View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The leadership of innovation in public sector networks:
Innovation perceptions and information seeking behavior
Paper prepared for the IRSPM Conference 2015 in Birmingham, UK
Panel b102:
Contemporary leadership issues: Managing people, change and innovation
Joris van der Voet, Tamyko Ysa, Mila Gascó and Adrià Albareda
ESADE Business School – Institute of Public Governance and Management
This project is funded by the FP7 project “Learning from Innovation in Public Sector
Environments” (LIPSE).
2
ABSTRACT
Innovation has become increasingly important for public organizations, in order to respond to
environmental pressures and demands. The role of public managers is central in innovation,
because they connect their organization with the relevant resources and ideas that are needed for
innovation. Although the dominant governance paradigms (traditional public administration,
NPM, and network governance) all emphasize the importance of innovation, they highlight the
importance of different actors and shape the perceptions of public managers regarding the
important drivers of innovation. In this study, the relationship between these innovation
perceptions and the information seeking behavior of public managers is analyzed. The results
indicate that three distinct innovation paradigms can be distinguished in the innovation
perceptions of public managers, corresponding with the traditional public administration, NPM
and network governance. The analysis indicates that NPM innovation perceptions are positively
related to information seeking among public managers. The study thus suggests that the
perceptions of public managers concerning innovation, rather than their position in the
organization, predicts their information seeking behavior.
3
1 INTRODUCTION
In order to cope with environmental demands for performance and decreasing financial
resources, innovation has become increasingly important for public organizations. Innovation
can be defined as “the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or
organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption,
designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or wider society” (West
& Farr, 1990: 9). Stereotypical views of public sector organizations may dictate that innovation
in government organizations is a virtual oxymoron (Borins, 2002). For example, strict
bureaucratic constraints, high levels of scrutiny and the absence of market pressures may cause
public organizations and the people working there to be risk averse, less flexible and creative, or
otherwise impede processes of innovation (Bekkers, Edelenbos & Steijn, 2011). Despite such
particular characteristics, there is consensus that public organizations frequently generate and
adopt innovations (Walker, 2014; Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).
Although innovation has been a central topic in both public administration research and
practice in the past decades, different perspectives or ´paradigms´ exist on how innovation in
public organizations comes about. In an overview of this issue, Hartley (2005) argues that the
traditional or ´old´ public administration emphasizes that innovation comes about by means of
politicians and policy formulation. The New Public Management (NPM), in contrast, highlights
the importance of managers as the most important drivers of innovation. Whereas both these
paradigms view innovation as an intra-organizational process, network governance
conceptualizes innovation as a process of ‘sideways-in’, which involves collaboration with
external actors such as universities, business and citizens (Hartley, Sørensen, & Torfing, 2013).
While these different paradigms are often discussed as sequential and dominant in different time
4
periods, it is important to recognize that these different governance paradigms are co-existing
(Hartley, 2005). As such, they function as competing logics that shape managerial action (Alford
& Friedland, 1985; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008).
The literature on innovation in the public sector often stresses the importance of
leadership (Borins, 2002). This study aims to contribute to our understanding of the leadership of
innovation by assessing how managers´ perceptions of innovation are related to their information
seeking behavior. The first research objective is to assess whether these different
conceptualizations of innovation, as expressed in the traditional public administration, NPM and
network governance paradigms, are empirically observable among public managers. The second
research objective is to assess to what extent and how these innovation perceptions are related to
actual the information seeking behavior of managers. Our central research question is: How are
the innovation perceptions of public managers related to information seeking behavior?
We use quantitative data concerning innovation perceptions and social network data of
public managers in Barcelona (Spain) to address our research objectives. For the first research
objective, managers´ perceptions of the most important drivers of innovation in their city were
measured. These perceptions include political, managerial and societal drivers. A confirmatory
factor analysis reflecting the traditional public administration, NPM and network governance
paradigms is performed based on variables regarding the drivers and barriers of innovation. We
hypothesize that the three paradigms are observable and empirically distinguishable in our
sample of public managers. For the second research objective, these innovation perceptions are
related to the information seeking behavior of public managers, as an important part of the
innovation cycle. Information seeking behavior is assessed by computing a social network of the
actors to whom managers go for strategic information. We hypothesize that the innovation
5
perceptions of respondents will be reflected in their actual networking behavior: the traditional
public administration paradigm will be related to networking with politicians, the NPM paradigm
will be related to networking with managers, and the network governance paradigm will be
related to networking with external, societal actors. Control variables such as hierarchical level
are be included, and allow us to assess what is a more important determinant of network
behavior: perceptions or position.
