You are on page 1of 12

Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It Author(s): Michael McGuire Source: Public Administration Review,

Vol. 62, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2002), pp. 599-609 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3110019 Accessed: 13/03/2009 22:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Michael McGuire
of NorthTexas University

Managing Managers

Networks:
Do

Propositionson

What

and

Why

They

Do

It

in networks is difficult because the allocationof managerialresourcesin Measuring management network structures is fluid-that is, theutilization of management behaviors variesacrosstimeand within a or As a means of the network space given program project. focusing managementresearch agenda, propositions based in contingencylogic are suggested to test ideas regarding and how network thesebehaviors.The are intended when,why, managersundertake propositions to identify the vastinventory of network behaviorsand, mostimportantly, determine management how the manager strategically matchesbehaviorswith the governingcontext.Suggestionsare also offeredto help us understand how and why managerialresources are reallocatedover time and space. Theproposed researchagenda is offered as a guide to help us determinewhich choicesare mostlikelyto be effective.
"The study of governanceneeds its bestseller with snappyaphorismsand vivid stories." -RA.W. Rhodes

In the midst of remarkable increasesin the quality and of in research quantity public network management,the of the story public managerin such contexts has yet to be adequatelytold. Where is the "day in the life of a public networkmanager"fable to teach us the basic how-tos of networkmanagement? Where are the textbookswith fullcolor pictorials, biographical accounts of highly skilled Wherecan we find documentation networkmanagers? of a or manager muddlingthrough, gropingalong, fallingasleep at the wheel in networksettings?As moreattention is given to governing structuresthat are multiorganizational and this aspect of public managementcould use multisectoral, In the passagequotedabove, some simple,richdescription. ProfessorRhodes(1997, xv) writesconcisely,andonly partially in jest, that "all too often academicsmake maps of complexity,insisting that complex problemsrequirecomplex solutions"that stand in contrastto the "snappy'ten commandments' of the latestmanagement bestseller." However,it is difficultto discussclearlyandconciselythatwhich is complex and multifaceted.The practice of managing across governmentsand organizationsoutpacesempirical We do not yet have descriptionandtheoreticalexplanation. the vocabularyand imagery to tell meaningful stories of managementsuccess in networksettings.

This articlemay fail the "tencommandments" test, but its intentis to simplifyandfocus researchon networkmanthepublic agement.It discussesthe challengesof measuring in critical actions and behaviors models of promanager's gram effectiveness in networkpolicy making and administration.The basic premise is that a research agenda in networkmanagementmust include threecomponents:(1) a descriptionof the behaviorschosen by the networkmanager; (2) an explanation of why managers make such choices; and (3) an evaluationof these choices. Making the importantcase thatnetworkmanagementhas become a criticalactivity in public administration, recentresearch has emphasizedthe thirdcomponent,theorizingaboutthe meaning of effectiveness in networksand testing models of effectiveness with empiricaldata. In such valuable but incompletemodels, networkmanagementhas become the ultimateindependentvariablein causal modeling of programeffectiveness, but the specific behaviorsof the public manager are not properlymeasuredin these models. Although advanceshave resultedfrom the more sophisticated studies (Meier and O'Toole 2001; Provan and
MichaelMcGuire is an associateprofessor of publicadministration at the of NorthTexas. Hisresearch on interorganizational colnetworks, University laborative and economicdevelopment has been pubpublicmanagement, lishedin manyjournals, Public Administration Journal of including Review, PublicAdministration State and LocalGovernment Research and Theory, The Journalof Federalism, and EconomicDevelopment Review,Publius: Email: Quarterly. mmcguire@scs.cmm.unt.edu.

Networks: on WhatManagers DoandWhyThey Do It 599 Propositions Managing

heretofore hasneglected Milward1995),empiricalresearch to describe and explain how particularmanagementresources are employed in network structures.In researchdesign terminology,a premiumhas been placed on establishing internal validity, without a similar concern for measurementvalidity.The discussion in this article is intendedto provideone roadmap for identifyingandunderstandingthe behaviorsof the networkmanager.

and Definitions Assumptions


Several assumptionsand definitions must be stated at is used in this article the outset. First, the term "network" structo describepublicpolicy makingand administrative turesinvolvingmultiplenodes (agenciesandorganizations) with multiple linkages. I use the term not just to describe social networksor informalpatternsof interaction,but to connote structuresthrough which public goods and services areplanned,designed, produced,anddelivered(and any or all of the activities). In keeping with recent public administration research,I do not definenetworksas purely sociological phenomena.Instead, I use the network as a metaphorto describejoint situationsin which more than is dependenton anotherto performa task. one organization not to intent is apply the concept of the social network My butto modify ourmodels of pubto public administration, and managementto apply to networklic administration like settings. Second, I assume that governmentis properlyviewed as a steererof policy making and execution,reflectingthe desires and demands of its citizens. My use of the term still conveys the steeringfunction "network management" in a but of government, way that is wholly differentfrom In command-and-control processes within a bureaucracy. at leaders various on various networks may rely practice, times performingvarious roles, all of which may be necessaryfor networkeffectiveness.However,my hypotheses assume the typical situations in which governmentultimately is held accountablefor the satisfactorydelivery of public goods and services. Therefore,the network manager in the situations assumed here is the government managementcharged with completing such a task, who must do so with and throughnetworkedsettings. Public managerscan't commandaction in networks,but they are still responsiblefor their outputs. Third,unlike many studies of networksand collaboration, my focus is on managingthe networkas a network. The first-stage, operations-level management behaviors examined in this article are conducted to achieve a particularpurpose;the hypothesesraisedherearenot intended to directlyaddressthe networkpurpose.In this regard,the behaviors can be viewed as analogous to-but certainly not the same as-behaviors and tasks thatconstituteorga* September/October Review Administration 600 Public 2002,Vol. 62, No.5

nizational behavior theory. For example, in order for an to produceits goods andservices,it musthave organization the most skilled staff.The staffmustbe motivatedto maintainor increaseproduction, the organization mustbe structuredin such a way that productionis efficient and effective, and the development of interpersonalrelationships must be fostered. The manager'sjob is to make this happen. Similarly, any government manager charged with the achievinga goal throughnetworksettingsunderstands most criticalactivitiesinvolve operations-identifying and working with the properplayers and resources, keeping the players committed, defining the roles of the players, and facilitatingeffective interactionamong the players.A networkmanagercertainlycannotcommandthese to happen, as a managerin a single organizationcan do, butthey still must happenfor networksto be effective. Thus, I delimit my analysis to exploringwhat managersdo to operate in effective networks.

