are, what the major division of labor are, and an 86 indication of peer and superior/subordinate relationships. A bureaucratic organization?s chart captures the hierarchical nature of the organization and gives some indication of how structure focuses communication, decision making, organizational activity, and an indication of who is ultimately responsible for the organization ? i.e. the leader. In regard to the twelve participant collaboratives, less than half of these organizations (n=5) captured their collaborative structure in an organizational chart. Even in the absence of an organizational chart, participant groups indicated in the survey and the interview the presence of organizational groupings, which in some ways illustrate a division of labor much like that seen in bureaucratic organizations. As one collaborative driver commented during the interview, it is important to ?find ways to engage partners above the task force level?. In this particular collaborative, organizational groupings consisted of an executive committee, a nominating committee, task forces, and the membership at large. The interviewee qualified the previous quote by saying ?the task forces do the actual work? of the partnership. Another key activity related to structure is the establishment of decision making processes. In bureaucratic organizations, decision making activity tends to follow the hierarchical lines of the respective organizational structure with communication and coordination of decisions occurring vertically. A similar process seemed to occur in the majority of the studied collaboratives. The interviewees commented that depending on the type of decision needed, decisions could occur at different echelons in the collaborative with vertical communication and coordination occurring as appropriate ? e.g. with the collaborative?s leadership team. Leadership is another component of organizational structure. In bureaucratic organizations, there is one leader who is ultimately responsible and held accountable for the organization. A leader-follower relationship describes the interaction between leaders and 87 organizational members, this relationship following the hierarchical structure. In contrast, leadership in interorganizational collaboratives is a collective phenomenon which occurs in a shared power environment. The twelve participant organizations were asked to identify the model of leadership followed by their respective collaborative as hierarchical, shared, or other model not listed but followed. The investigator was surprised to find that three of the twelve entities indicated that they followed a hierarchical leadership model ? the arts, community health ? b, and community health ? c collaboratives (see Table 14). The interview process helped clarify why the two community health collaboratives answered as they did. Both interviewees answered the survey question from the perspective that a county agency had overall responsibility for the collaborative and that that agency adhered to a hierarchical model of leadership. Additionally, the collaborative driver in each of these two community health collaboratives were employees of the county agencies and their duties were split (not necessarily evenly) between agency responsibilities as a program supervisor and responsibilities in managing the collaborative. The situation in both of these community health collaboratives, in regards to agency responsibility for a collaborative effort, is consistent with what Provan and Milward (2001) defined as a network administrative organization. Additionally, the interviewee?s relationship with the agency and the collaborative is consistent with how Agranoff and McGuire (1999) described who fills the role of collaborative manager ? a public manager who is grounded in a governmental organization. Even though these two community health collaboratives indicated that their respective collaborative followed a hierarchical model of leadership, it was during the interview that the investigator gained insight into how a hierarchical model of leadership and a collective 88 leadership phenomenon interacted. For example, in community health ? c collaborative, the interviewee stated that on the one hand, the interviewee and the agency director decided if initiatives were feasible and if so would then take the idea to the collaborative membership. On the other hand, the interviewee stated that ?the membership at large leaves the decision making to the [agency].? Of interest, this particular collaborative was formed in 2008 ? just two years in development. The interviewee shared that a particular challenge had to do with ?educating people on the benefits of collaborating and addressing the ?who gets credit? issue. Additionally, in this situation, it was noted that ?key community leaders did not see the value in [the collaborative?s purpose].? It wasn?t surprising then when the interviewee stated that the attempt to implement a collaborative structure with organizational groupings had been ?difficult to maintain.? In community health ? b, the second community health collaborative that reported following a hierarchical leadership model, a similar situation as with community health ? c existed in regards to the presence of a responsible agency and a collaborative driver that was also an agency program supervisor. The interviewee stated that ?the [agency] makes sure it works ? they are responsible.? In this case however, there was more indication from the interviewee that the leadership team was more engaged in collaborative activities. For example, there was an established structure consisting of an executive committee and a few subcommittee groupings. Additionally, the interviewee reported that membership was stable and that the collaborative had a process for facilitating changes in executive committee roles. In contrast to the two community health collaboratives discussed above, the other community health collaborative in the study (community health ? a) reported having a shared model of leadership; this despite similar circumstances related to having a responsible agency 89 and an agency employee who functioned as the