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.

28

Appendix

Managers’ network (Density: 0.0067)

Politicians’ network (Density: 0.0151)

Network’s network (Density: 0.0096)