Our analysis provides support for our theoretical expectations. The different governance
paradigms are observable and distinguishable in our sample of public managers. Moreover, the
data suggest that the innovation perceptions of public managers are related to their networking
behavior. These results thus suggest that the innovative capacity of public organizations is in part
dependent on the individual beliefs and perceptions of managers regarding innovation. A
limitation of the preliminary results is the limited external validity of our results, as well as the
limited statistical power of our sample.
In the next section, we specify our conceptual background and theoretical expectations.
Section three consists of an introduction of the cases, the procedures that were used to collect
data and an overview of the sample of the study. Results are presented in section four. Section
five consists of a discussion, reflection and a conclusion.
2 CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
This section consists of two parts. First, the topic of innovation in public sector innovation is
introduced, and different perceptions of the process of innovation are discussed that are found
throughout the dominant governance paradigms of traditional public administration, NPM and
6
network governance. Second, the role of networks in innovation is discussed, with particular
attention for how different innovation perceptions are related to networking behavior.
Competing paradigms of innovation in the public sector
The capacity of organizations to adopt or generate innovations has been a key issue in
organizational research in the previous decades (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Damanpour, 1991). This
line of research has resulted in the identification of organizational and environmental factors that
explain organizational innovation. Organizational characteristics such as organic and
decentralized structures and environmental dynamism are typically associated with innovative
organizations (Walker, 2014). These characteristics are typically not always present in the public
sector, and public sector organizations are therefore often not portrayed as being capable
generating or adopting innovations (Bekkers, Edelenbos & Steijn, 2011). Nevertheless, research
on innovation has been ever-present in the public administration literature (e.g. Thompson, 1965;
Rowe & Boise, 1974; Yin, 1981; Berry, 1994; Walker, 2008; Damanpour, Walker & Avalleneda,
2009). Several authors have argued that the amount of empirically observable innovations that
public sector organizations have adopted over the years, shows that public organizations are
certainly capable of generating and adopting innovations (e.g. Fernandez & Rainey, 2006;
Borins, 2002).
Although innovation has been a core aspect of public management research and practice
in the past decades, the conceptualization of innovation has been conceptualized has been subject
to change. These changes correspond with a broader shifts in the dominant ideas and
assumptions that underline the role of government in society. As is argued by Hartley (2005), the
7
changing conceptualization of governance is tied to changing conceptions of governance and
public management. The traditional public administration, NPM and network governance are
therefore not only paradigms that determine the operations of government, but they put different
emphases on the nature of innovation in the public sector, as well as the actors that are relevant
for the generation and adoption of innovation.
In the traditional model of public administration, governance is based on hierarchy, the
primacy of politics and the rule of law. In this paradigm, societal problems and the innovations
that are needed to address them are defined by politicians and public professionals. Innovation
comes about through large-scale, system-wide policy changes and reforms (Hartley, 2005).
These type of innovations are mainly dependent on the role of politicians, by formulating and
creating support for policy changes. The role for public managers is less prominent. The
traditional model of public administration sees their role as impartial and loyal administrators,
who implement decisions made by their political superiors. In the traditional public
administration paradigm, the role of politicians is thus central. Citizens are mainly portrayed as
passive recipients of policy and innovation, who have the opportunity to express their
preferences through voting during elections.
The NPM has been criticized for being ideologically inconsistent, and more of a
collection of affiliated management ideas than a coherent governance paradigm (Pollitt &
Bouckaert, 2004). Nevertheless, the NPM has been an influential, if not dominant, frame of
reference in the public sector in the past decades. The NPM consists of ideas on how to organize
the government, and emphasizes the role of markets, competition and choice through
privatization and agencification of public services. The NPM also consists of a set of managerial
ideas that argue for the use private sector management techniques, such as performance
8
management and increased autonomy for managers. In the NPM, innovation is conceptualized as
the adoption of these organizational and managerial ideas (Hartley, 2005). As is argued by
Sørensen, & Torfing (2011: 857), the NPM “places the responsibility for innovation solely in the
hands of the public managers.” Although the NPM is based on a neoliberal political ideology, the
implementation of NPM-related reforms and innovations are portrayed as being neutral due to
their emphasis on improving efficiency. Citizens are mainly seen as clients, who express their
preferences through choices in the market.