collaborative driver. Several comments by the interviewee suggested that the leadership team was more actively engaged in this community health collaborative than what appeared to be in the other two. For example, the interviewee stated ?the [administrative agency] encourages the partnership to view the program director as being ?owned? by the community.? And regarding decisions, the interviewee commented that it was important to ?emphasize that decisions are the partnership?s, not the program director?s.? The third collaborative that indicated it adhered to a hierarchical model of leadership was of a different issue domain than community health. In this case, there was no administrative agency responsible for the collaborative and the person responsible for moving and orchestrating the collaborative was also the board president. Some of the statements made by the interviewee lent credence to the survey response regarding adherence to a hierarchical model of leadership. For example, the interviewee stated that [they] exercised an executive decision option and ?doesn?t believe that every action and decision needs to be vetted?. Additionally, the interviewee commented that if a member of the leadership team didn?t agree with [them] regarding decisions, direction, etc. ?they can leave.? In this specific case, following a hierarchical model of leadership stemmed more from how the collaborative driver preferred to manage the collaborative and how the leadership team supported the decision. Finding #1 ? Interorganizational Collaboratives Need Structure. The findings suggest that the twelve interorganizational collaboratives in this study have similar structure components as those evident in bureaucratic organizations, granted, to varying degrees. The investigator also found that a model of shared leadership did exist in the majority of collaboratives, minus the exceptions noted in the above discussion. These findings support the literature which indicated that interorganizational collaborative entities require structure and that leadership is a collective 90 phenomenon. Extending the discussion of structure to how these entities are led, the literature suggests that collaborative entities need to be managed like organizations but in collaborative, nonhierarchical ways (Agranoff, 2006). The following discussion of roles focuses on how the twelve participant collaboratives are led. ROLES How are these entities led? The investigator sought to answer this question by determining the existence of a collaborative driver in the twelve participant entities and gaining an understanding of that role; and determining the existence of a collective leadership phenomenon in the collaboratives and gaining an understanding of the behaviors that characterized the role. Finding #2 ? Interorganizational Collaboratives Need a Collaborative Driver. One of the conclusions by Robert Agranoff (2007) in his study of fourteen public management networks was that someone must guide the process. Consistent with Agranoff?s finding are Shortell et al (2002) findings from a study of twenty-five community partnerships that determined the more successful partnerships had an ?organizational driver? ? e.g. a dedicated executive director or equivalent position. For purposes of this study, the investigator used the term collaborative driver and defined the term as the person responsible for moving and orchestrating the collaborative. The findings from this research study indicated that all twelve participant collaboratives had a collaborative driver who had one of a variety of role titles (see Table 16). Upon examining the role titles of the collaborative driver for each of the participant collaboratives, one might conclude that some collaborative drivers would have more power and influence in their respective collaborative than other collaborative drivers and might fulfill their 91 role more in line with a hierarchy-based leader. For example, the collaborative driver in one collaborative was titled ?chairman? versus the role title found in two collaboratives, ?coordinator.? However, the findings from the interview indicated otherwise. While there were different role titles for the collaborative driver in the twelve participant entities, there were consistent activities accomplished by each. For example, in eleven of twelve collaborative entities, the collaborative driver was the person who facilitated decision making. In the one instance that a person other than the collaborative driver was identified, the interviewee was quick to comment that the Chair facilitates decision making because the Chair leads the meetings; however, ?the coordinator prepares everything? and ensures the Chair has all the information needed. Conflict resolution activity in many of the collaboratives was also facilitated by the collaborative driver (n=8). Responses from three of the four remaining collaboratives to the interview question ? what role is focused on facilitating conflict resolution ? indicated that someone other than the collaborative driver facilitated conflict resolution. For example, in one collaborative, the collaborative driver would ?convene the executive committee to address the issue after the membership meeting advises that they meet? on the issue. One collaborative was an outlier in regards to the question. In this instance, the collaborative driver indicated that conflict within the collaborative did not exist and that the collaborative intentionally steered away from external contentious issues stating that ?the [collaborative] will not take sides. It is action-oriented towards solutions and interventions.? When questioned about the role focused on facilitating leadership development (e.g. recruitment, mentoring, etc.), ten collaborative drivers stated that their role focused on this activity. One collaborative driver stated that the collaborative?s nominating committee was 92 responsible and another collaborative driver stated that leadership development was not a purposeful activity in the collaborative and identified this as a risk area. These findings are consistent with the literature which indicates that leadership