TheResearch Question
I submitthat the most importantnetworkmanagement researchagenda involves answeringa simple but elusive empiricalquestion:Do the actions of a managercontribute to the effectiveness of multiorganizationalarrangements, and if so, how? Governingnetworksdo not simply emerge spontaneouslyas self-sufficient, automatedentities. There is both an operationaland a strategiccharacter to networksthat depends largely on the actions of a manager.Recently adoptedmeasuresof networkmanagement within typicallyinvolve countingcontactsandinteractions the network (Agranoff and McGuire 1998; Meier and O'Toole 2001; Provanand Milward 1991, 1995). The use of these preliminary measures in network studies has opened the floodgates, so to speak, and provided a welcome stream of knowledge regardingthe scope and imstructures,but they fall short pact of multiorganizational of accuratelydepicting a networkmanager'sbehavior.If scholarshipultimatelyis intendedto informaction,to provide guidanceto managersoperatingin a complex andrapidly changingenvironment,this empiricaloversightmust be corrected and next-generation measures of network managementmust be conceived. in networksis difficultbecause Measuringmanagement the allocation of managerialresources in network structuresis fluid, thatis, the utilizationof managementbehaviors varies across time and space within a given program or project.A managermay believe it is necessaryto stabilize processes within a network-say, by fostering agreement on the rules of interactionamongthe playersor gaining consensuson a commonlanguageto use duringnetwork operations.But emphasizing stabilizationmeans that, in time and place, less attentioncan be given that particular

to exploiting opportunitiessuch as expandingthe size of the networkor engaging stakeholdersto supportthe aims of the network.The distribution of managementresources expendedat a given point in time will vary,makingobservation and identificationproblematic. As a means of focusing the network managementresearch agenda, I suggest hypotheses to test ideas regarding when, why, and how network managersbehave. The hypotheses are drawnfrom interviewswith local network on network managersand the rapidlyexpandingliterature management.

TheExample
An example of a very common scenario illustratesthe complexity and difficulty of measuringnetworkmanagement. One local agency in North Texas is charged with providingservicesto personswithmentalillness andmental retardation as partof the Texas mental health and mental retardation (MHMR) system. The overridinggoal of this particularagency is to respondto the needs of adults and children with mental illness, mental retardation,autism, or substanceabuse,as well disorder, pervasivedevelopment as the needs of their families, by providing quality services. The centerhas contractswith a vast numberof providers thatdeliver services to its consumersandhas established working relationships with no fewer than 31 governmentaland nongovernmental organizations.Fundfor the center's activities comes from ing multiplesources: home and community-basedservices contracts,grantsfor operating expenses from the state MHMR agency, new generationMedicationfunding,Medicaid, child and adolescent mental health block grants, in-home and family services, Medicare,and funding from three local governments. Managersfrom the MHMRservice arrayshave recently experiencedthe opening of two new clinics, an additional office, a merger,and a majorrestructuring of the statefundingsystem. Since the summerof 2000, the home and community-basedservices programfor persons with has experiencedfunding reductionsof mental retardation 25 approximately percentwhile realizing a 39 percentincreasein the numberof people served.Demandfor MHMR services has far surpassed the center's capacity, while centerwide funding from the state of Texas has been reduced every year.Uncertainfundingfrom the federaland state government,a continual shortage of Medicaid providers, increasingcosts of utilities and housing, and other significantshocks to the agency have resultedin many incrementalandseveralfundamental changesto the network Even in suchenvironmental structure andoperations. complexity, however,evaluationsindicatethe vast majorityof consumers, family members,communityvolunteers,and of variousgroupsare satisfiedwith the perrepresentatives

formance of center activities, rating the effectiveness of the networkas high or very high. In this scenario,how do we measure"networkmanagement"? Considerthe multitudeof activitiesperformedby managers.To meet the demandfor expandedmentalretardationservices,the managerexpandedthe networkof providers and reconfiguredthe roles of existing providers. After the agency initiated person-directed planning-a process for developing service plans from the personal outcomesdesiredandidentifiedby the individuals-managers worked with providersto assist them in realigning their service approachwith the agency's new philosophy. When a committeeof volunteersdrafteda plan calling for improvedinternaland external communication,network managers enhanced informationexchanges and utilized informationmore effectively as a means of improvingthe quality of interactionwithin the network.As the state reduced the center's funding, managers solicited financial resources from previously inactive community representatives and mobilized supportfrom previouslyuncommitted players in the community. The only thing extraordinary aboutthis example is that it is not extraordinary; environmental shocks such as those experiencedat the agency are common in many policy areas. As in many networks,over a shortperiod of time, the allocation of managementresourcesvaried considerably. Some behaviors necessarily preceded other behaviors, while otherswereundertaken in responseto abrupt changes in the programenvironment. How do we accountfor these numerousactions andbehaviorsin our models of network At what point should we capturethis activmanagement? ity and assign a value to it? For pedagogical and theoretical reasons,it is not desirable,even if possible, to consider managementin this regardas a single set of efforts or a sum of managerialbehaviors.A simple count of the number of contacts with a predetermined list of possible networkmemberswill not-indeed, cannot-adequately capturethe extent to which strategicand competentaction by the networkmanager(s)contributesto the success of the network. It is even conceivable that such a count would the scope of managementactivity, severely underestimate since the quality of interactionmay have changed more significantlythan the quantityof interaction.The limitations of applying our currentmeasures of network managementeven to a typical networkare obvious.

