Public network leadership and the ties that lead

Daniela Cristofoli,Benedetta Trivellato,Josip Markovic,Laura Maccio’,Alessandro Sancino

doi:10.1007/s10997-020-09505-1

Daniela Cristofoli, Benedetta Trivellato + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09505-1

Copy DOI

Abstract

This study explores how certain characteristics of the network structure, such as autonomization and connectivity, differently combine with individual leadership in order to produce high network performance. Data gathered through a survey of 265 networks for homecare assistance shed light on three different paths simultaneously leading to network success. First, the presence of autonomy from government (autonomization) appears to be able to ensure network success, irrespective of the other conditions. Secondly, the presence (or absence) of an individual network leader combines differently with the network’s connectivity. Sparsely connected networks seem to require a network leader, forging agreements and leading partners towards a common objective. On the contrary, in highly connected networks, it is the intensity of network ties that appears to lead the network (the network leader seems to be not important). These networks seem to be leaderless, but not necessarily leadershipless.

Highlights

Leadership in public networks is a controversial topic (e.g. Currie et al 2011; Huxham and Vangen 2000; Mandell and Keast 2009; Morse 2010)
Wright and Pandey (2010) identify as a common theme among extant leadership theories that “leadership requires employees to have a certain degree of flexibility in how they define and perform their work” (p. 77). As this concept closely resembles the degree of autonomy enjoyed by the organization’s members when performing their tasks, we propose that autonomy from government within public networks may have an influence on the emergence of network leadership
Our aim is to explore which combinations of autonomization, network connectivity and individual leadership can simultaneously lead to high network performance

Summary

Introduction

Leadership in public networks is a controversial topic (e.g. Currie et al 2011; Huxham and Vangen 2000; Mandell and Keast 2009; Morse 2010). Currie et al 2011; Huxham and Vangen 2000; Mandell and Keast 2009; Morse 2010). We should ask ourselves whether this is a more normative/desirable element of leadership, or whether the reality of public networks is that of a distributed, shared and collective leadership. This is an important and timely conversation around the nature of contemporary leadership, especially at a time when we see examples of Trumpism and “great man leadership”, and examples of communityship and adhocratic forms of organizing characterized by notions of collective leadership (Crosby and Bryson 2017; Mintzberg and Caldwell 2017)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion