Project info
Work package
- Work
Sustainability threat
- External Shocks
Challenge
- Reshaping organizational forms
Study info
Related studies according to this researcher
Governance of inter-organizational networks: a systematic literature review and qualitative meta-synthesis
Power dynamics in inter-organizational networks
Tension management in inter-organizational networks: Structural conditions for paradoxical solutions
Description of Study
Collaboration in inter-organizational networks is fraught with contradictions. Member organizations are tasked with the challenge of creating a shared identity while preserving their individuality, maintaining accountability while upholding autonomy, and navigating the delicate balance between cooperation within the network and competition outside of it. The complexities do not end there, as networks cannot simply prioritize one conflicting need at the expense of another; both needs must be addressed. However, striking a middle ground may result in a sub-optimal performance. This raises the question: how can these tensions be successfully managed without compromising the network's overall effectiveness? Our study identifies structural solutions for inter-organizational networks operating under different governance systems. Through an exploratory, qualitative analysis, we compare two non-profit public-private networks and show that their success lies in addressing conflicting needs at different levels. This study highlights the potential of leveraging the multi-level nature of networks to design sustainable cooperation.
Study research question
How can members of inter-organizational networks successfully manage contradictory needs without compromising the network’s overall effectiveness?
Collection provenance
- Collected during project
Collection methods
- Interview
- Observation
- Text Analysis
Personal data
Yes
External Source
Source description
File formats
- .docx
- .mp3
- .m4a
Data types
- Unstructured
Languages
- English
Coverage start
Coverage end
07/10/2018
12/06/2020
Spatial coverage
Both networks operated across the same two European countries: the Netherlands plus one other (anonymised) European country.
Collection period start
07/10/2018
Collection period end
12/06/2020
Variables
Unit
Unit description
Sample size
Sampling method
Individuals
People who represent their organizations in a collaborative network and a representative of a donor organization
25
Total population sampling (all representatives)
Organizations
Organizations that comprise two networks under study.
19
Total population sampling (all network organizations)
Hypothesis
Theory
The assumption behind the study: In inter-organizational networks, tensions arising from contradictory needs are managed more sustainably by prioritizing the opposing needs at different network levels (organizational, group, whole-network) than by attempting to resolve them at a single level.
Paradox theory / organizational tensions (Smith & Lewis, Lewis, Poole & Van de Ven); network governance theory (Provan & Kenis); Structural Linked Design Approach (Lazega, Belotti)
Variable type
Variable name
Variable description
Dependent variable
Tension management approach / strategy used
Study-specific, based on the typology by Poole & Van de Ven, 1989.
The strategy a network used to address a given tension, coded into one of four mutually exclusive categories: integrating (combining elements to partially satisfy both needs, or finding a middle ground), separating (satisfying the two needs in different arenas or at different times), suppressing (addressing one need while ignoring the other), and opposing (actors advocating exclusively for incompatible needs).
Independent variable
Network governance / organizational structure
Study-specific, based on the typology by Provan & Kenis, 2008.
The organisational arrangement distinguishing the two cases: Network 1, a lead organisation with a central management team; Network 2, a lead partner with five task-based working groups.
Independent variable
Type of tension / tension category
Study-specific, based on classifications by Provan & Kenis, 2008; Gnyawali et al., 2016; Fang et al., 2011.
The category of contradictory needs being managed, organised into four themes: coordination, structural adaptability, accountability and control, and working apart together, each containing specific tensions (e.g., inclusiveness vs. efficiency; stability vs. flexibility).
Control variable
Funding source
Study-specific.
Both networks were funded by the same EU donor under the same scheme, holding resource provision and donor expectations constant.
Control variable
Network success
Study-specific.
Both networks were equally successful, operationalised through the donor’s appraisal: each received all funding tranches and secured follow-up funding. Holding success constant ensures it cannot explain differences in tension management.
Control variable
Country and institutional context
Study-specific.
Both operated in the same two European countries during the same period, within a context of weak exogenous institutional rules and enforcement.
Control variable
Network size
Study-specific.
Both networks comprised a comparable number of member organisations (8–11), controlling for scale effects on coordination.
Control variable
Network age
Study-specific.
Both networks were well established (at least three years by the end of data collection), controlling for maturity.
Discipline-specific operationalizations
Conflict of interest
No
Data packages
Publications
Documents
Filename
Description
Date
The topic guide for semi-structured interviews with the network members
2026/06/14
The data management protocol for this study
2026/06/14
Ethics
Ethical assessment
Yes
Ethical committee
Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Sociology department at the University of Groningen