TheFluidity of Network Management


Management Behavior
Network managementis an elusive target to properly measure. The allocation and utilization of management resourcesexpendedis fluid-it variesacrosstime andspace within a given programor project. Managingin network

DoIt 601 Networks: onWhat DoandWhy Propositions They Managing Managers

structures involvesa complex sequenceof moves andcounandreadjustments, actionsandnontermoves,adjustments actions. Some moves are more consequentialthan others. Some moves merelyestablishthe contextfor makingother moves. Othersserve as a breachbetween failed andinconsequentialmoves and the promise of eventualsuccess. Ourunderstandingof networkmanagementis derived mainly from theoreticallyexamining, ratherthanempirically cataloging, behavior. During a time when observers first became aware of the emerging intergovernmental and interorganizational forms of governing, Hanf identified how managers intervene in existing interrelationships, promote interactions, and mobilize coordination (Hanf, Hjer, and Porter 1978). Since that time, researchershave documented that officials from all levels of government perceive managing across governments and organizationsas involving a number of discrete but related activities: mobilizing forces within and outside the community to build support;acquiringthe necessary financing, expertise, and other resources while setting a course of action; learning about the externalgovernment opportunitiesand constraints;reading the ever-changing signals of program managers and funding agents; and successfully operating and cooperating within the system (Agranoff 1986; Howitt 1984; Stone 1989). of Anotherway to move towardgreaterunderstanding the imis to model the activities of networkmanagement pact of public managementin general on governmental andthen isolate factorsthatarenetwork-speperformance cific. O'Toole and Meier (1999) develop a parsimonious yet robustframeworkfor modeling managementthat discerns not only the impact of these functions, but also the managerialresources used to performthese functions in structural contexts. O'Toole and Meier's model particular is not network-specific;rather,it capturesthe resources which include thatgenerallycomprisepublicmanagement, a of internal operations system, exploiting stabilizingthe of the system, andbufferingthe shocks in the environment system to minimize the impact of environmentalshocks. variationsthat exist The model is groundedin structural contextsandthe way suchvariawithinparticular program tions determinethe allocation of managementresources. Thus, network managementis a particularallocation of resourcesin which environmental management-leveraging externalopportunitiesand bufferingthe system from unwantedshocks-supplements or opposes more hierarchical functions. Meier and O'Toole (2001) test the formal model with performancedata from Texas public school districts.The variableconceptualizedas the environmentalcomponent in the model is measuredby the level of interactionbeand networkmanagers(superintendents) tween the primary the school districts'organizational five sets of actorsfrom
* September/October Review Administration 602 Public 2002,Vol. 62, No.5

environment. Using both ordinaryleast squaresregression and substantivelyweighted analytical techniques (Meier and Gill 2000), the authorsfind the frequencyof interaction is positively related to school district performance; with whom the greaterthe numberof actorsandinteraction the higher the perforthe superintendents"networked," thathas proceeded mance.In a field withempiricalresearch the impactof at a snail's pace, the evidence demonstrating network managementon programperformanceprovides to the field. Meier and O'Toole an enormouscontribution conclude, "the results of this study offer encouragement for those who are convincedthatpublic managementmatters, thatnetworkmanagementitself can be importantfor performance,andthatcomplex models of public management are worthyof serious attention"(291). Even so, the authorsacknowledgethattheirmeasureof managementin networked settings is simplified and ignoresthe realessence of management. Indeed,the strength of the formal model-conceptual sophistication, parsimony, and generalizability-is also its main weakness when applied to managing in networks. Like other network management studies (Provan and Milward 1995; Agranoffand McGuire 1998), the frequencyand regularity of network managementare accounted for and measured, but the multiple operationalbehaviors undertaken by the managerare not. In orderto look at how managersmanage a networkas a network,it is necessaryto distinguishbehaviorsin terms of their operationaldifferences. I examine four different, not all-inclusive, categoriesdiscussedelsethoughcertainly wherein the literature (AgranoffandMcGuire2001). These behaviors have parallels in single-organizationmanagement, but, as arguedthroughoutand as managers in the field are quick to suggest, they are quite different from The operational theirorganizational-behavior counterparts. is similar to work of the Kickert, categorization Klijn, and who the of manamultitude (1997a), distinguish Koppenjan gerial tasks in terms of purposes: network management activities aimed at the ideas and perceptions of network members,and those aimed at the interactionof members. The formerinclude preventingor introducingnew ideas, bargaining,and inducing reflection within the network, and mewhereasthe latterinvolve arranging,structuring, network interaction among diating participants. One class of behaviorsundertaken by networkmanagers is referredto here as activation,which managersin the field suggest may be the most importantactivity of manto referto a set aging networks.I use the term"activation" of behaviors employed for identifying and incorporating the personsandresources(such as funding,expertise,and legal authority) needed to achieve program goals. The single-organization parallelto activationwould be personnel issues of staffing.Activatinginvolves identifying par-

ticipants for the network and including key stakeholders in the process (Gray 1989; Lipnack and Stamps 1994; TermeerandKoppenjan1997). The skills, knowledge,and must be assessed resourcesof these potentialparticipants andtappedinto (AgranoffandMcGuire1999;Klijn 1996). Accordingto Scharpf(1978), selective activationis based andotherresources on correctlyidentifyingthe participants needed for the network.Activationis a criticalcomponent becauseresourcessuch as money, of networkmanagement mechanisms information,andexpertisecan be integrating of networks. Even after a network is operationalbut not may be needed to performingas desired, "deactivation" An remove some networkparticipants. example of activation is a directorof economic developmentwho is charged with developing an incentive plan for recruitingand retaining businesses and submittingthe proposalto the city council. Applying her knowledge of the community and her experience in the field, the directorassembles a network that includes key governmentaland nongovernmensuch as the county economic developtal representatives ment director,chamberof commerce leadership,director of local developmentcorporation,and business owners. Othernetworkmanagementbehaviorsare employed to help frame the structureand the norms and values of the network as a whole. Framing is defined as the behaviors used to arrangeandintegratea networkstructure by facilion participants' rules,and roles, operating tatingagreement networkvalues. Like activation,framingis used both during the formationof the networkand when networkeffectiveness diminishes or is suboptimal.Network managers must arrange,stabilize,nurture,and integratethe network structure (O'Toole 1997). Framinginvolvesfacilitatingthe andposition of the participants internalstructure (Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan1997b), as well as influencing the operating rules and norms of the network (Klijn 1996; Mandell 1990; Termeerand Koppenjan1997). Managers chartin a network,as is cannotdrawup an organizational done in single-organizationstructures,but they do try to influence the roles that each participantmay play at any given time and the perceptionsone has aboutthe common purposeof the network(Benson 1975;Gray 1989;Lipnack and Stamps 1994). Managersdo this by facilitatingagreement on leadershiproles; helping to establish an identity assistand culturefor the network,even if it is temporary; for the network structure a in (that ing developing working and or network committees is, "assignments"); alteringthe the uniquecharto understand of perceptions participants acteristics of working with persons in contexts without mechanismsbased in authorityrelations. organizational behaviortheoryinstructs As organizational us, motivated work who and creatively, energetically "consistently, people are the attainment of towardthe key organizationalgoals to organizational success" (Denhardt, Denhardt, and

