This study explores interagency collaboration among agencies within the executive branch of the federal government. Given the mandate to collaborate, conveyed through the Government Results and Performance Act Modernization Act (2010), along with the well-documented institutional challenges of working across agency borders in highly bureaucratic cultures, empirical studies to advance theoretical development are much needed. Cross-boundary studies are often conducted under the umbrella of network theory; however, they have generally explored collaboration across different levels of government (i.e., Federal, state, and local), across sectors (public, private, and non-profit), and among private-sector firms. This study, while likewise exploring multi-organizational collaboration, is situated within the context of public-to-public interorganizational collaboration. The study draws from a sample of interagency groups characterized as examples of action (Agranoff, 2007), transformational (O'Toole, 2014), or orchestrated networks (Müller-Seitz, 2012; Provan and Kenis, 2008). These interagency groups were created expressly to solve a collective problem, with support from an organizing entity.
This study adopts from network theory the premise that organizations purposefully working together can achieve better results jointly than independently (O'Toole, 1997; Agranoff and McGuire, 2003; Koliba, et al. 2010; Keast, et al., 2014). It also draws from the few extant empirical studies of public-public collaborative efforts (Jensen, 2017; Scott and Thomas, 2015; Fountain, 2013; Lambert, et. al, 2013; Bardach, 1998; Lynch, 1997; Raach and Kass, 1995; Guetzkow, 1950), from which I surmised that interagency collaboration might be influenced by the differing allegiances of the individual members: (a) their organizational allegiances, (b) their professional allegiances, and (c) the relational allegiances that permeate day-to-day operations and create the structures needed to sustain the group's ongoing legitimacy. As several scholars have noted, more research is needed on the motivational underpinnings of individuals within interorganizational networks (Das and Kumar, 2011; Tasselli, Kilduff and Menges, 2015); such research might advance a fundamentally new understanding of how to manage, structure and govern interorganizational networks (Provan and Lemaire, 2012).
This empirical study examined the allegiances that motivated individuals within four interagency working groups to contribute to the aggressive government-wide goals mandated by GPRAMA. Using a mixed-methods approach, my study featured the use of an original survey, complemented by in-depth interviews, administered to a sample of experts. My data suggested an inverse relationship between organizational allegiance and the perceived effectiveness of interagency working group efforts. My data also suggested that the motivational value of professional allegiance varies by type of professional, that weaker allegiances may signal the willingness to compromise, that the power of relational allegiances becomes stronger over time, that relational allegiance is especially important during a change in leadership, and that conscious design of interagency working groups can promote the likelihood of successful collaborations. Through this work, I hope to contribute to the scholarship on purpose-oriented interorganizational networks, while also helping public managers to collaborate across agency borders in order to better achieve results. / Doctor of Philosophy / This study probes the unique motivations of federal workers to collaborate across agency borders. The Government Results and Performance Act Modernization Act (GPRAMA, 2010) mandated greater collaboration among agencies; GPRAMA, along with the well-documented institutional challenges of horizontal collaboration within highly bureaucratic cultures, there is great need for empirical studies to advance theoretical development. Such cross-boundary studies are often conducted under the umbrella of network theory; however, they have generally explored collaboration across different levels of government (i.e., Federal, state, and local), across sectors (public, private, and non-profit), or among private-sector businesses. My research, while likewise exploring multi-organizational collaboration, is situated within the specific context of public-to-public interorganizational collaboration among executive branch agencies – entities with generally equal standing. Moreover, I will be studying interagency working groups that exemplify action (Agranoff, 2007), transformational (O'Toole, 2014), or orchestrated (Müller-Seitz, 2012; Provan and Kenis, 2008) networks. Interagency working groups are created expressly for the purpose of solving a collective problem, with support from an organizing entity such as the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