development in interorganizational collaboratives is purposeful. Even in the collaborative where development activity is absent there was recognition by the collaborative driver that the need exists. Only six of the twelve collaborative drivers indicated during the interview that their role also included a focus on facilitating changes in leadership. In these instances, the rationale tended to be that the collaborative driver had visibility of term limits and knew when to initiate the dialogue with the leadership team. Two collaborative drivers stated they had a leadership continuation plan ? either written or ?understood? ? and one collaborative driver stated that they did not have a succession plan but knew one was needed. In this case, the collaborative driver was also one of the founding members and indicated that talk of a succession plan ?was a very sensitive issue with board? but that one of the collaborative?s major funders was requiring a plan as a condition of continued funding. The interview with the collaborative driver for the regional sewer, collaboration, and economic collaboratives provided responses common to each other but unique from the other nine collaboratives in regard to leadership change. In the case of these three regional collaboratives, leadership change was driven more by elections and resignations (versus e.g. bylaw terms, etc.) as members were elected officials. This political process dynamic posed unique challenges to the collaborative driver. With newly elected officials, and thus new members to the collaborative, the collaborative driver needed to work with new members in a way that encouraged them to view the collaborative effort from the perspective of its value to the region and disassociate the effort from being nothing more than the predecessor?s agenda. This 93 dynamic highlighted a different level of skill required by the collaborative driver than what was evident in the other nine collaboratives. The interview process was a rich experience and provided the investigator with insight into the central role played by the collaborative driver in managing the collaborative and the interaction among members. In the words of one interviewee, the message used by the chair and vice chair when recruiting new leader-members, was that the position was not ?laborious due to having [the collaborative driver] who takes care of most of the work.? The collaborative driver?s role, while central to the collaborative, was fulfilled as part of a leadership team that functioned as a collectivity. Finding #3 ? Leadership Teams tend towards Transformational Leadership Style. The investigator used the Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) (copyright, Avolio and Bass, 1996; published by Mind Garden) to collect ratings on leadership behaviors exhibited by the leadership teams from the twelve participant collaborative entities. The TMLQ, by design, assesses shared or collective leadership in groups and teams (Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, and Jung, 2002). The scoring of the TMLQ suggested that the tendency across the twelve participant leadership teams was toward a transformational leadership style (see Table 17). Additionally, the results make evident that when respondents? rated high the items associated with transformation leadership style, they also rated high their perception of overall effectiveness of the team and satisfaction with the team?s leadership abilities. Even though the TMLQ has been used to assess team leadership and predict group performance, this research study sought to assess team leadership only and as such, there was no attempt to evaluate by other means the team?s effectiveness rating. 94 A limitation associated with the use of the TMLQ in this study is in the small number of respondents (n=39). The ability to access the leadership teams during the initial administration of the TMLQ and subsequent follow-up periods (e.g. reminders) was a challenge. Gatekeeping in regard to the investigator?s access to the leadership team of each collaborative varied among the twelve entities. For example, in eight of the collaboratives, the collaborative driver gave the leadership team?s contact information to the investigator and the investigator communicated directly with the team members in regard to accomplishing the TMLQ. In other collaboratives (n=3), the collaborative driver sent the survey link to the team members with an investigator- drafted instruction message. And in one collaborative, the collaborative driver facilitated survey completion in a group setting. Of interest, the three collaborative drivers who, instead of the investigator, sent their respective teams the survey link were the three community health collaboratives associated with a responsible agency; and the one collaborative driver who facilitated the group response was from the non-health entity and who indicated that the collaborative adhered to a hierarchical model of leadership. FUNCTIONS What leadership functions are prevalent in these entities? The findings from this research study suggested that leadership activities associated with the functions of focusing on collaborative structure, management, power, and participant interaction were prevalent in the twelve participant collaboratives. These finding were consistent with the literature which indicated that these leadership activities occur in interorganizational collaboratives. This study in part aimed to validate existent literature in regard to these leadership activities. However, the investigator was also interested in the opportunity to identify others. As such, respondents to Survey One had an opportunity to answer the respective questions by 95 selecting among listed activities from the literature and identify other relevant activities that were not listed. The second opportunity respondents had to identify new activities was during the interview process. The results from this study showed that none of the twelve participant entities identified additional activities in their survey responses or their interview responses to the restrictive questions. Finding #4 ? Leadership Activities Need