Aristigueta 2002). Network managers also must induce individuals to make and keep a commitment to the network. Mobilizing behaviorsare used to develop commitmentandsupportfor networkprocessesfromnetworkparticipants and external stakeholders.Mobilization in this is a commonandsometimesongoingtaskfor achievregard ing network effectiveness. Managers build support by mobilizing organizationsand coalitions and by forging an agreementon the role and scope of network operations (Kickert and Koppenjan 1997; Mandell 1990). An economic development directorin city government,for example, shouldhave the cooperationof all networkparticipants as well as the city council and the chief executive as a means to more confidently engage in networking and achieve the strategic purpose at hand (Agranoff and McGuire 1999). Managersalso must employ synthesizingbehaviorsto create an environmentand enhance the conditions for fainteraction vorable,productive amongnetworkparticipants. One critical behaviorof the networkmanageris to build relationshipsand interactionsthat result in achieving the networkpurpose.The strategiesof each networkparticipant and the outcomes of those strategiesare influenced by the patternsof relations and interactionsthat have developed in the network.Network managementbehaviors include facilitatingand furtheringinteractionamong participants (Agranoff and McGuire 1999; Mossbergerand Hale 1999; O'Toole 1988), reducing complexity and unexchange (Gray 1989; certaintyby promotinginformation Termeer andKoppenjan1997), and Stamps 1994; Lipnack and facilitating linkages among participants (O'Toole 1997). Weiner (1990) suggests that organizationalmanagementtechniquessuch as teambuildingandgroupproblem solving are applicableto networks,but networkmanThe ratherthanauthority. agementis based on information networkmanagerseeks to achieve cooperationamong actors while minimizing and removing informationaland interactionalblockages to the cooperation.This steering in the sense of networkprocessesis like gamemanagement, that the result of the network process "derives from the interactionbetween the strategiesof all actors involved" (Klijn and Teisman 1997, 99). The categorizationof networkmanagementbehaviors than the point that it is necoffered here is less important essaryto catalog suchbehaviorsandto determinehow and why to use such behaviors.However one categorizes behaviors, the differentmanagementresourcesallocated by managersare nearly seamless in their applicability.Multiple behaviors are utilized in network settings. For example, the addition or removal of a critical network resource-human or otherwise-can have myriadeffects on the managerwill the network.While roles are rearranged, try to facilitate an environmentin which greaterinterac-

DoIt 603 DoandWhy onWhat Networks: They Managers Propositions Managing

tion can takeplace. This mightbe done by improvingcommunicationor by changingthe incentivesof participation. Similarly,synthesizingis often accompaniedby reframing or by a conscious attemptto change the networkparticipants' perceptionof the interactionchanges. Duringor after deactivationor reframing,managersoften must mobilize supportfor the changes,reestablishthe purposeof the are "on board." network,and make sure all participants

Network Environment
Thereis a fundamental need to discover some explanation or rationale-the set of managerialdecision rulesfor why managerschoose one activity over anotherand how they allocate their time and effort on these activities. What does a networkmanagerdo when the networkmust of vision andphilosophy?What undergoa transformation should she do? Whatdoes a networkmanagerdo when the goals of a programor project are elusive or conflicting? Whatshouldhe do? Broadly,what arethe criticalenvironmental variables affecting network operations,and what are the preferred responses to these variables? Contingencytheorysuggeststhereis an identifiableand predictablelogic to network managementthat can assist researchersin explaininghow and why managersallocate resourcesin a given context.Applying this logic can lay a foundationfor determiningwhetheractivities and behaviors chosen by managersalways, sometimes, or never operate systematically.Even as researchreveals the vast inventory of network management behaviors, it is also importantto understandhow the managermatches these behaviorswith the policy context. One assumptionof this logic is thatthe network'sfulfillmentof purposesandgoals is contingenton its ability to function in, and its capacity to adaptto, the environmentin which it operates.Accordis a functionof adapting to Simon (1981), goal attainment in a system inner environments ing the many and varied (thatis, the network)to the outerenvironment.He argues that "in very many cases whethera particular system will achieve a particular or goal adaptationdepends on only a of the outerenvironmentand not at all few characteristics on the detail of that environment" (11). If networkmanis indeed it is contingent, necessaryto isolatethose agement of the outer environmentthat affect "few characteristics" the allocationof managerialactivities. Mandell (1990) was one of the first researchersto sugconstraints gest how managerial varysystematicallywithin and across networksettings, and thus can affect what she Thebasis refersto as "strategic networkmanagement style." of her strategic-contingencylogic is similar to Simon's framework: Programperformanceis contingenton the reof lationship managementand its problem context. Network settings offer a unique problemcontext with sets of constraintsthataffect, in some way, the allocationof man* September/October Administration Review 604 Public 2002,Vol. 62, No.5

agement resources, and thus the choice of particularbehaviors. Some of the relevant environmentalcontingencies are not exclusive to networks,but others are, and all are importantchallenges for managers. The hypothesesofferedhere extend her analysis by examining not just the roles played by network managers, butthe activitiesof the manager. Before we can adequately describeand informthe practiceof networkmanagement, it is necessary to examine actual behaviors performedin networksandhow management resourcesmay be allocated differentlywithin networksat differentpoints in time and across networks. I discuss a necessarily brief list of key environmental variablesas a means of illustratingthe fluid natureof networkmanagement; a more exhaustivediscussion of such variablesultimatelyis needed to properlydevelop theories of networkmanagement.