The network governance paradigm advocates the involvement of external, interdependent
stakeholders in decision-making, policy implementation, and public service delivery (Osborne,
2006). This paradigm highlights the interdendencies between different actors, and argues that
interorganizational cooperation is needed for effective public service delivery. Research on
network governance has mostly emphasized outcomes such as organizational performance and
democracy, but little empirical evidence on the role of network governance and innovation exists
(Sørensen, & Torfing, 2011, 2012; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2012). Nonetheless, prominent scholars
have argued for a more open, relational, and collaborative approach to public sector innovation.
For example, Osborne et al. (2012: 137) state that “the intraorganizational focus of the NPM,
and that of previous paradigms, does not reflect the interorganizational and interactive nature of
contemporary public services provision.” As is argued by Hartley et al. (2013, 821) traditional
approaches to public administration and the NPM “tend to favor “in-house” innovation (i.e. by
managers and staff) and thus fail to reap the fruits of interorganizational, intersectoral and open
innovation.” These views resonate with similar, more relational theories on innovation, such as
open innovation (e.g. Chesbrough, 2003) and social innovation (e.g. Bekkers, Tummers &
Voorberg, 2013). Network governance thus emphasizes a more active role of societal or external
9
actors in the innovation cycle, such as citizens, businesses, universities, interest groups and the
media.
The three governance and innovation paradigms that have been highlighted here are often
associated with distinct time periods. For example, the traditional public administration model is
often associated with the post-war period until the 1980s, the NPM is associated with the 1980s
and 1990s, and societies are argued to move more toward the network governance model since
the year 2000. However, all three paradigms remain influential in the contemporary public
sector. For example, reforms in response to the financial crisis have drawn simultaneously on
ideas of strengthening political control and centralization, applying private sector ideas to further
enhance efficiency, as well as devolving and decentralizing public service delivery to involve a
wider network of actors. As is argued by Benington & Hartley (2001), they should thus be seen
as competing paradigms. Moreover, these paradigms have emerged in response to the
weaknesses or inefficiencies in other paradigms. The NPM emerged in response to the
(perceived) inefficiencies of the traditional public administration paradigm (Pollitt & Bouckaert,
2004; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). As is argued by Klijn (2015), the paradigms did not only
emerge to address each other’s shortcomings, but they may even be mutually reinforcing. For
example, Klijn argues that the NPM´s tendency to separate and privatize leads to increased
specialization, which in turn places greater emphases on the cooperation and networking
capabilities of individual actors.
In this paper, we therefore draw on institutional theory to argue that three paradigms
function as competing institutional logics that shape managerial action (Alford & Friedland,
1985; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). The paradigms give meaning to what the concept ´innovation´
is, and provide managers with a narrative or theory on what actors are relevant in order to bring
10
about innovation. These paradigms thus function as belief systems that steer the perceptions of
public managers on how public sector innovation comes about, and thereby shape rational,
mindful behavior (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012). They are competing institutional
logics in the sense that no paradigm is dominant in the public sector. The governance paradigms
of traditional public administration, new public management and network governance thus
simultaneously determine the perceptions of public managers regarding innovation. Similarly,
Meyer & Hammerschmid (2006) have shown that public managers in Austria simultaneously
identify with the values and beliefs inherent to the traditional public management and new public
management paradigms. We therefore hypothesize that the three competing paradigms
concerning the drivers of innovation in the public sector are empirically observable and
distinguishable among public managers. We formulate the following hypothesis:
H1: The innovation perceptions of public managers consist of separate dimensions reflecting the
traditional public administration, new public management and network governance paradigms.
Leadership and public sector innovation
Research on leadership and innovation highlights the role of individuals - often those individuals
in a managerial position - in processes of innovation. For example, studies have explained
innovation by emphasizing the roles individuals may have in introducing innovative ideas or
practices in the organization (e.g. Borins, 2002; Meijer, 2011). However, heroic portrayals of
leadership in processes of innovation, which highlight the ways in which individuals contribute
to the adoption or generation of innovations, have been subject to increasing critique (Meijer,
11
2011). The essence of this critique is that this leadership perspective conceptualizes leadership as
being localized in individuals, often in a formal managerial position. This traditional leadership
model is believed to be increasingly at odds with the collaborative processes through which
innovation comes about, especially in a public sector context.
Leadership is still believed to be important in innovation in the public sector, albeit in a
different way (Meijer, 2011). The role of leadership in such processes is increasingly
conceptualized as networking behavior, in order to connect public organizations with the
relevant people, ideas, knowledge, capacities and capabilities that required for innovation. This
view of leadership is often described with the term ´boundary spanning´ (e.g. Van Meerkerk &
Edelenbos, 2014; Voets & De Rynck, 2011). Boundary spanners are those individuals who link
an organization´s internal knowledge network with external sources of information (Tushman,
1977). Classic studies on boundary spanning behavior have investigated whether characteristics
of the organizational environment and organizational structure affect the degree to which
individuals look for information beyond the boundaries of their own organization (Leifer &
Huber, 1977). However, most studies in public administration research have investigated the
behaviors and outcomes of boundary spanning, rather than the antecedents of boundary spanning
behavior (e.g. Williams, 2002; Noble & Jones, 2006). Therefore, there is evidence available that
suggests that information seeking beyond the boundaries of the organization is important and
beneficial for innovation, but relatively little is known about the antecedents of information
seeking behavior.
In this study, we draw on institutional theory to explain the information seeking behavior
of public managers. As we have argued, the three abovementioned governance paradigms give
meaning to the conceptualization of innovation, as well as the actors that are relevant in the
12
innovation cycle. The governance paradigms thereby function as institutional logics that shape
the perceptions of managers concerning innovation, and subsequently their information seeking
behavior (Lawrence, 2008). The information seeking behavior of managers is thus ´embedded´
within the institutional logics that provides managers with their perceptions and assumptions
concerning innovation (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). Meyer & Rowan (1977), in their classic study
of institutional theory, observe that the organizational structures of organizations follow the
´rationalized myths´ of their environment. Following more recent applications of institutional
theory, that have focused on how institutions affect behavior on the individual level (Ocasio,
Thornton & Lounsbury, 2012; Lawrence, Suddaby & Leca, 2011), we thus propose that the
governance paradigms shape the information seeking behavior of public managers. The
traditional public administration paradigm argues that politicians are the most central actors in
the innovation cycle (Hartley, 2005). We therefore propose that innovation perceptions
according to this paradigm are positively related to information seeking among politicians. In
turn, the NPM paradigm argues that managers are central in public sector innovation (Sørensen,
& Torfing, 2011). We therefore propose that innovation perceptions according to the NPM will
cause managers to look for strategic information among other managers. Finally, the network
governance paradigms states that external, societal actors are the key to public sector innovation.
We therefore propose that this type of innovation perceptions will be positively related to
information seeking among external actors.
H2a: Traditional public administration innovation perceptions are positively related to
information seeking among politicians.
13
H2b: New Public Management innovation perceptions are positively related to information
seeking among managers.
H2c: Network governance innovation perceptions are positively related to information seeking
among politicians.
3 METHODS
Case selection and sample
This article is based on data gathered for the LIPSE (Learning from Innovation in Public Sector
Environments) project. This project is funded by the EU’s FP7 framework and aims to identify
drivers and barriers to successful social innovation in the public sector in 11 EU countries and 7
policy sectors1. More specifically, we draw on data gathered for work package 1 (Innovation
capacities of innovation environments) in which four EU municipalities are involved: Barcelona
(Spain), Copenhagen (Denmark), Rotterdam (The Netherlands) and West Lothian (Scotland,
UK). For the purposes of this study, we only use the data that was collected in Barcelona.
Barcelona is the capital city of Catalonia, an autonomous community of Spain. With
1,611,822 citizens (2013), Barcelona is the second largest city of Spain, after Madrid. The
inclusion of Barcelona in a study about innovation is not coincidental. The city council of
Barcelona has a long trajectory in the field of innovation, which can be clearly illustrated by the
successful hosting of the 1992 Olympic Games. More recently, Barcelona has been awarded the
European Capital of Innovation (iCapital) prize by the European Commission ‘for introducing
1 http://www.lipse.org/
14
the use of new technologies to bring the city closer to citizens’2. Moreover, the city council is
involved in various innovative projects and initiatives related with open data, sustainable growth,
and smart services. This makes Barcelona a relevant case for studying the innovation perceptions
and networking behavior of public managers.
