3
Introduction
For more than a century, the classical intraorganizational management perspective has
guided studies in public administration. Unfortunately, this orientation is increasingly
inapplicable as agencies become characterized as multiorganizational, multigovernmental, and
multisectoral (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999). Put simply, organizations now operate in
networked environments. A network, defined by O’Toole (1997), is a “pattern of two or more
units, in which not all major components are encompassed within a single hierarchical array.”
Scholars attempting to explore the nuances of network management often find the
literature wanting for broadly applied theories, meaningful large N studies, and succinct
explanatory research. These deficiencies have motivated scholars to promote the development of
a network management knowledge-base equivalent to the hierarchical organizational paradigm
of bureaucratic public management (Weiner, 1990; O’Toole, 1997; Agranoff and McGuire,
1999; Gill and Meier, 1999).
While the aforementioned literature is working to establish, empirically, that network
management contributes positively to organizational performance, theoretical work remains on
answering how network management induces positive organizational outcomes. Similarly,
although the classical intraorganizational management perspective may seem unsuitable for
today's multiorganizational environment, researchers should not abandon what classic
organizational theory can offer as the perspective shifts. For example, the concepts of
communication roles, norms, cooperation, uncertainty avoidance, and credibility might help to
further explain why managers behave as they do in managing their related networks.
The story along these lines is not about the personal attributes of a manager (leader), i.e.
personality. Instead, it explores how managers might 1) induce cooperation by establishing
Convention