Matching Environment and Behavior


Goal Consensus. The degree to which program or projectgoals are unambiguousis a critical environmental factor affecting the allocation of managementresources by the networkmanager(Thompson1967). Local government executives involved in network settings suggest the final productis by far the most importantcriterionof effectiveness.This instrumental perspectiveof networkman(Kickert,Klijn, agementis commonamongadministrators who on that one's ability to lear Koppenjan1997b), early steer government processes is closely related to goal achievement.Some programshave very clear objectives and readily determinedperformanceindicators,which allow managers to expend more energy on collecting the activities,just as a manproperresourcesandcoordinating Otherprograms agermay do in a bureaucratic organization. areconceived in vague terms,andthe networkmust establish its objectivesjointly. Consequently,it is reasonableto predictthe following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Effectivemanagersin networkswith relativelyclear programobjectiveswill allocate the greatestshareof managerialresourcesto activating (identifying participants,tapping the skills and resources of these persons, ensuring all interests are included)and synthesizing(promotinginformation exchange, developingproceduresof interaction).

A program infused with many conflicting goals requires a different type and level of managerial energy. Mandell (1990) argues that "the problem is how to meet the overriding interorganizationalgoal (or set of goals) while at the same time allowing each organizationin the networkto also meet its own...." The presence of unclear programgoals means that one of the first tasks the manager must attend to is facilitating goal consensus-indeed, some networks cannot (should not) proceed without some level of agreement on the ultimate objective.

Faced with this constraint,the goals and actions of network memberswill be mutuallycreatedand adjustedover time (Agranoff 1986). Because goals often are embedded in other goals, disentanglingthe primaryor immediate programobjectiveis a criticalmanagementtask.Thus, one can posit the following:
Hypothesis 2: Effectivemanagersin networkswith relativelyunclearor multipleprogramgoals will allocate the greatestshareof managerialresourcesto mobilizing (motivatingnetworkparticipants,gaining supportfrom stakeholders,fosteringtheir commitment) and framing (influencing the operating structureof the network,influencing its prevailing values and norms, creatinga sharedpurpose or vision).

to manageexternallyis relatedto the internalconditionof the manager'sprimaryorganization.City administrators reportthattheircapacityto functioneffectivelyin networks is directlyrelatedto the scope of cooperationwith the city council throughparticipating in strategysessions and repthe in forums. resenting city public Supportalso involves a willingness on the part of governmentofficials to conduct an open and continuous dialogue with existing and potentialpartners,thus sharinginformationfrom government to network,and vice versa. The repertoireof a networkmanagercertainlymust include these support-building activities.This suggests the following:
Hypothesis 4: Effectivemanagersin programswith a relativelylow level of supportfromkey stakeholders will allocate the greatestshareof managerialresources to mobilizing.

Resource Distribution.The structure of organizational in a network is defined interdependencies by the distribution of resourcesacross networkmembers.The positional resourcesof policy making-legal authority, funding, orneeded materials, ganization, supportservices, expertise, information,and experience-are at the disposal of many differentorganizations(Franz 1991). Each party literally possesses some level of resourcesthat will make a policy work. Just as organizationscan adapt their structuresto the environment(Pfeffer and Salancik 1978), so, too, will network managers shape the structureand membership based on resourcedependencies. Resourcesmay be distributed widely acrossmanyplayers, resultingin a necessarily large network,or they may be relatively concentratedin a few key players. Persons who contributemay come from many different sources, and their hierarchicalposition in their "home"organization is less importantthan the resourcesthey bring to the network.The types andquantityof resourcesheld by each playermay varyas well. One networkmight includemany members with a relatively equal distribution(control) of policy-makingresources,andanothernetworkof the same size might includeone playerwho possesses an influential amountof a criticalresource,such as fundingor legal authority (Mandell 1990). The network manager needs to identify and include in the network the needed expertise and other resourcesto move a project forward.Effective managersknow who has such resources and will be successful in bringingthem into the networkstructure. Thus, we can predictthe following:

memberswho have Relationships.Networkscomprising worked togetherpreviously may requireless attentionto developing a common purpose or establishing trust than will networkswith relativenewcomers. Trustis a critical resourceas public and nonpublicorganizationsattemptto redefinetheirusual legal-based(hierarchical, contractual) It is (Nohria 1992). relationships commonly acceptedthat and work people join, remain, togetherbecause some element of trust exists, and trust is developed most easily throughexperienceand familiarity.Managerialbehaviors such as sharingand discussing information,finding similarityin processingandtechniques,andjustifying transaction costs may be less criticalwhen trustis presentin networks.Similarly, can allocatefewermanagement managers resourcesfor formulatingproductiverelationshipsamong the networksmembers when a sharedbelief or common rationale(Mandell1988)-is already purpose-a program one could Thus, present. predictthe following:
Hypothesis 5: Effectivemanagersin networkscomposed of some memberswho have workedtogether previouslywill allocatethe lowest shareof managerial resourcesto synthesizing.

Policy Orientation.The content of the policy practices endemic to a particular networkis anotherenvironmental contingency on which the fluid nature of network management may rest. What Benson (1982) calls a "policy which refers to a commitmentwithin the secparadigm," tor to a particularset of policy options, consists of the network's choice of policy instrumentsor tools (Elmore Hypothesis 3: Effective managersin programenvi1987; Salamon 1981). Some programareasmightrely prironments with a wide distribution of needed remarily on grants-in-aidfor resolving problems, whereas sources will allocate the greatest share of manageothersdependon informationtransferand technicalassisrial resourcesto activationand mobilizing. tance. The dominantpolicy focus constrains,to some deSupport.As in any public program,political and social gree, the extent to which a network managercan exploit environmental supportis an important contingencyor con- the environmentfor needed resources;when grant fundstraintfor single organizationsand networks.The ability ing is needed,fundingmustbe sought,andactivating memonWhat DoandWhy DoIt 605 Networks: Propositions Managers They Managing

bers with resourcesotherthanfundingmay have to be deferred. Some programareas depend on directly provided resultinstruments or regulationandauthority instruments, ing in mandatedaction. Otherpolicy areas, such as economic development,rely increasinglyon instrumentsdesigned to tap into the special qualities of a community, thus requiringmore diversity in policy formulationand implementation. McGuire (2000) demonstratesthat the process of designing and administeringlocal economic development policy can vary accordingto the types of policies and institutionsadoptedin the jurisdiction.Similarly,O'Toole's examinationof replacingfederalgrantsupportfor municipal wastewatertreatmentwith state revolving loan funds concludes that "decisions to shift programsto the states, deregulate, privatize, and employ market-basedmechanisms have consequencesfor interorganizational arrangements andprogramsin practice"(1996, 239). This discussion suggests the following:
Hypothesis 6: Effectivemanagersin programareas with a reliance on policy instrumentsusing local resourceswill allocate a greatershareof managerial resourcesto activatingand mobilizing.