Procedures for data collection
The data for this study were collected by means of an online survey among public managers,
politicians (in government) and so-called community-based innovators within the city of
Barcelona. The survey consisted of questions concerning the perceptions of respondents about
innovation in their city, as well as questions concerning their networking behavior. All public
managers at the top three hierarchical levels were contacted for the online survey in March 2014.
At the time of the survey, there were 233 top-level managers in the city. Of this number, 65
managers completed the online survey (response rate of 28%). In addition, 7 out of 15 politicians
completed the survey ( response rate of 47%). In the survey, the politicians and public managers
were asked to nominate important community-based innovators: those individuals within the city
who are not part of the administration, but are considered to an important part of the innovation
network within the city. As a second step of the survey, the 26 most nominated community-
based innovators were contacted and asked to complete the survey. In all, the sample consists of
98 individuals.
2 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press--‐release_IP--‐14--‐239_en.htm
15
Measures
As mentioned above, two concepts measured with the online survey are of particular interest for
this study: innovation perceptions and networking behavior. Our measure for innovation
perceptions is based on the work of Considine and Lewis (2007). This measure asks respondents
to rate on a Likert scale to what extent certain factors hinder or help innovation within the city.
The items of Considine and Lewis correspond to factors related to political governance,
managerial governance and legislative governance. For the purposes of this study, we used the
items of political governance to operationalize traditional public administration innovation
perceptions. These items are: Policy proposals from local politicians, the values and culture of
elected politicians, national government pressure on municipalities, and municipal election
campaigns. The items of managerial governance were used to operationalize new public
management innovation perceptions. These items are: Values and culture of executive
management, policy proposals from officers and administrators, the pay and promotion system,
and the organizational structure of municipal government. In order to operationalize network
governance innovation perceptions, three additional items were formulated: Business elite of the
city, media attention, and contact and involvement of citizens and community.
In order to measure networking behavior, the information seeking behaviors of
politicians, managers and community-based innovators were measured. Respondents were asked
to mention people to whom they go to in order to get strategic information about the
municipality. Respondents could list up to five individuals, regardless of whether these
individuals operate inside or outside of the administration.
16
3.4 Analysis: Procedures and techniques
In order to test the study’s central hypotheses and answer the research question, a combination of
statistical analysis and social network analysis is done. The respondent sample consists of three
groups of respondents: managers, politicians and community-based innovators. As the study’s
hypotheses concern the innovation perceptions and information seeking behavior of public
managers, central managers are central in this study. As a first step, their information seeking
network was constructed, based on the data that was collected concerning the information
seeking behavior of managers, politicians and community based innovators. We apply social
network analysis as it allows to directly examine the particular patterns of interaction within a
network, rather than asking members of the network about the perception the structural
characteristics of network (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011). Then, the degree centrality of public
managers within the network is calculated. The degree centrality refers to the number of nodes
that connect to a certain individual in the network. A high degree centrality thus means that a
manager is an important part of the total information seeking network. Because hypotheses 2a,
2b and 2c specify between networking among politicians, managers and external actors, separate
degree centrality was calculated for the politicians network, the manager network, and the
external (community-based innovator network). The second step of the analysis consists of
statistical analysis. By means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the factor structure of the
three dimensions of innovation perceptions (traditional public administration, new public
management, network governance) of public managers was tested. Step three of the analysis
consists of presenting the descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables of interest. The
fourth step of the analysis consists of combining statistical and social network analysis. Using
structural equation modeling, the relationships between the three dimensions of innovation
17
perceptions and the three types of degree centrality were investigated. In this analysis, we control
for two personal characteristics: gender and education level. We also control for managers’
hierarchical position (first tier, second tier, or third tier).
4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The social network
The whole network is composed of 232 nodes. Although the number of respondents to the survey
is 98 (65 managers, 7 politicians, and 26 community leaders), the network is larger because
respondents were asked to mention people to whom they went to in order to get strategic
information in the municipality. Respondents could state up to 5 people who have been classified
within three main categories: managers, politicians, and external actors. As can be seen in the
following figure, most of the people within Barcelona network are managers (173 red nodes). On
a second level, the 43 blue nodes are classified as external actors (i.e. they work in universities,
businesses, non-profit organizations, media, etc.). Finally, only 11 politicians are included in the
network (see green nodes)3. As can be seen in the following figure, the managers and most of the
politicians included in the network are found in the centre of the graph indicating high levels of
centrality, which can also be seen by the size of the nodes. Furthermore, the blue nodes (external
actors) are found in the periphery of the core of the graph.
