Understanding what can be accomplished through interorganizational innovations The importance of typologies, context and management strategies

Street Level Divergence in the Functioning of Social Welfare Networks

“…Many other scholars, however, have emphasized the potential variability in the levels of integration among participants and how those differences relate to the objectives of the relationship (Bailey & Koney, 2000;Gajda, 2004;Mandell & Steelman, 2003;Vangen & Huxham, 2003). For example, Woodland and Hutton (2012) argue that more complex and higher stakes purposes tend to warrant higher levels of integration.…”

“…Degrees of autonomy refer to the amount of control maintained by participants and their home organizations. Formalized linkages often require the relinquishment of some autonomy and include decision-making processes requiring that major decisions be made collectively, not individually (Mandell & Steelman, 2003). Last, role clarity refers to the assignment of network-specific roles and clarified expectations, which indicates a higher level of formality.…”

“…In other words, do they feel the benefits of participation outweigh the costs? A number of things may influence this sensemaking process, including, for example, the prior experiences working together, the time commitment, the information available, and the complexity of the problem (Chen, 2010;Gofen, 2013;Mandell & Steelman, 2003;Meek, De Ladurantey, & Newell, 2007). Depending on how this sense-making process unfolds, the attitudes and perceptions of street-level workers may influence or shape how they approach network participation.…”

“…The systemic dimension, as a second-order construct, consisted of three first-order reflective constructs. To create the initial pool of items for the systemic dimension (Mandell & Steelman, 2003;Mattessich et al, 2001) measurements of interaction frequency and mode (Agranoff & Lindsay, 1983), degrees of autonomy (Gajda, 2004;Margerum, 2002;Taylor-Powell, Rossing, & Geran, 1998), and role clarity (House & Rizzo, 1972) were reviewed.…”

Breaking the Deadlock: Public Health Policy Coordination as the Next Step

“…While central agencies can play an important role in setting up such mechanisms, people who work informally to develop links among interests, professions and organizations and who create or use existing networks can be important catalysts in public policy coordination (Webb 1991;Mandell and Steelman 2003). Professionals and health policy makers could therefore be catalysts in fostering the creation of a formal process of horizontal policy coordination.…”