to Include Problem Solving. The results from the interviews were consistent with survey responses, which together validated what previous scholars had identified as leadership activities prevalent in interorganizational collaboratives. However, in analyzing the responses from interview question number eleven ? the open-ended question ? an additional leadership function or activity was emerging. There were two comments in particular that the coders discussed to some depth that gave more of an indication than the other comments that they might be addressing something a little different than the established codes and associated definitions. One interviewee commented that it was important to ?view any initiative as an elephant from the onset. There is the parable of the blind man touching the elephant ? if he is touching the trunk he thinks it is a snake; if he touches the side of the elephant he thinks it is the side of a barn. There are different perspectives on the initiative ? different perspectives on how the problem is de fined.? The second comment by a different interviewee stated the need to ?counter members assumption that it is the [agency?s] job to do [the collaborative] versus the community?s.? Both coders discussed these comments from the perspective that the comments were more in line with the ?how to? of problem solving and that the code list and associated definitions didn?t really address this aspect as part of the leadership role, and specifically, the collaborative driver?s role. Exploring and then 96 validating ?solving the problem? as a leadership activity in interorganizational collaborative entities requires additional research. In summary, the examination of twelve North Carolina collaborative entities provided greater understanding of how interorganizational collaborative networks in the public sector are led. Findings from the study are: (1) Interorganizational collaboratives need structure; (2) Interorganizational collaboratives need a collaborative driver; (3) Leadership teams tend towards transformational leadership style; and (4) Leadership activities need to include problem solving 97 CONCLUSIONS Leadership and Learning are indispensible to each other. Author Unknown It is the investigator?s position that leadership matters. And extending this thought, the investigator also believes that effective leadership is critical to organizational success, regardless of context. This study focused on collective leadership in twelve North Carolina interorganizational collaboratives. The major contributions of this research to the field of public administration are in its approach to examine collective leadership in the interorganizational domain by using the traditional leader-follower model and bureaucratic organization as points of departure; in results which confirmed many aspects of existent theory in regard to leadership in the interorganizational domain; in results that expanded on the literature in regard to what we know about the collaborative driver and the leadership activities that are accomplished in a shared power environment; and in results that suggested potential value in using the TMLQ to assess the collective leadership phenomenon in interorganizational collaboratives. The following paragraphs include a brief discussion of this study?s implications for future research, public policy, academic preparation of aspiring public leaders, and practice in the interorganizational collaborative domain. Implications for future research. There were emerging themes as a result of this research that warrant further study. The investigator gleaned from the interviews that the collaborative driver played a central role in managing the collaborative and in facilitating the accomplishment of leadership functions. Further study should focus on this role and examine the relationship between presence and absence of the role with collaborative viability. On a related note, future research might examine the effect of the collaborative driver?s individual leadership skills and style on the collective leadership. And finally, there is a need to study the effects of collective 98 leadership on collaborative performance. Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, and Murray (2000) used the TMLQ, subsequent to the tool?s validating study, to assess team leadership and predict group performance in their participant groups. Based on their investigation, the authors found that team transformational leadership can impact performance. The authors concluded that transformational characteristics identified for individual leaders ?may apply equally well to describing the collective leadership of high performing teams.? More research is needed to corroborate these findings which, in part, could influence how leaders who operate in the interorganizational domain are developed. Implications for public policy. Inquiry into the twelve participant collaboratives provided, to a degree, insight into the complexity of the issues they addressed. There continues to be a need to better understand the multifaceted nature of complex social problems and to develop more holistic responses. For example, in addressing health status in vulnerable populations, there is a need to better understand education, transportation, housing, and economic policies (to name a few) and the interrelatedness and impact of these policies on population health. On a related note, we need to better understand when a collaborative effort, versus individual organizations acting independently, is the appropriate response. Public sector collaboratives have a role in this increasingly interconnected society and can function as effective forums to create synergies in the use of intellectual capital and resources towards producing outcomes unachievable by organizations acting alone. At a more local level, we need to better understand collective leadership in public sector collaboratives. This research study suggests that structure and leadership components ? and specifically the collaborative driver role ? are critical to a collaborative?s viability. Policies that encourage collaborative responses to complex issues could