3 The five remaining nodes, in white in Figure X, could not be classified for lack of information available.
18
Figure 1. Barcelona network [red=managers | green=politicians | blue=external actors]
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Innovation perceptions of public managers
A CFA was conducted to test the factorial structure of the innovation perceptions of public
managers. The point of reference for our analysis is the work by Considine & Lewis (2007), who
distinguish between three separate dimensions of governance models based on an Exploratory
Factor Analysis. In this study, we replace the items for legislative governance – factors that are
related to formal decision making and authorizing processes of government such as statutory
meetings of the council, committees, and related activities (Considine & Lewis, 2007: 587) – by
items that account for network governance. A first reason is that legislative governance does not
fit our approach of distinguishing between traditional public administration, NPM and network
governance. A second reason is that the work by Considine & Lewis (2007) indicates that the
items used to measure legislative cross-load with the other latent constructs. As is explained in
19
section 3, we introduce three items to account for network governance. In total, our measurement
model thus consists of 11 observed variables and three latent constructs: traditional public
administration, NPM and network governance.
The results of the CFA indicate that the first measurement model does not satisfactory fit
the data. Two of the observed variables are not statistically significantly related to the their
respective factor. The variance in the item for ‘pay and promotion system’ is not explained by
the factor for NPM, and the item for state level pressure on the municipality is not related to the
traditional public administration factor. These deviances from the results by Considine & Lewis
(2007) can possibly be explained by the contextual differences between Australia – where the
original study took place – and Barcelona. Whereas Australia can be seen as a frontrunner in
NPM reforms (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004), Spain has been a more conservative implementer of
management reforms (Hammerschmid et al., 2013). Because of this, the pay and promotion
system possibly provides less incentives for innovations in Spain. Likewise, state level pressure
to adopt innovations can possibly be less relevant in the decentralized state structure of Spain. As
a part of the autonomous region Catalonia, public managers in Barcelona are possibly less
affected by national government pressure than public managers in Australia. Beside these two
items, all observed variables are statistically significantly related to their respective latent
constructs. However, the fit indices of the model are not satisfactory: CMIN/DF = 2,268, CFI =
,744, RMSEA = ,141 and PCLOSE ,000.
A second measurement model was constructed, which excluded the items for the pay and
promotion system and national government pressure. This model thus consists of 9 observed
variables and three latent factors. In this model, all observed variables are significantly related to
their latent constructs. Standardized factor loadings range between ,965 and ,398. The fit indices
20
indicate an improved model fit in comparison to the first measurement model: CMIN/DF =
1,766, CFI = ,894, RMSEA = ,109 and PCLOSE ,047. The CMIN/DF statistic indicates good
model fit, but the CFI and RMSEA statistic are just short of the acceptable thresholds (.900 for
CFI and .10 for RMSEA). We return to this issue in the discussion section of the paper.
Descriptive statistics and correlations
In this section, the means (M) and standard deviations (S.D.) of the central variables are given, as
well as the correlations between them. The variables presented here are the three dimensions of
innovation perceptions (based on the CFA), three degree centrality statistics (based on the SNA)
and three control variables for, hierarchical level. education level and gender. The results are
given in table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations
M S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Traditional Public
Administration perceptions
2.70 .85 -
2 NPM perceptions 3.34 .82 .591**
*
-
3 Network Governance
perceptions
3.19 .68 .451**
*
.522**
*
-
4 Degree Centrality among
politicians
2.933 2.300 .131 .040 .090 -
5 Degree Centrality among
managers
2.317 1.257 .129 .141 .284* .718**
*
-
6 Degree Centrality among
external actors
2.387 1.983 .126 .112 .027 .785**
*
.598**
*
-
7 Hierarchical level 1.94 .527 -.131 -.062 .098 -.210 -.083 -.137 -
8 Education level 3.58 .612 -.020 -.108 -.160 .001 -.046 -.064 .237 -
9 Gender 1.36 .484 -.010 -.010 .114 -.214 -.216 -.239 .068 -.123
21
The descriptive statistics show that the sample for this study consists for 36% of women. The
mean hierarchical level is 1.94, which shows that lower level managers (tier 2 and 3) are slightly
overrepresented in the sample. The results given in table 1 indicate that, according to
respondents, the NPM innovation perceptions are most prominent among public managers. The
mean score of 3.34 indicates that, on average, public managers believe that NPM is a light driver
of innovation in the city. In contrast, managers believe that the traditional public administration
dimension hinders innovation more than it stimulates innovation. The mean score for traditional
public administration perceptions is 2.70, which is slightly below the scale’s mid-point of 3.00.