Because the implementationof programsusing intergovernmentalinstrumentssuch as grants-in-aidand mandated regulationsrequiresa great numberof actors with goals, sometimesconflictingobjectives,andlittle disparate incentive to cooperatein operationalactivities, one might predictthat:
Hypothesis 7: Effectivemanagersin programareas subsidies and with a reliance on intergovernmental regulationswill allocate a greatershareof managerial resourcesto framingand synthesizing.

viding a clear measureof effectiveness for networkmembers, in theory-but the stability of the network may be andnetworkmembersperceive fleeting if key stakeholders little benefit from membershipand threatento bail from the network by demandingmore agency-level resources. In this scenario, the managermust brokera solution that balances network effectiveness with the efficient allocation of resourceswithin the network.If the networkmemeffectiveness is jeoparber withdrawsfrom participation, if resources are reallocated, efficiency may be dized; sacrificed. Provan and Milward (2001) argue that networks may be expected to fulfill criteriafor effectiveness that are different from simple goal achievement. Satisfying groups thatrepresentdiverse communityinterests, such as advocacy organizations,is a crucial criterionof effectiveness. "networks As the authorssuggest,in termsof stakeholders, must satisfy the needs and expectation of those groups within a community that have both a direct and indirect interestin seeing thatclient needs are met"(417). The primaryprogramobjectivemay be to deliver and/orenhance client services, but the community at large may demand success in achievingvisible aggregateoutcomes.Although a social services networkmay seek to enhanceits arrayof services to reach needy populations,the population as a whole may determinethe community-levelcosts of such a programare too high, either because of competition for limited resourcesor for philosophicalreasons. Effectiveness may be viewed by externalgroups as "dependingon eitherdo or do not do, rather whatspecific serviceproviders thanhow well services areprovidedas a resultof network thusresultingin community-andnetwork-level activities," decisions made "at the expense of networkparticipants" (422). Thus, one could posit that:
Hypothesis 8: The allocation of managerial resourcesto be expendedin a networkmay varyto the extent thatclient needs may not be compatiblewith needs. community-or organizational-level It follows then that: Hypothesis 9: Managersin networks where competing assessments of effectiveness exist will allocate the greatest share of managerialresources to framingand mobilizing.

Strategic Orientation. A complicated environmental factor concerns the multiple and sometimes conflicting purposesfor which networksexist. In its most fundamental form, managementis the mechanism for achieving a programobjective, such as educatingchildren,improving the local economy, or providing critical health care services to those in need. Even if the objective is unclearin the relevantlegislation or becomes compromisedduring the process, managers seek to deliver that which policy makersintend and citizens demand.All tasks undertaken by the managerderivefromachievingthatproject.In many fields, neither the principals (lawmakers)nor the clients (servicerecipients)areas concernedaboutprocessas much as they are goal achievement. Because managerial resources are finite, managers sometimes must choose between facilitatingnetwork action to achieveprogramobjectivesandcateringto key networkplayers.Programobjectivesmay be clear-thus pro* September/October Review 606 Public Administration 2002,Vol. 62, No.5

The complete range of environmental contingencies is how not specifiedhere.The foregoinghypothesesillustrate butthe level to proceedwithnetworkmanagement research, of generalityis variable.Forexample,one can reconfigure thehypothesesto be moregeneral,perhaps phrasedin terms of stability,exploiting the environment,and bufferingthe environment (O'Toole andMeier 1999). In this regard,the first hypothesiscould be restated:

with innetworks la: Effective managers Hypothesis will allocatea clearprogram objectives relatively to exploiting resources shareof managerial greater thesysthanto stabilizing environment theexternal tem. one could test a hypothesisby examining Alternatively, a particularbehaviorratherthan a broad category of behaviors;therefore,the first hypothesis could be restated: innetworks with lb: Effective managers Hypothesis will relyprimaclearprogram objectives relatively neededresources and securing rily on identifying effective andpromoting neededpolicy resources, communication among participants. The hypotheses offered here suggest the need for simresearchon networkmanagement. plified,even elementary, level of of the generality,researchis needed to Regardless test these and otherhypotheses.

of the Match TheFluidity

The first step in properlymodeling network management is to identify specific behaviorsundertaken by manabove offered The hypotheses agers in various situations. are meant as guides for such research.However, observing the way networkmanagementresourcesare allocated within a networkis necessary,but not sufficient;because managementin networksis fluid, we also mustunderstand how and why managerialresources are reallocated over time and space. Even in networksin which a certaintype of resourceis most salient,many activities are performed, andwe mustidentifywhy andhow managersrotateamong and reallocateresources"on the fly." The concept of strategyoften is used ambiguously to referto these many activities,butthe presentanalysisdoes not view strategyin this manner.The term "strategy"is best used to describewhatO'Toole andMeier (1999) refer to as the "whole set of behaviors"relatedto management. In keeping with contingency logic, the totality of behaviors and the fluid allocationof such behaviorsis itself the strategy.Choosing to expandthe size of the network-an a manactivationbehavior-is not the same as formulating is a network the single be- Table1 agement strategy.Expanding SpeculativeNetworkManagementStrategies are that havioramongmanybehaviors typically employed clear programobjectives, la. Linear environment, Strategy(technical to effect a single purpose. Thus, a networkmanagement project-based) - Synthesizing - Framing - Mobilization strategyis defined not only by the numberand types of Activation instrumentsthat are used to solve a policy problem, but reallocation) (Withminimal also by the ways in whichtaskdeploymentvariesovertime. 1b. Recursive Strategy(lackof support)

servationsof managersthan on the networkmanagement it is reasonableto inferfromthe manager'slogic literature, the allocationand in use thata single packagerepresenting reallocationof tasks exists and can be observed.There is that certain behaviors work in an implicit understanding certainsituationswithin certaincontexts, so a playbookof sorts can be constructedfrom the manager'sexperience. When asked to describe the generalprocess of managing a network, network managers operating in a largely technicalenvironment-involving clearobjectives,broadbased support,and ampleresources-assert the use of ostensibly linear strategies. An example of a network in which linearstrategiesmay prevailis a temporary, projectbased networkor a networkformed as a result of a catastrophicevent. The quality (measuredby the high level of goal consensus, lack of contentiousness among network members,supportof key stakeholders,presence of a program rationale,etc.) of coordinatingrelief efforts across governments and organizations after the attacks on the WorldTrade Center and the Pentagon illustrates the essence of a technical environment.Such an environment addressesproblems that have been referredto as "tame" (Rittel and Webber 1973; O'Toole 1997). In these contexts, managersactivatea network,mobilize commitment, frame the operating structuresand rules of the network, and then synthesize interactioninto a productivewhole. Although certainlyoversimplified,networkmanagement may operate like this in specific contexts where the vast majority of resources are dedicated to one set of tasks, then the next, then the next, and then the next, with only occasional changesmade. Sharedprogramgoals andrelatively clear operatingobjectivesmake for relativelystable systems, so one would expect linearnetworkmanagement strategiesto result in stability even while leveraging externalopportunities(table 1, la). Othernetworkmanagementstrategiesmight be identifiable in different contexts. Network managers lacking broad-based supportfor theiractivitiesdescribehow often the process of mobilizing must be revisited over time. In these contexts, the allocation of resources alternatesbetween activationand mobilization:Persons become part

Audacious Speculation
Interviews with local government executives suggest some common,genericstrategiesinvolvingmultiplemanagerial behaviors.Althoughthey are based more on the ob-

- Activation - Mobilization - Activation - Mobilization Activation and synthesizing) and less need forframing reallocation (Withminimal

1c. Recursive environment) Strategy(institutional - Framing - Synthesizing - Framing - Framing - Motivation Activation and valuesof the network) sharednorms on identifying (Withemphasis

Do It 607 DoandWhyThey on WhatManagers Networks: Propositions Managing

of the network,supportis solicited, more personsare activated and some are deactivated,commitmentis solicited, and so on. As hypothesis4 suggests, effective managersin these contexts will allocate the greatestshareof managerial resourcesto mobilizing, but managersin the field describe the process as recurring.The other management but behaviorsof framingand synthesizingareundertaken, resultsin whatcan be called a recursive the main approach strategy(table 1, lb). Similarly, it is plausible to hypothesize that network envimanagersemploy recursivestrategiesin institutional ronments(Scott and Meyer 1991), where immediategoal achievementis impossibledue to a lack of goal consensus, and perhapseven undesirableif the network must build long-termlinkageswithin a communityandnetwork-level definesmuchof the network'soperations. "soulsearching" will be given a greatdeal of attention In suchenvironments, to framingandreframingthe network.As rules andnorms are established,some networkmembersleave, others are added;supportis mobilized internallyand externally;and interactionis enhanced, but framing tasks dominate the activities of the networkmanager(table 1, lc).

Conclusion
The focus of this article has been the actions of the many governmentaland nongovernmentalofficials operating in network settings on a daily basis. To them, management may not seem predictable,and it certainly may be presumptuousto call it systematic. The contingency logic suggested here does not imply rationality.It passes

no judgment on the long-term public value of network management,nor does it advocate specific management strategies. Particularmanagementstrategies are not preferredover others. Instead, a simple contingency logic is used as a tool for magnifying a process that seems too complicated to comprehend. Why does managerB allocate managerialresourcesin one way, and managerC allocates resources differently? Why are some networkedprogramssuccessful, but others arenot?The answersto these questionscan be foundsomewhere throughthe kind of observationthatprovidesa rich description of network managementand the type of inquiry that assumes public managersdo and must manage networkas networks.Observation of managerialbehavior is one mechanismfor more accuratelydocumentinghow constraints, managersmatchbehaviorwith environmental as is interviewingmanagers,eitherthroughin-depthinterclassificationof viewing or with a survey.The preliminary behaviorsofferedhere shouldbe tested andrefined-even rejected-if sound data are collected from managersfor this purpose.Bottom line, it is necessary to hear from the managersthemselves.Researchers may assistpractitioners with a vocabulary andpreliminary framework withinwhich their actions can be described,but the managersmust be the ones who reveal their actions. Both good andbadmanagementchoices exist; anypublic manager would assert that. The proposed research agenda is offered as a guide to help us determinewhich choices aremost likely to be effective. If nothingelse, such researchmay providea vivid story and one or two snappy aphorisms.

References
Management:HuAgranoff, Robert. 1986. Intergovernmental man Services Problem-Solving in Six MetropolitanAreas. Albany,NY: State Universityof New YorkPress. Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 1998. Multinetwork Management:Collaborationand the Hollow State in Local Research EconomicPolicy.Journalof Public Administration and Theory8(1): 67-91. . 1999. Managing in Network Settings. Policy Studies Review 16(1): 18-41. . 2001. Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. Journal of Public AdministrationResearch and Theory 11(3): 295-326. Network as Benson, J. Kenneth. 1975. The Interorganizational Science Quarterly20(2): Political Economy.Administrative 229-49. . 1982. A Framework for Policy Analysis. In Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation,edited by David L. Rogers and David A. Whetten, 137-76. Ames, IA: Iowa State UniversityPress. * September/October Review Administration 608 Public 2002,Vol. 62, No.5 Denhardt Robert B., Janet Vinzant Denhardt, and Maria P. Aristigueta.2002. ManagingHumanBehavior in Public and NonprofitOrganizations.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications. Elmore, Richard F. 1987. Instrumentsand Strategy in Public Policy. Policy StudiesReview 7(1): 174-86. 1991. Interorganizational Franz,Hans-Jurgen. Policy Coordination: Arrangementsof Shared Government.In The Public Sector-Challenges for Coordinationand Learning, edited de Gruyter. 469-99. Berlin:Walter Kaufmann, by Franz-Xaver Gray,Barbara.1989. Collaborating:Finding CommonGround for MultipartyProblems.San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass. Hanf, Kenneth,Benny Hjern,and David D. Porter.1978. Local Networks of ManpowerTrainingin the FederalRepublic of Policy Making, GermanyandSweden. In Interorganizational edited by KennethHanf and FritzW. Scharpf,303-41. London: Sage Publications.