make funding contingent upon a 99 collaborative entity?s ability to demonstrate that appropriate structure and leadership elements are in place. For example, three of the participant collaboratives were certified by the state, in part, by providing evidence of several of the structure and leadership components included in this study, which in these cases also included someone in the collaborative driver role. For these particular collaboratives, there are several benefits to certification, two of which are community recognition of collaborative efforts and credibility of the collaborative effort when pursuing other funding sources. Implications for academic preparation of aspiring public leaders. The significance of this study to the academic preparation of public leaders is in the use of Charles Davis?s construct of bureaucratic organizations as a point of departure in examining leadership in the environments of traditional organizations and the interorganizational domain. Similar elements of organizational structure exist in both environments; however, the public manager?s role and conduct in a bureaucratic organization is different when in an interorganizational collaborative domain which is void of traditional managerial control mechanisms. Preparing aspiring public leaders to understand leadership in both environments will help build the foundation that experience and continual learning can build on and ultimately set practitioners up for success. Implications for practice in the interorganizational collaborative domain. From a collaborative driver perspective, managing a collaborative and working with a collective leadership phenomenon is challenging, regardless of whether the collaborative driver is in a full time role with the collaborative or manages the collaborative as an extra duty. Findings from this research study indicate the need for the collaborative driver to have a certain type of leadership style and depth of skill if the collaborative entity is to thrive. Studies such as this one can support 100 evidence-based practice by disseminating results that better the understanding of how interorganizational collaborative leadership influences performance and outcomes. 101 REFERENCES Agranoff, Robert (1991). Human Services Integration: Past and Present Challenges in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, November/December, Vol. 51, No. 6: 533-542. Agranoff, Robert. (2004). Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers Working across Organizations. In J. M. Kamensky & T. J. Burlin (Eds.), Collaboration: Using Networks and Partnerships (pp. 61-102). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Agranoff, Robert. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review (Special Issue), December: 56-65. Agranoff, Robert. (2007). Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Agranoff, Robert and McGuire, Michael. (1999). Managing in Network Settings. Policy Studies Review, Spring, 16:1:18-41. Agranoff, Robert and McGuire, Michael. (2001). Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11:3:295-326. Agranoff, Robert and McGuire, Michael. (2003). Inside the Matrix: Integrating the Paradigms of Intergovernmental and Network Management. International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 26, No. 12: 1401-1422. Alexander, Jeffrey A., Comfort, Maureen E., Weiner, Bryan J., and Bogue, Richard. (2001). Leadership in Collaborative Community Health Partnerships. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 12, no. 2: 159-175. Avolio, Bruce and Bass, Bernard. (1996). Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Team Form and Scoring Key. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. Bardach, Eugene. (1998). Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Connelly, David R. (2007). Leadership in the Collaborative Interorganizational Domain. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 30:1231-1262. Davis, Charles R. (1996). Organization Theories and Public Administration. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Fairholm, Matthew R. (2008). Different Perspectives on the Practice of Leadership. In M. Van Wart, & L. A. Dicke (Eds.), Administrative Leadership in the Public Sector (pp. 35-55). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. 102 Florin, P., Mitchell R., and Stevenson J. (1993). Identifying technical needs in community coalitions: A developmental Approach. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 8 (3): 417-432. Fry, Brian R. (1989). Mastering Public Administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers, Inc. Imperial, Mark T. (2005). Using Collaboration as a Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs. Administration & Society, Vol 37 No. 3: 281-320. Imperial, Mark T. and Koontz, Tomas. (2007). Evolution of Collaborative Organizations for Watershed Governance: Structural Properties, Life-cycles, and Factors Contributing to the Longevity of Watershed Partnerships. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Research Conference. November 8-10, 2007. Washington, DC. Kegler, M., Steckler, A., McLeroy, K., and Malek, S. (1998). Factors That Contribute to Effective Community Health Promotion Coalitions: A Study of 10 Project ASSIST Coalitions in North Carolina. Health Education & Behavior, June 1998, Vol. 25 (3): 338- 353. Mandell, Myrna P. (1999). Community Collaborations: Working through Network Structures. Policy Studies Review, Spring, 16:1:42-64. McNabb, David E. (2008). Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (Second Edition). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Miles, Matthew B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Mitchell, Shannon M. and Shortell, Stephen M. (2000). The Governance and Management of Effective Community Health Partnerships: A Typology for Research, Policy, and Practice. The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 78, No. 2:241-289. Northouse, Peter G. (2001). Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Polit, Denise F. and Beck, Cheryl Tatano. (2004). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (Seventh Edition). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Provan, Keith G. and Milward, H. Brinton. (1995). A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 1-33. 103 Provan, Keith G. and Milward, H. Brinton. (2001). Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review, July/August, Vol. 61, No. 4: 414-423. Saz-Carranza, Angel, Ospina, Sonia, and Vernis, Alfred (2007). Leadership in Interorganizational Networks. 21st Century Management: A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications. http://0-www.sage- ereference.com.uncclc.coast.uncwil.edu/management/Article_n79.html. 22 Jan. 2009. Shortell, Stephen M., Zukoski, Ann P., Alexander, Jeffrey A., Bazzoli, Gloria J., Conrad, Douglas A., Hasnain-Wynia, Romana, Sofaer, Shoshanna, Chan, Benjamin Y., Casey, Elizabeth, and Margolin, Frances S. (2002). Evaluating Partnerships for Community Health Improvement: Tracking the Footprints. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, Vol. 27, No. 1, February: 49-91. Sivasubramaniam, Nagaraj, Murry, William D., Avolio, Bruce J., and Jung, Dong I. (2002). A Longitudinal Model of the Effects of Team Leadership and Group Potency on Group Performance. Group & Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, March 2002: 66-96. Van Wart, Montgomery. (2008). Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment. In M. Van Wart, & L. A. Dicke (Eds.), Administrative Leadership in the Public Sector (pp. 11-34). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Yin, Robert K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agranoff, Robert and McGuire, Michael (1998). Multinetwork Management: Collaboration and the Hollow State in Local Economic Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8:1: 67-91. Alavi, Maryam (1994). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation. MIS Quarterly, June: 159-174. Barth, Thomas (1996). Administering in the Public Interest: The Facilitative Role for Public Administrators. In Gary L. Wamsley and James F. Wolf (Eds.), Refounding Democratic Public Administration: Modern Paradoxes, Postmodern Challenges (pp. 168-197). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Barth, Thomas and Green, Mark T. (1999). Public Administration Handbooks: Why, How, and Who? (Book Reviews) Public Administration Review, Vol. 59, No. 6: 535-544. Barth, Thomas (2001). The Role of Ad Hoc Regional Alliances in Managing Growth. Public Works Management and Policy, October, Vol. 6, No. 2: 114-125. Bryer, Thomas A. (2009). Explaining Responsiveness in Collaboration: Administrator and Citizen Role Perceptions. Public Administration Review, March/April, Vol. 69, No. 2: 271-283. Cali, Salvatore, Scheff, Peter, Mucha, Amy, Nickels, Leslie, Oliynyk, Irene, and Hryhorczuk, Daniel (2007). The Great Lakes Center?s Health Hazard Evaluation Program: Promoting Community Environmental Health Through Partnerships Between Academic and Public Health Departments. Journal of Environmental Health, July/August, Vol. 70, No. 1: 42- 46. Comfort, Louise K. and Kapucu, Naim (2006). Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The World Trade Center attacks, September 11, 2001. Nat Hazards, 39: 309-327. Cramer, Mary E., Atwood, Jan R., and Stoner, Julie A. (2006). A Conceptual Model for Understanding Effective Coalitions Involved in Health Promotion Programing. Public Health Nursing, Vol. 23 No. 1: 67-73. Creswell, John W., and Clark, Vicki L.P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Davis, Neil A. (2008). Evaluating collaborative fisheries management planning: A Canadian case study. Marine Policy, 32: 867-876. Denhardt, Robert B. (2000). Theories of Public Organization (3rd edition). Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company. 105 Digenti, Dori (1999). Collaborative Learning: A Core Capability for Organizations in the New Economy. Reflections, Vol. 1, No. 2: 45-57. Dodge, William R. (1996). Regional Excellence: Governing Together to Compete Globally and Flourish Locally. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities. Dragicevic, Suzana and Balram, Shivanand (2004). A Web GIS collaborative framework to structure and manage distributed planning processes. Journal of Geographical Systems, 6: 133-153. Duemer, Lee S., Christopher, Mary, Hardin, Fred, Olibas, Lezlie, Rodgers, Terry, and Spiller, Kevin (unknown). Case Study of Characteristics of Effective Leadership in Graduate Student Collaborative Work. Education, Vol. 124, No. 4: 721-726. Feiock, Richard C., Steinacker, Annette, and Park, Hyung J. (2009). Institutional Collective Action and Economic Development Joint Ventures. Public Administration Review, March/April, Vol. 69, No. 2: 256-270. Felix, Holly C. (2007). The Rise of the Community-Based Participatory Research Initiative at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences: An Historical Analysis Using the Policy Streams Model. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, Spring, Vol. 1.1: 31-39, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Fields, Dail (2007). Leadership Style: Developing a Leadership Style to Fit 21st-Century Challenges. 21st Century Management: A Reference Handbook. 2007. SAGE Publications. http://0-www.sage- ereference.com.uncclc.coast.uncwil.edu/management/Article_n77.html. 22 Jan. 2009. Flanders, Loretta R. and Utterback, Dennis (1985). The Management Excellence Inventory: A Tool for Management Development. Public Administration Review, May/June: 403-410. Gamm, Larry D. (1998). Advancing Community Health Through Community Health Partnerships. Journal of Healthcare Management, Jan/Feb, 43:1: 51-67. Gold, Marsha, Doreian, Patrick, and Taylor, Erin F. (2008). Understanding a collaborative effort to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in health care: Contributions from social network analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 67: 1018-1027. Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, May, Vol. 78, No. 6: 1360-1380. Gueldenzoph, Lisa E. and May, Gary L. (2002). Collaborative Peer Evaluation: Best Practices for Group Member Assessments. Business Communication Quarterly, March, Vol. 65, No. 1: 9-20. 