This research examines how different approaches to governing networks of independent organisations affect how well those networks function. Rather than focusing on single organisations, the study looks at collaborative settings — such as cross-sector care networks — where multiple independent parties work together toward shared goals while each retaining their own interests and autonomy. The research identifies three core challenges that make governing these networks particularly complex: members voluntarily give up some of their authority to the network, power imbalances between members tend to emerge over time, and individuals must constantly navigate tensions between competing needs. Across four studies, the thesis investigates how governance structures, power dynamics, and internal tensions shape the day-to-day functioning of inter-organisational networks — and what network managers can do to keep collaboration on track.

To Scoop website

PhD

Msc Aliona Ignatieva

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6485-0010

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Rafael Wittek

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8473-6984

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Liesbet Heyse

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7470-1289

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Supervisor

Dr. Jelly Zuidersma

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1891-5845

- other

• co-operative development
• Cooperation
• Coordination systems
• Employees
• Sociology

• Employers’ organizations
• Governmental policymakers
• HR managers
• Managers
• Organisation science
• Policy advisors
• Sociology

• Work

• External Shocks

• Reshaping organizational forms

The study builds on several interconnected bodies of literature. The starting point is Provan and Kenis's (2008) influential framework on network governance, which distinguishes between three basic ways networks can be governed: shared governance, where decisions are made collectively by all members; lead organisation governance, where one member takes a central coordinating role; and network administrative organisation governance, where an external body is created specifically to manage the network. While this framework has been widely adopted, it was developed theoretically rather than tested against real-world cases — a gap this research directly addresses. To account for the many governance arrangements that do not fit neatly into these three categories, the study draws on Ostrom's concept of polycentric governance, which describes systems where multiple independent decision-making centres operate in parallel without a single authority over them. To understand how power develops and shifts within these structures, the research draws on Lazega's Structural Linked Design Approach, a multilevel perspective that examines how both the position of organisations in a network and the position of individual representatives within their own organisations shape who gains influence over time. Finally, to analyse the recurring tensions that emerge in collaborative settings — such as the tension between collective decision-making and efficiency, or between organisational autonomy and network-level accountability — the study builds on Provan and Kenis's tension typology and Poole and Van de Ven's framework of tension management strategies, which distinguishes between integrating, separating, suppressing, and opposing as ways of dealing with competing demands.

The research combines two types of qualitative data across four studies. The first is secondary data: a systematic literature review spanning six databases and covering 834 unique articles, from which 62 case studies were selected for in-depth interpretive analysis. This body of material was used to map how inter-organisational networks are governed in practice and how network managers handle recurring tensions. The second is primary data collected from two real-life networks, both established between 2016 and 2017, operating in the service sector in the Netherlands and one other European country, and funded through the same EU programme. The two networks were deliberately selected because they shared many characteristics — similar size, age, funding conditions, and level of success — but differed in how they were internally organised, making them well suited for comparison. Data collection took place between 2018 and 2021 and included 33 semi-structured interviews with network members across both networks, as well as observations of 14 network meetings. Together, these two data sources allow the research to move between a broad, cross-case perspective — identifying patterns across dozens of networks — and a detailed, in-depth perspective that captures what actually happens inside a network over time.

Netwerk ZON

Department of Sociology, University of Groningen

NWO Gravitation Grant

024.003.025