A Dynamic Theory of Network Failure: The Case of the Venice Film Festival and the Local Hospitality System

Abstract

Organizational and sociological research dealing with network governance has mainly focused on network advantages rather than on their problems or dysfunctionalities. This focus has left the field of network failure partially unexplored. We argue that although there have been some attempts to explicitly theorize network failures, the existing explanations, which are based on structural or social conditions, are not exhaustive. In this article we report the results of our empirical investigation on an underperforming network formed by the world-famous Venice Film Festival and its local hospitality system. We inductively derive a dynamic theory of network failure premised on the interplay of the network’s static dimensions (opportunism and ignorance) and dynamic dimensions (framing and mobilizing), and the role of institutions

A Dynamic Perspective on Destination Governance Success: The Case of an Emerging Network in the Dolomites

“…(Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014, p. 64). Numerous scholars have suggested the idea that coordination and networking, with or without a DMO acting as a network manager, are the key processes to pursue sustainable and competitive advantage of destinations (Dredge, 2006;Dredge & Pforr, 2008;Moretti & Zirpoli, 2016;Moscardo, 2011;Nordin & Svensson, 2007;Ritchie & Crouch, 2003;Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014). Also in the debate concerning destination governance models (Bodega et al, 2004;Flagestad & Hope, 2001), the idea of more social and loose ways of coordinating actors (based on trust, informal interactions, personal relations, etc.)…”

“…A promising avenue of research to answer the call to a more dynamic theory of destination governance success is the stream of research focused on network dynamics (Ahuja et al, 2012) and evolution (Padgett & Powell, 2012), which has already been applied to the study of governance failure in cultural tourism destinations (Moretti & Zirpoli, 2016). This literature relies on two main building blocks highly interrelated: (i) the conceptualization of networks as multiple systems (Kilduff & Brass, 2010;Moretti, 2017;Padgett & Powell, 2012) and (ii) the relevance of agency and micro-dynamics (Ahuja et al, 2012;Moretti & Zirpoli, 2016) to explain network evolution and outcomes.…”

“…This literature relies on two main building blocks highly interrelated: (i) the conceptualization of networks as multiple systems (Kilduff & Brass, 2010;Moretti, 2017;Padgett & Powell, 2012) and (ii) the relevance of agency and micro-dynamics (Ahuja et al, 2012;Moretti & Zirpoli, 2016) to explain network evolution and outcomes. Describing networks as multiple systems allows to highlight how individual members may have different incentives, motivations, and ideas about networks' evolutionary paths, because they play different roles (i.e., business manager, friend, political representative, etc.)…”

“…In order to overcome a possible cultural reluctance, which could lead the actors not to share their opinion in a plenary meeting, six single meetings with each representative were held by the research team. This also allowed to integrate the data collection process (Berg, 2004), observing micro-level dynamics (Arnaboldi & Spiller, 2011;Moretti & Zirpoli, 2016;Moretti, 2017).…”

Alliance strategy: context, process, and requirements

“…These studies have contributed to the recognition of the relationship as a distinct form of governance (Moretti, 2016), in which innovation is the process or product of the successful exchange of knowledge (Pittaway et al, 2004). The emerging tradition of a strong view on value creation and innovation offers a solid platform for researching innovation, yet studies following this view have hardly explored the content dimension (themes and topics) where the coexploration is about.…”