The mean for network governance perceptions is 3.19, and are thus also seen as a slight driver of
innovation.
The descriptive statistics show that public managers are most centrally embedded among
politicians in the social network. This thus indicates that public managers are more prone to go to
politicians for strategic information (mean degree centrality of 2.933) than to other managers
(mean degree centrality of 2.317) or external actors (mean degree centrality of 2.387). An
interesting result is the high correlations between the three degree centrality statistics. These
correlations indicate that managers who are central in the network among politicians, are also
likely to be central among other managers and external actors. These results are of course
understandable, because the three centrality statistics represent subsamples of the overall
Barcelona network. In the structural model, we therefore allow for correlations between the three
degree centrality statistics, and thereby control for these correlations.
22
Structural model
The final step of the analysis presented in this paper is the structural model that is used to test the
relationships between innovation perceptions and information seeking behavior. A structural
model was constructed that reflects the relationships in hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c. A visual
representation of the structural model is given in figure 2. The fit indices of the structural model
indicate good model fit: CMIN/DF = 1,973, CFI = 942, RMSEA = ,068 and PCLOSE = ,261.
Figure 2. Structural model
Degree Centrality: Politicians
Degree Centrality: Managers
Degree Centrality: External Actors
Traditional Public Administration
New Public Management
Network Governance
Policy proposals: politicians
Municipal election campaigns
Values and culture: politicians
Policy proposals: administrators
Values and culture: managers
The organizational structure
Media attention
Business elite of the city
Citizens and community
.191
.320*
.271
Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. * indicates a statistically significant relationship with p < .05. Control variables (hierarchical level, education level, gender) are modelled but not depicted in this model for dispositional ease.
The results depicted in figure 2 indicate a statistically significant relationship between NPM
innovation perceptions and degree centrality among managers. This relationship indicates that
the belief that factors related to NPM are beneficial for innovation is positively related to
information seeking among managers. The model also indicates positive relationship between
Traditional Public Administration perceptions and information seeking among politicians, as
23
well as network governance perceptions and information seeking among external actors, but
these relationships are not statistically significant. The analysis thus provides support for
hypothesis 2b, but not for hypotheses 2a and 2c.
Control variables were also modeled in the structural model, but are not depicted in
future 2. The results indicate that gender and education level are not related to the dependent
variables. An interesting result is that hierarchical level is also not related to any of the three
degree centrality variables. This result thus suggests that position is of less importance for the
information seeking behaviors of public managers than innovation perceptions.
5 Discussion
This study has set out to explore if the different governance paradigms are distinguishable in the
innovation perceptions of public managers (hypothesis 1), and to what extent these innovation
perceptions explain the networking behavior of public managers (hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c). The
results of our study indicate that the perceptions of public managers regarding innovation
correspond with the three dominant governance paradigms in the public management literature:
traditional public administration, NPM and network governance. Our study provides empirical
evidence for the assertion that these governance paradigms should not be seen as sequential, but
that that they are co-existing and compete to shape the beliefs of public managers concerning
innovation. The results thus provide support for hypothesis 1. According to the public managers
in Barcelona that were surveyed for the purposes of this study, drivers of innovation related to
NPM are seen as the most beneficial for innovation in their city. Moreover, another interesting
result is that none of the three governance paradigms is dominant. In our future work on this
24
issue, we will examine to what extent these results are replicable and comparable in different
settings.
Our study also results in initial evidence that the perceptions of public managers
concerning innovation are related to their information seeking behavior. This suggests that the
governance paradigms can be used as a framework to understand leadership behavior in the
innovation cycle (in this study information seeking behavior). In line with our theoretical
expectations, our analysis indicates that NPM innovation perceptions are positively related to
degree centrality among managers. This means that managers who perceive factors related to the
NPM to be important drivers of innovation in the public sector, are more likely to collect
strategic information among other public managers. The analysis thus provides support for
hypothesis 2b. At the same time, hypotheses 2a and 2c are not supported by the data.