Howitt, Arold. 1984. Managing Federalism:Studies in Intergovernmental Relations. Washington, DC: Congressional QuarterlyPress. Kickert,WalterJ.M., and Joop EM. Koppenjan.1997. Public Managementand Network Management:An Overview. In ManagingComplexNetworks,editedby WalterJ.M.Kickert, Erik-HansKlijn, and Joop F.M. Koppenjan,35-61. London: Sage Publications. J.M.,Erik-Hans Kickert,Walter Klijn,andJoopF.M.Koppenjan. A ManagementPerspective on Policy 1997a. Introduction: Networks.InManagingComplexNetworks,editedby Walter J.M. Kickert,Erik-HansKlijn, and Joop EM. Koppenjan,113. London:Sage Publications. . 1997b. Managing Networks in the Public Sector. In ManagingComplexNetworks,editedby WalterJ.M.Kickert, Erik-HansKlijn, and Joop EM. Koppenjan, 166-91. London: Sage Publications. Klijn, Erik-Hans. 1996. Analyzing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks. Administrationand Society 28(1): 90-119. andG.R.Teisman.1997. StrategiesandGames Klijn,Erik-Hans, in Networks. In Managing Complex Networks, edited by Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F.M. Koppenjan,98-118. London:Sage Publications. Lipnack,Jessica, and JeffreyStamps. 1994. TheAge of the Network. New York:JohnWiley and Sons. Mandell, Myrna P. 1988. Intergovernmental Management in Networks:A Revised Perspective.InterInterorganizational nationalJournal of Public Administration11(4): 393-416. .1990. NetworkManagement: StrategicBehaviorin the Public Sector.In Strategies for ManagingIntergovernmental Policies and Networks,editedby RobertW. Gage andMyrna P. Mandell, 29-53. New York:Praeger. McGuire,Michael. 2000. Collaborative Policy MakingandAdThe OperationalDemands of Local Economic ministration: Development.EconomicDevelopmentQuarterly14(3): 27691. A New ApMeier, KennethJ., and Jeff Gill. 2000. WhatWorks: CO: and to Boulder, Policy Analysis. Program proach Westview. Meier, KennethJ., and LaurenceJ. O'Toole. 2001. Managerial StrategiesandBehaviorin Networks:A Model with Evidence from U.S. Public Education.Journal of Public Administration Researchand Theory 11(3): 271-93. DifMossberger,Karen,and KathleenHale. 1999. Information The Network: fusion in an Intergovernmental Implementation of School-to-Work Programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanPolitical Science Association, September2-5, Atlanta,Georgia. Nohria, Nitin. 1992. Is a Network Perspectivea Useful Way of Studying Organizations?In Networks and Organizations: FormandAction, editedby Nitin NohriaandRobStructure, Business School Press. ert G. Eccles, 1-22. Boston: Harvard 1988. O'Toole, Laurence J. Strategies for Intergovernmental Management: ImplementingProgramsin Intergovernmental Journalof Public Administration International Management. 417-41. 11(4):

. 1996. Hollowing the Infrastructure: Revolving Loan in and Network the American States. Dynamics Programs Researchand Theory6(2): Journal of Public Administration 225-42. . 1997. TreatingNetworks Seriously: Practicaland RePublic Adsearch-BasedAgendas in Public Administration. ministrationReview 57(1): 45-52. O'Toole, LaurenceJ., and Kenneth J. Meier. 1999. Modeling the Impactof Public Management: Implicationsof Structural Context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory9(4): 505-26. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The External Controlof Organizations.New York:Harperand Row. Provan,Keith G., and H. BrintonMilward. 1991. InstitutionalInvolvementin a ServiceLevel Norms and Organizational Network. Journal of Public Administration Implementation Researchand Theory 1(4): 391-417. Ef. 1995. A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational of Four Menfectiveness:A Comparative Community Study Science Quarterly40(1): tal Health Systems. Administrative 1-33. .2001. Do Networks Really Work?A Frameworkfor Evaluating Public-Sector OrganizationalNetworks. Public Review 61(4): 414-23. Administration Foreword.In Managing ComplexNetR.A.W. 1997. Rhodes, edited Walter J.M. Kickert,Erik-HansKlijn, and works, by Joop EM. Koppenjan,xi-xv. London:Sage Publications. Rittel, Horst,and Melvin Webber.1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.Policy Sciences 4(1): 155-69. Salamon, Lester M. 1981. Rethinking Public Management: Governmentand the Changing Forms of GovThird-Party ernmentAction. Public Policy 29(3): 255-75. Policy Studies: IsScharpf,Fritz W. 1978. Interorganizational InInterorganizational sues, Concepts,andPerspectives. Policy Making,edited by KennethHanf and FritzW. Scharpf,34570. London:Sage Publications. Scott, W. Richard,and JohnW. Meyer. 1991. The Organization of Societal Sectors:Propositionsand EarlyEvidence. In The New Institutionalismin OrganizationalAnalysis, edited by WalterW. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 108-40. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Simon, HerbertA. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial. 2nd ed. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Stone, ClarenceN. 1989. RegimePolitics. Lawrence,KS: University Press of Kansas. Termeer,C.J.A.M.,and Joop EM. Koppenjan.1997. Managing Perceptionsin Networks. In Managing ComplexNetworks, J.M.Kickert,Erik-Hans editedby Walter Klijn,andJoopEM. Publications. London: Sage Koppenjan,79-97. Thompson,JamesD. 1967. Organizationsin Action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Weiner,MyronE. 1990. HumanServices Management.2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

DoIt 609 DoandWhy onWhat Networks: They Managers Propositions Managing

You might also like