When Many Davids Collaborate with One Goliath: How Inter‐organizational Networks (Fail to) Manage Size Differentials

Abstract

How do organizations of vastly different size collaborate in order to achieve a common goal? While this poses less of a problem when the network is orchestrated by a classic lead firm, in networks exhibiting a shared governance mode, where leadership responsibilities are more or less equally distributed, size differentials present a critical management challenge. In this paper, we contribute to the literature on coordination in and of interorganizational arrangements by emphasizing the so far largely neglected role of size for managing close collaborative relationships. We study the case of Apprenticeship Network, a network that originally consisted of seven small and medium-sized enterprises, but which then accepted a very large multinational firm as a new member. By unpacking how the network coordinated its endeavour over time to achieve accountability, predictability and a common understanding as critical conditions for effective coordination, we explore how coordination effectiveness may deteriorate and result in the failure of the collaborative effort. We pay special attention to the role of size in these processes, and we theorize how the strategic front and back-staging of agreed-upon rules and norms facilitates the formation, maintenance and deletion of a tie, thus producing important network dynamics.

Network orchestration in a large inter‐organizational project

“…Second, prior research has shown that effective coordination depends on the fit between coordination needs and coordination mechanisms (Gulati et al, 2012; Oliveira & Lumineau, 2017), but offers limited insights into how a network orchestrator relies on formal and informal coordination to govern inter‐organizational networks (Fortwengel & Sydow, 2020; Provan et al, 2007; Reypens et al, 2021). This is important given that our data showed that fit between task complexity and network governance contributes to high network performance.…”

“…Second, a key, but poorly understood, governance activity performed by the network orchestrator, is how coordination is intentionally established (Pathak et al, 2014). Extant studies provided very limited insights about the formal and informal coordination undertaken by the network orchestrator on ensuring network performance (Fortwengel & Sydow, 2020; Reypens et al, 2021). Our study unpacks the mode of coordination (formal or informal), the intensity of coordination (active or passive), and fit with the form of governance form (shared or lead).…”

“…Second, a poorly understood, yet critical governance activity performed by the network orchestrator, is the process of establishing coordination between the network orchestrator and all network members (Pathak et al, 2014). While prior work shows that effective coordination depends on the fit between needs and mechanisms (Gulati et al, 2012; Oliveira & Lumineau, 2017), extant studies provide an incomplete understanding of the formal and informal coordination undertaken by the network orchestrator to govern inter‐organizational project networks (Fortwengel & Sydow, 2020; Reypens et al, 2021). Understanding the effectiveness of coordination mechanisms within inter‐organizational networks in a project setting matters because ineffective coordination can lead to conflict, disputes, and poor project outcomes (e.g., Kalra et al, 2021; van Marrewijk et al, 2016), and leads to our second question: How does coordination by the network orchestrator influence performance outcomes within the ancillary services of a large‐scale project?…”

Coaction Interrupted: Logic Contestations in the Implementation of Inter‐organisational Collaboration around Talent Management in the Public Sector in Scotland

“…Documents. Interviews are a valuable way of generating deep insights into the underlying processes and practices of an empirical phenomenon such as inter-organisational collaboration and have been used to investigate network dynamics and inter-organisational collaborations in previous studies (e.g., Majchrzak et al, 2015;Fortwengel and Sydow, 2018). However, as pointed out by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), they are subject to a number of weaknesses including subjectivity and retrospective sense-making.…”