Our study is subject to several limitations. The fit indices of the measurement model do
not all together provide satisfactory evidence of model fit. The chi-square indicates good model
fit, but the CFI and RMSEA statistics should be improved in order to be confident of model fit.
A possible explanation is that the sample size for a CFA is relatively small. A next step for this
study is thus to expand our analysis to a wider range of European cities, thereby increasing
sample size for the analysis, in order to see if this results in an improved model fit. Another
limitation of the current study is the limited external validity of our analysis. Our study is based
on a single European city. However, large differences exist between countries in terms of
innovation, governance and institutional settings (Bekkers et al., 2013; Hammerschmid et al.,
2013; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). A next step in our study is to add more cases to this study. This
will allow us to see if our findings are consistent in other cases, thereby increasing the external
25
validity of our work. This will also allow us to increase the sample size and statistical power of
our analysis.
References
Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy.
Cambridge University Press.
Bekkers, V., Edelenbos, J. & Steijn, B. (eds) (2011). Innovation in the public sector. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bekkers, V., Tummers, L., & Voorberg, W. (2013). From public innovation to social innovation
in the public sector: A literature review of relevant drivers and barriers. Rotterdam:
Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Berry, F.S. (1994). Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public
administration review, 322-330.
Borins, S. (2002). Leadership and innovation in the public sector. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 23(8), 467-476.
Burns, T.E., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research
Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from
technology. Harvard Business Press.
Considine, M., & Lewis, J.M. (2007). Innovation and innovators inside government: from
institutions to networks. Governance, 20(4), 581-607.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 555-590.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation
types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service
organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650-675.
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public administration review, 66(2), 168-176.
Hammerschmid, G., Oprisor, A. & Stimac, V. (2013). COCOPS executive survey on public
sector reform in Europe. COCOPS research report.
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money
and Management, 25(1), 27-34.
Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to
market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration
Review, 73, 6, p. 821-830.
Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: past, present and
future. Policy & Politics, 40(4), 587-606.
Klijn (2015: forthcoming) NPM versus Network Governance. Oxford Handbook of Public
Administration.
Lawrence, T. B. (2008). Power and Institutions. The Sage handbook of organizational
institutionalism, 170-198.
26
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional
studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58.
Leifer, R., & Huber, G.P. (1977). Relations among perceived environmental uncertainty,
organization structure, and boundary-spanning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly,
235-247.
Meijer, A. J. (2011). Networked Coproduction of Public Services in Virtual Communities: From
a Government‐Centric to a Community Approach to Public Service Support. Public
Administration Review, 71(4), 598-607.
Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing institutional logics and executive
identities a managerial challenge to public administration in Austria. American Behavioral
Scientist, 49(7), 1000-1014.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American journal of sociology, 340-363.
Noble, G., & Jones, R. (2006). The role of boundary‐spanning managers in the establishment of
public‐private partnerships. Public Administration, 84(4), 891-917.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming government. Reading Mass. Adison Wesley Public Comp.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management?
Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public
Administration, 43(2), 135-158.
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Management Reform: A comparative analysis-new
public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press.
Rowe, L.A. & Boise, W.B. (1974) Organizational innovation: Current research and evolving
concepts. Public Administration Review. 284-293.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public
sector. Administration & Society, 0095399711418768.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2012). Introduction: Collaborative innovation in the public
sector. Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1-14.
Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-20.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational
institutionalism, 840, 99-128.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A
new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process.Administrative science
quarterly, 587-605.
van Meerkerk, I., & Edelenbos, J. (2014). The effects of boundary spanners on trust and
performance of urban governance networks: findings from survey research on urban
development projects in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences,47(1), 3-24.
Joris, V., & De Rynck, F. (2011). Exploring the innovative capacity of intergovernmental
network managers: the art of boundary scanning and boundary spanning. In: Bekkers, V.,
Edelenbos, J. & Steijn, B. (eds) (2011). Innovation in the public sector. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Walker, R. M. (2008). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and
environmental characteristics: towards a configuration framework. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 591-615.
27
Walker, R. M. (2014). Internal and External Antecedents of Process Innovation: A review and
extension. Public Management Review, 16(1), 21-44.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social
Behaviour, 4, 15-30.
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public administration,80(1), 103-124.
Yin, R. K. (1981). Life histories of innovations: How new practices become routinized. Public
Administration Review, 21-28.
Recommended