Frontrunning, Free-Riding and Over-Aspiring: A Case Study Exploring How Configurations of Involvement, Social Comparison and Organizational Goal Attainment Affect Perceived Network Goal Attainment

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Talma Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2 Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

3 Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background 
Complex problems in healthcare (fragmentation, specialization, and increased costs) are often addressed by implementing collaborative interorganizational networks. Theoretical models prescribe organizational practices that should ensure the effectiveness of these networks. However, these models are mostly aimed at organizing networks to achieve optimal effectiveness. One of the mechanisms increasing effectiveness, is the involvement of network members. We argue that even though network involvement may be high, there are mechanisms at play that decrease the member’s perceived network goal attainment, resulting in dissatisfied and dissociated members. One of these mechanisms is the comparison of input and output versus the input and output of other members; while the other is the pursuit of organizational goals by network membership. In combination with each other, these may lead to low perceived network goal attainment.
 
Methods 
We apply a mixed method study in a local primary care network (PCN) in the Netherlands. We collect and analyse two types of data: (1) interviews, analysed using thematic analysis, and (2) surveys, analysed using crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA).
 
Results 
We found three different pathways to low perceived network goal attainment. Members that are highly involved with the network, can still feel dissatisfied with the network’s goal attainment if they engage in social comparison or if they pursue organizational goals rather than network goals by network membership. We called these pathways overachieving, and frontrunning. The third pathway, freeriding, describes members that are not very much involved in the network, but pursue organizational goals rather than network goals, and are also dissatisfied about the network’s goal attainment.
 
Conclusion 
Network member involvement positively affects perceived network goal attainment. We argue however, that even high network involvement can result in low perceived network goal attainment. Member’s comparison of each other’s input and output, as well as the pursuit of organizational goals, result in low perceived goal attainment even if members’ involvement is high. Future research aimed at network level effectiveness should take member level characteristics and sociodynamic factors into account.