My study adopts from network theory the premise that organizations purposefully working together can achieve better results jointly than independently (O'Toole, 1997; Agranoff and McGuire, 2003; Koliba, et al. 2010; Keast, et al., 2014). It also draws from the few empirical studies of mostly public-public collaborative efforts that currently exist (Jensen, 2017; Scott and Thomas, 2015; Fountain, 2013b; Lambert, et. al, 2013; Bardach, 1998; Lynch, 1997; Raach and Kass, 1995; Guetzkow, 1950). The earliest study (Guetzkow, 1950) focused on bureaucratic processes such as frequency and duration of meetings and tightness of agendas, finding that 55 to 60 percent of judged effectiveness was not associated with any of the factors studied. Both Raach and Kass (1995) and Lambert, Lewis and Seawall (2013) posited that interagency efforts were riddled with ad hoc processes and personality-driven deliberations, and that inexperienced leaders tended to decrease group effectiveness. Thus, they stressed the criticality of having effective processes in place (a notion that goes back to Hult and Walcott, 1990) for the crises that will inevitably erupt. Bardach (1998) acknowledged the barriers to interagency collaboration, but also highlighted "value creating opportunities" (p. 53) that could motivate individuals to contribute to the collective effort. His empirical data suggested that, while good leadership helps, it is not essential. Fountain (2013) lamented the lack of empirical studies to help advance cross-agency collaboration theory, but pointed to "narratives of promising practice" (p. 109). It is widely accepted that trust and attraction (i.e., "relational allegiances," Bryson, Crosby and Stone, 2006) can stimulate positive results in networks (Issett, 2011), but interagency working groups are often comprised of individuals previously not known to one another, so other variables should also be studied. Scott and Thomas (2015) highlighted the importance of just the collaborative group itself, but to the multiple institutions within which the group was embedded. Jensen (2017) suggested that results-oriented interagency efforts might be predicated upon the motivation to be part of something novel, important, and ultimately rewarding.
Summarizing the literature to date, I surmised that interagency collaboration could be influenced by the differing allegiances of the individual members: (a) their organizational allegiances, (b) their professional allegiances, and (c) the relational allegiances that permeate day-to-day operations and create the structures needed to sustain the group's ongoing legitimacy. As several scholars have noted, more research is needed on the motivational underpinnings of individuals within interorganizational networks (Das and Kumar, 2011; Tasselli, Kilduff and Menges, 2015). Such research might advance a fundamentally new understanding of how to manage, structure and govern interorganizational networks (Provan and Lemaire, 2012). Given the recent mandate to collaborate, the need for theoretical development in the realm of public-to-public collaboration is particularly acute.
This empirical study examined the allegiances that motivated the individual members of four interagency working groups to contribute to the aggressive government-wide goals mandated by GPRAMA. Using a mixed-methods approach, my study featured the use of an original survey, complemented by in-depth interviews, administered to a sample of expert individuals. My data suggested an inverse relationship between the strength of organizational allegiance and the perceived effectiveness of interagency working group efforts. My data also suggested that the motivational value of professional allegiance varies by type of professional, that relatively weak allegiances, overall, may signal the willingness to compromise, that the power of relational allegiances becomes stronger over time, that strong relational allegiance is especially important when it is necessary to maintain continuity during a change in leadership, and that conscious design of interagency working groups can promote the likelihood of successful collaborations. Through this work, I hope to contribute to the scholarship on multiple allegiances within purpose-oriented interorganizational networks, while also helping public managers to collaborate across agency borders in order to in order to better achieve results.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:VTETD/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/98809 |
| Date | 09 June 2020 |
| Creators | Hopkins, Kathlyn J. |
| Contributors | Government and International Affairs, Lemaire, Robin Hargroder, Dull, Matthew M., Hult, Karen M., Jensen, Laura Smietanka |
| Publisher | Virginia Tech |
| Source Sets | Virginia Tech Theses and Dissertation |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation |
| Format | ETD, application/pdf, application/x-zip-compressed |
| Rights | In Copyright, http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0119 seconds