106 Hausman, Alice J., Brawer, Rickie, Becker, Julie, Foster-Drain, Robin, Sudler, Charmaine, Wilcox, Robin, and Terry, Barbara J. (2005). The Value Template Process: A Participatory Evaluation Method for Community Health Partnerships. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 11(1): 65-71. Hurley, John and Linsley, Paul (2007). Leadership challenges to move nurses toward collaborative individualism within a neo-corporate bureaucratic environment. Journal of Nursing Management, 15: 749-755. Innes, Judith, and Rongerude, Jane (2006). Collaborative Regional Initiatives: Civic Entrepreneurs Work to Fill the Governance Gap. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Working Paper 2006-04, University of California at Berkeley. Jameson, Jill, Ferrell, Gill, Kelly, Jacquie, Walker, Simon, and Ryan, Malcolm (2006). Building Trust and shared knowledge in communities of e-learning practice: collaborative leadership in the JISC eLISA and CAMEL lifelong learning projects. British Journal of Educational Technologies, Vol. 37, No. 6: 949-967. Johnson, Gail (2010). Research Methods for Public Administrators (2nd Edition). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Johnston, Michelle (2004). Investing in Sustainability: Adding Value in Georgia. Center for Civic Partnerships, Public Health Institute. Sacramento, CA: Public Health Institute. Kamensky, John M. and Burlin, Thomas J. (Editors) (2004). Collaboration: Using Networks and Partnerships. IBM Center for The Business of Government, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Kapucu, Naim, Augustin, Maria-Elena, and Garayev, Vener (2009). Interstate Partnerships in Emergency Management: Emergency Management Assistance Compact in Response to Catastrophic Disasters. Public Administration Review, March/April, Vol. 69, No. 2: 297- 313. Kezar, Adrianna (2006). Redesigning for Collaboration in Learning Initiatives: An Examination of Four Highly Collaborative Campuses. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 77, No.5: 804-838. Koka, Balaji R., and Prescott, John E. (2002). Strategic Alliances as Social Capital: A MultiDimensional View. Strategic Management Journal, Vol 23, No. 9: 795-816. Koppenjan, Joop F.M., and Enserink, Bert (2009). Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Infrastructures: Reconciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability. Public Administration Review, March/April, Vol. 69, No. 2: 284-296. Latona, Joseph C. (1972). Leadership Styles and Productivity: A Review and Comparative Analysis. Training and Development Journal, August: 2-10. 107 Laumann, Edward O., Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and Marsden, Peter V. (1978). Community Structure as Interorganizational Linkages. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 4: 455-484. Luke, Jeffrey S. (1998). Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Lusky, Melissa B. and Hayes, Richard L. (2001). Collaborative Consultation and Program Evaluation. Journal of Counseling and Development, Winter, Vol. 79: 26-38. Marshall, Michael. (unknown). Collaborative leadership in schools. Education Journal, Issue 80: 26. Mason, Jennifer (2002). Qualitative Researching (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Myrick, Roger, Aoki, Bart, Truax, Steve, Lemelle, Anthony, and Lemp, George (2005). Building Capacity Through Partnerships: The Use of Community Collaborative Evaluation and Research to Build Capacity for HIV/AIDS Prevention. AIDS Education and Prevention, 17(4): 279-283. ?Overview of the Community-Based Public Health Initiative.? A Kellogg Foundation Publication. Accessed 6 Nov. 2008. http://www.wkkf.org/ Parker, Edith, Margolis, Lewis H., Eng, Eugenia, and Henriquez-Roldan, Carlos. (2003). Assessing the Capacity of Health Departments to Engage in Community-Based Participatory Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, March, Vol 93, No. 3: 472-476. Pirkis, Jane, Herrman, Helen, Schweitzer, Isaac, Yung, Alison, Grigg, Margaret, and Burgess, Philip (2001). Evaluating complex, collaborative programmes: the Partnership Project as a case study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35: 639-646. Pirkis, Jane, Livingston, Jenni, Herrman, Helen, Schweitzer, Isaac, Gill, Lisa, Morley, Belinda, Grigg, Margaret, Tanaghow, Amgad, Yung, Alison, Trauer, Tom, and Burgess, Philip (2004). Improving collaboration between private psychiatrists, the public mental health sector and general practitioners: evaluation of the Partnership Project. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38: 125-134. Portes, Alejandro. (2000). The Two Meanings of Social Capital. Sociological Forum, March, Vol. 15, No. 1: 1-12. ?Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity.? GAO-03-454. Washington, D.C.: May 2003. 108 Qureshi, Sajda. (2000). Organisational Change through Collaborative Learning in a Network Form. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9: 129-147. Ramsden, Clair (2005). Learning from collaboratives (Guest Editorial). Accident and Emergency Nursing, 13: 145-146. Robinson, John P. and Shaver, Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (Appendix B to Measures of Political Attitudes). Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Senge, Peter M. (2003). Taking personal change seriously: The impact of Organizational Learning on management practice (Executive Commentary). Academy of Management Executive, May, Vol 17, No. 2: 47-50. Schermerhorn Jr., John R. (1975). Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation. The Academy of Management Journal, December, Vol. 18, No. 4: 846-856. Scholz, John T. and Stiftel, Bruce (Editors) (2005). Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. Schonlau, Matthias, Mangione-Smith, Rita, Chan, Kitty S., Keesey, Joan, Rosen, Mayde, Louis, Thomas A., Wu, Shin-Yi, and Keeler, Emmett (2005). Evaluation of a Quality Improvement Collaborative in Asthma Care: Does it Improve Processes and Outcomes of Care? Annals of Family Medicine, May/June, Vol. 3, No. 3: 200-208. Schulz, Amy J., Israel, Barbara A., and Lantz, Paula (2003). Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26: 249-262. Singer, Helen H., and Kegler, Michelle C. (2004). Assessing Interorganizational Networks as a Dimension of Community Capacity: Illustrations from a Community Intervention to Prevent Lead Poisoning. Health Education and Behavior, December, Vol. 31 (6): 808- 821. Spitz, Bruce and Ritter, Grant. (2002). Evaluating Community Partnerships: A Response (Commentary). Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, February, Vol. 27, No. 1: 93- 103. Steiner, Beat D., Denham, Amy C., Ashkin, Evan, Newton, Warren P., Wroth, Thomas, Dobson, L. A. (2008). Community Care in North Carolina: Improving Care Through Community Health Networks. Annals of Family Medicine. www.annfammed.org. July/August, Vol. 6, No. 4: 361-367. Taylor, Cathy (2006). A collaborative approach to developing ?learning synergy? in primary health care. Nurse Education in Practice, 7: 18-25. 109 Tsai, Wenpin (2000). Social Capital, Strategic Relatedness and the Formation of Intraorganizational Linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 925-939. Van Wart, Montgomery (1994). Learning and the Reinvention of Public Sector Organizations (Book Reviews). Public Administration Review, November/December, Vol. 54, No. 6: 577-579. Weber, Edward P. (2009). Explaining Institutional Change in Tough Cases of Collaboration: ?Ideas? in the Balckfoot Watershed. Public Administration Review, March/April, Vol. 69, No. 2: 314-327. Weber, Robert P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (2nd Edition). Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, Inc. Weech-Maldonado, Robert, Benson, Keith J., and Gamm, Larry D. (2003). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community Health Partnerships: A Stakeholder Accountability Approach. Journal of Health & Human Services Administration, Summer, 58 ? 92. Weiner, Bryan J. and Alexander, Jeffrey A. (1998). The Challenges of Governing Public-Private Community Health Partnerships. Health Care Management Review, Spring, 23(2): 39-55. Willumsen, Elisabeth (2006). Leadership in interprofessional collaboration ? the case of childcare in Norway. Journal of Interprofessional Care, August, 20(4): 403-413. Wood, Curtis (2005). Scope and Patterns of Metropolitan Governance in Urban America: Probing the Complexities in the Kansas City Region. The American Review of Public Administration, September, Vol. 36, No. 3: 337-353. Yessian, Mark R. (1988). Toward Effective Human Services Management. Public Administration Quarterly, Spring: 115-132. Yin, Robert K. (1993). Applications of Case Study Research. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, Inc. 110 Appendix 1: Survey One ? Leading Interorganizational Collaborative Networks 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 Appendix 2: Instrument ? TMLQ ? Permission Letter 119 120 Appendix 3: TMLQ Validating Study Abstract 121 122 Appendix 4: Interview Questions 1: What is [insert collaborative name] purpose? 2: What role is focused on facilitating decision making? 3: What role is focused on facilitating conflict resolution? 4: What role is focused on facilitating leadership development (e.g. recruitment, mentoring, etc.)? 5: What role is focused on facilitating changes in leadership (e.g. term change, ineffectual, etc.)? 6: Is there a person who is responsible for moving and orchestrating the collaborative? 7: What is this person?s role called (e.g. coordinator, strategic director, etc.)? 8: What is the selection process for filling this role? 9: What guides this person in their role (e.g. job description, list of responsibilities, etc.)? 10: How long does this person serve in the role? 11: Any additional comments related to how to effectively lead interorganizational collaborative networks? 123 Appendix 5: Definitions Action [Collaborative Typology]: Partners come together to make interagency adjustments, formally adopt collaborative courses of action, and/or deliver services Collaborative driver: The person responsible for moving and orchestrating the collaborative Collective Leadership: A process whereby members of a leadership team collectively influence each other toward accomplishing its goals Developmental [Collaborative Typology]: Partners come together to exchange information but also mutually develop management/policy/program capabilities and engage in capacity building Informational [Collaborative Typology]: Partners come together to collaboratively exchange information, learn the depth of problems, and hear how individual member organizations are solving problems Interorganizational Collaborative Network: Organizational entities composed of member organizations from public, governmental, private, and community sectors whose collective effort is focused on a public issue domain Outreach [Collaborative Typology]: Partners come together to provide new and interactive programming opportunities for member organizations as they strategically blueprint interactive activity that is implemented by the partners Role: A set of behaviors 124 Appendix 6: Code List and Definitions CS ? Collaborative Structure Establishing operating rules, processes, and procedures; Creating infrastructure for collaboration; Setting the platform for interaction; Setting engagement rules, common norms; Creating shared identity, shared purpose; and Establishing decision making processes MC ? Managing the Collaborative Selective activation of members; Selective deactivation of members; Leadership development; Implementing organization structure, coordination, integration; Managing communication channels; Managing conflict; Managing change over time; and Monitoring progress, evaluation, and accountability IP ? Interaction among Participants Building unity; Managing inequalities; Motivating participation; Creating inclusive and open processes; Achieving cooperation; Reducing complexity and uncertainty; Promoting information exchange; Engendering effective communication among participants; and Changing positions, relations, and roles of participants CP ? Collaborative Power Developing and achieving a set of common objectives; Capturing resources; Building internal and external support; Forging agreement on the role and scope of network operations; and Motivating, inspiring, and inducing commitment