Keywords

References

  1. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477-2481. doi:1056/NEJMp1011024
  2. Goodwin N. Understanding integrated care. Int J Integr Care. 2016;16(4):6. doi:5334/ijic.2530
  3. Mur-Veeman I, van Raak A, Paulus A. Comparing integrated care policy in Europe: does policy matter? Health Policy. 2008;85(2):172-183. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2007.07.008
  4. Provan KG, Fish A, Sydow J. Interorganizational networks at the network level: a review of the empirical literature on whole networks. J Manage. 2007;33(3):479-516. doi:1177/0149206307302554
  5. van den Oord S, Kenis P, Raab J, Cambré B. Modes of network governance revisited: assessing their prevalence, promises, and limitations in the literature. Public Adm Rev. 2023;83(6):1564-1598. doi:1111/puar.13736
  6. van der Woerd O, Janssens J, van der Scheer W, Bal R. Managing (through) a network of collaborations: a case study on hospital executives’ work in a Dutch urbanized region. Public Manag Rev. 2024;26(5):1299-1321. doi:1080/14719037.2023.2171093
  7. Provan KG, Kenis P. Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2008;18(2):229-252. doi:1093/jopart/mum015
  8. Provan KG, Milward HB. Health services delivery networks: what do we know and where should we be headed? Healthc Pap. 2006;7(2):32-36. doi:12927/hcpap..18554
  9. Kenis P, Provan KG. The control of public networks. Int Public Manag J. 2006;9(3):227-247. doi:1080/10967490600899515
  10. Bianchi C, Nasi G, Rivenbark WC. Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public Manag Rev. 2021;23(11):1581-1589. doi:1080/14719037.2021.1878777
  11. Raab J, Mannak RS, Cambré B. Combining structure, governance, and context: a configurational approach to network effectiveness. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2013;25(2):479-511. doi:1093/jopart/mut039
  12. Turrini A, Cristofoli D, Frosini F, Nasi G. Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Adm. 2010;88(2):528-550. doi:1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01791.x
  13. Wind A, Limbeek R, Bretveld H, et al. Evaluating cancer care networks; a case study of a lung cancer care network. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(10):2103-2114. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.98
  14. Cristofoli D, Macciò L. To wind a skein into a ball: exploring the concept and measures of public network performance. Public Manag Rev. 2018;20(6):896-922. doi:1080/14719037.2017.1363904
  15. Auschra C. Barriers to the integration of care in inter-organisational settings: a literature review. Int J Integr Care. 2018;18(1):5. doi:5334/ijic.3068
  16. Provan KG, Milward HB. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Adm Rev. 2001;61(4):414-423. doi:1111/0033-3352.00045
  17. Cristofoli D, Meneguzzo M, Riccucci N. Collaborative administration: the management of successful networks. Public Manag Rev. 2017;19(3):275-283. doi:1080/14719037.2016.1209236
  18. Smith JG. Theoretical advances in our understanding of network effectiveness. Perspect Public Manag Gov. 2020;3(2):167-182. doi:1093/ppmgov/gvz032
  19. van der Weert G, Burzynska K, Knoben J. An integrative perspective on interorganizational multilevel healthcare networks: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):923. doi:1186/s12913-022-08314-6
  20. Kenis P, Provan KG. Towards an exogenous theory of public network performance. Public Adm. 2009;87(3):440-456. doi:1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01775.x
  21. Peeters R, Westra D, van Raak AJA, Ruwaard D. So happy together: a review of the literature on the determinants of effectiveness of purpose-oriented networks in health care. Med Care Res Rev. 2023;80(3):266-282. doi:1177/10775587221118156
  22. Mandell MP, Keast R. Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks. Public Manag Rev. 2008;10(6):715-731. doi:1080/14719030802423079
  23. Peeters R, Westra D, van Raak AJA, Ruwaard D. Getting our hopes up: how actors perceive network effectiveness and why it matters. Soc Sci Med. 2023;325:115911. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2023.115911
  24. Lamontagne ME, Swaine BR, Lavoie A, Champagne F, Marcotte AC. Perceptions of traumatic brain injury network participants about network performance. Brain Inj. 2010;24(6):812-822. doi:3109/02699051003789252
  25. Ahrne G, Brunsson N. Organizations and meta-organizations. Scand J Manag. 2005;21(4):429-449. doi:1016/j.scaman.2005.09.005
  26. Donati S, Zappalà S, González-Romá V. The double-edge sword effect of interorganizational trust on involvement in interorganizational networks: the mediator role of affective commitment. Eur Manag J. 2020;38(4):613-622. doi:1016/j.emj.2019.12.014
  27. Kramer AE. Resilient Networks in Healthcare: Effects of Structural and Cognitive Embeddedness on Network Commitment [thesis]. Tilburg: Center for Economic Research, Tilburg University; 2014.
  28. Scott RJ, Merton ERK. When the going gets tough, the goal-committed get going: overcoming the transaction costs of inter-agency collaborative governance. Public Manag Rev. 2021;23(11):1640-1663. doi:1080/14719037.2021.1879916
  29. Clarke N. The relationships between network commitment, its antecedents and network performance. Manag Decis. 2006;44(9):1183-1205. doi:1108/00251740610707677
  30. Provan KG, Nakama L, Veazie MA, Teufel-Shone NI, Huddleston C. Building community capacity around chronic disease services through a collaborative interorganizational network. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30(6):646-662. doi:1177/1090198103255366
  31. Karam M, Brault I, Van Durme T, Macq J. Comparing interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration in healthcare: a systematic review of the qualitative research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:70-83. doi:1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.11.002
  32. Kee K, Nies H, van Wieringen M, Beersma B. From integrated care to integrating care: a conceptual framework of behavioural processes underlying effective collaboration in care. Int J Integr Care. 2023;23(4):4. doi:5334/ijic.7446
  33. Mitterlechner M. Leadership in integrated care networks: a literature review and opportunities for future research. Int J Integr Care. 2020;20(3):6. doi:5334/ijic.5420
  34. Shiffman J. Agency, structure and the power of global health networks. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(10):879-884. doi:15171/ijhpm.2018.71
  35. Jang HS, Feiock RC. Public versus private funding of nonprofit organizations: implications for collaboration. Public Perform Manag Rev. 2007;31(2):174-190. doi:2753/pmr1530-9576310202
  36. Koppenjan J. Creating a playing field for assessing the effectiveness of network collaboration by performance measures. Public Manag Rev. 2008;10(6):699-714. doi:1080/14719030802423061
  37. Cohn A, Fehr E, Herrmann B, Schneider F. Social comparison and effort provision: evidence from a field experiment. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2014;12(4):877-898. doi:1111/jeea.12079
  38. Wood JV. What is social comparison and how should we study it? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1996;22(5):520-537. doi:1177/0146167296225009
  39. Greenberg J, Ashton-James CE, Ashkanasy NM. Social comparison processes in organizations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;102(1):22-41. doi:1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.006
  40. Brown DJ, Ferris DL, Heller D, Keeping LM. Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;102(1):59-75. doi:1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.003
  41. Kenis P, Raab J. Back to the future: using organization design theory for effective organizational networks. Perspect Public Manag Gov. 2020;3(2):109-23. doi:1093/ppmgov/gvaa005
  42. Shinkle GA. Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: building on the past and aiming for the future. J Manage. 2012;38(1):415-455. doi:1177/0149206311419856
  43. Obloj T, Zenger T. Organization design, proximity, and productivity responses to upward social comparison. Organ Sci. 2017;28(1):1-18. doi:1287/orsc.2016.1103
  44. Provan KG, Lemaire RH. Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72(5):638-648. doi:1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02595.x
  45. van Raaij DP. Norms network members use: an alternative perspective for indicating network success or failure. Int Public Manag J. 2006;9(3):249-270. doi:1080/10967490600899549
  46. Provan KG, Kenis P, Human SE. Legitimacy building in organizational networks. In: Blomgren Bingham L, O'Leary R, eds. Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2008:121-137.
  47. Ysa T, Sierra V, Esteve M. Determinants of network outcomes: the impact of management strategies. Public Adm. 2014;92(3):636-655. doi:1111/padm.12076
  48. Knoben J, Oerlemans LA, Krijkamp AR, Provan KG. What do they know? The antecedents of information accuracy differentials in interorganizational networks. Organ Sci. 2018;29(3):471-488. doi:1287/orsc.2017.1180
  49. Knoben J, Gilsing VA, Krijkamp AR. From homophily through embeddedness to strategy: the role of network accuracy in partner selection choices. Long Range Plann. 2019;52(1):86-102. doi:1016/j.lrp.2018.06.001
  50. Krijkamp AR, Knoben J, Oerlemans LAG, Leenders RTAJ. An ace in the hole: The effects of (in)accurately observed structural holes on organizational reputation positions in whole networks. J Bus Res. 2021;129:703-713. doi:1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.066
  51. van den Muijsenbergh M, Schers H, Assendelft P. Huisarts werkt in de toekomst wijkgericht. Huisarts Wet. 2018;61(10):41-43. doi:1007/s12445-018-0296-8
  52. Schäfer W, Kroneman M, Boerma W, et al. The Netherlands: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2010;12(1):1-228.
  53. Kordowicz M, Malby B, Mervyn K. Navigating new organisation forms: a qualitative study of primary care networks. BJGP Open. 2022;6(2):BJGPO.2021.0092. doi:3399/bjgpo.2021.0092
  54. Manns BJ, Tonelli M, Zhang J, et al. Enrolment in primary care networks: impact on outcomes and processes of care for patients with diabetes. CMAJ. 2012;184(2):E144-E152. doi:1503/cmaj.110755
  55. Klijn EH, Steijn B, Edelenbos J. The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Adm. 2010;88(4):1063-1082. doi:1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01826.x
  56. Huang K, Provan KG. Resource tangibility and patterns of interaction in a publicly funded health and human services network. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2007;17(3):435-454. doi:1093/jopart/mul011
  57. Mukinda FK, Van Belle S, Schneider H. Local dynamics of collaboration for maternal, newborn and child health: a social network analysis of healthcare providers and their managers in Gert Sibande district, South Africa. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(10):2135-2145. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.106
  58. Misangyi VF, Greckhamer T, Furnari S, Fiss PC, Crilly D, Aguilera R. Embracing causal complexity: the emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. J Manage. 2017;43(1):255-282. doi:1177/0149206316679252
  59. Greckhamer T, Furnari S, Fiss PC, Aguilera RV. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: best practices in strategy and organization research. Strateg Organ. 2018;16(4):482-495. doi:1177/1476127018786487
  60. Duşa A. QCA with R. A Comprehensive Source. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2019.
  61. Fu F, Tarnita CE, Christakis NA, Wang L, Rand DG, Nowak MA. Evolution of in-group favoritism. Sci Rep. 2012;2:460. doi:1038/srep00460

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 March 2023
  • Revise Date: 17 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 20 July 2024
  • First Publish Date: 21 July 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics