Managing through Collaborative Networks: A Twenty-First Century Mandate for Local Government

http://slg.sagepub.com/State and Local Government Review

http://slg.sagepub.com/content/44/1_suppl/29SThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X12442517

2012 44: 29S originally published online 23 April 2012State and Local Government ReviewMichael AbelsGovernment

Managing through Collaborative Networks: A Twenty-First Century Mandate for Local

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Official Journal of the Section on Intergovernmental Administration & Management (SIAM) of ASPA

Founded by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia

can be found at:State and Local Government ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://slg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://slg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://slg.sagepub.com/content/44/1_suppl/29S.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 23, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 22, 2012Version of Record >>

at KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 13, 2014slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 13, 2014slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://slg.sagepub.com/

http://slg.sagepub.com/content/44/1_suppl/29S

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://faculty.unlv.edu/wpmu/siam/

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/

http://slg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://slg.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://slg.sagepub.com/content/44/1_suppl/29S.refs.html

http://slg.sagepub.com/content/44/1_suppl/29S.full.pdf

http://slg.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/20/0160323X12442517.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Article

Managing throughCollaborative Networks:A Twenty-First CenturyMandate for LocalGovernment

Michael Abels1

AbstractLocal governments face a conundrum; a structural decline in revenues concurrent with a complexenvironment where service responsibility must be viewed as multijurisdictional, multigovernmental,and multisectorial. Issues faced by local government are increasingly beyond the financial or servicecapacity of individual governments. This article proposes that outcome success in the era ofresource limitations necessitates that managers form new systems for regional collaboration. Suc-cessful adaption to twenty-first century realities requires that managers lead by identifying and form-ing new collaborative networks. Networks where several governments, nonprofit, and privateorganizations will integrate personnel and resources to accomplish a common mission.

Keywordslocal government, collaboration, networks, lead teams, charters

Introduction—Today

With the onset of the great recession, local gov-

ernments have served as the vanguard for new

organizational theory by designing and imple-

menting tools to reduce costs and make services

and operations more cost efficient. Reducing the

cost for personnel and operations, reducing capi-

tal investments, consolidating administrative ser-

vices with other governments, reducing or

eliminating investment in lower priority services,

and increasing revenues through taxes and fees,

local government have been very adept in making

adjustments mandated by the economic malaise

it has confronted in the first decade of the

twenty-first century.

The majority of the tools used to fend off the

effects of the recession have been from the

toolbox managers acquired through traditional

college and professional development curricu-

lums. These include reducing employee bene-

fits’, freezing salaries, making percentage

reductions to budgets, cooperating with other

governments to reduce administrative costs, and

entering into innovative interlocal agreements

that through limited joint operation facilitate

economies of scale.

1 University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Michael Abels, University of Central Florida, HPAII, Room

129, Orlando, FL 32816, USA

Email: [email protected]

State and Local Government Review44(1S) 29S-43Sª The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0160323X12442517http://slgr.sagepub.com

at KANSAS STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 13, 2014slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from


The thesis for this article is that managers

have used these traditional tools to their

maximum effect. Attempting to attain further

efficiencies by making additional reductions

in municipal budgets is not a realistic alterna-

tive. Managers are finding that local govern-

ments are now not able to meet established

service performance standards because of

reduced staffing and concomitant weakened

operational capacity. Therefore, any additional

use of these traditional tools to obtain further

efficiencies will result in an unacceptable loss

of service effectiveness.

In addition, reduced local government sup-

port to nongovernment community-based

service organizations services has frayed if not

breached the social service safety net, and,

many capital investments have been deferred

into the future thus compounding future cost.

The capability of local government to meet the

basic needs of its citizens while simultaneously

addressing the quality of life amenities

expected by community residents has been

adversely impacted. Many managers have

drawn the conclusion that further reduction in

service levels will not be tolerated by those liv-

ing in our communities.

The Future

Critically important questions being asked by

city and county managers are ones oriented to

the future. Is the worst of the economic crisis

over? Is the economy and real estate market

rebounding? Will revenues generated from

what is identified as an economic recovery

allow cites and counties to start the rebuilding

process? Will local government in the next two

to three years recover to the years experienced

in the beginning of the twenty-first century

when expansion of property tax and sales tax

revenues facilitated large program and capital

growth?

A reading of economic statistics may indi-

cate the answer to these questions is yes, the

worst is over, the economy has made a turn and

local governments may see a durable upturn in

revenues. Recent statistics seem to bear this out

with revenues received by local government in

the third quarter of 2011 being 4 percent higher

than what was received in 2010 (Lambert

2011). Reinforcing this positive economic sta-

tistic initial jobless claims have fallen to the

lowest level since April 20, 2008 thus indicat-

ing an increase in income and sales tax reven-

ues to local government (Segall 2011).

Complimenting this trend, the third quarter of

2011 saw consumer spending for durable goods

as well as spending for services increasing over

the level for 2010 (US Department of Com-

merce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2011).

These trends indicate that possibly in the very

near future local government’s economic night-

mare may be over. However, if this is true will

the new normal mean what it did in 2005–07

when local government was at it apex with pos-

itive revenue growth? The answer is very likely

no. The world local government operated in

before the great recession will not return. The

economy as well as the foundation for our gov-

ernment has undergone dramatic change.

The change we are experiencing is transfor-

mational and probably best summarized in a

holiday message sent by the Executive Director

of the International City/County Management

Association (ICMA) to the members of ICMA.

Referring to what he labeled as the next decade

of local government Bob O’Neill said, ‘‘With

state funding at an all-time low, the federal

government unable to reach consensus on just

about anything, and our country’s financial

recovery progressing at a snail’s pace, many

of us feel as if we’ll be on our own for at least

the next 10 years—if not longer’’ (ONeill

2011). While Mr. O’Neill did not fill in the par-

ticulars for why local government would con-

front such a lost decade, it is possible to

surmise his rationale.

Economic Restrictions

The financial foundation for local government

is established through revenues received

through the property tax, and to a lesser extent

the sales and income tax. Property values and

property tax revenues have been pummeled

by the great recession with property values

decreasing by as much as 30–40 percent. Some

30S State and Local Government Review 44(1S)



experts do not predict a reversal in the property

value decline until as late as 2016 (Dennis

2011). Therefore, the primary source of tax rev-

enues supporting local government services

may continue to decline through 2016 and then

take years to recover to prerecession levels.

Regardless of who is elected President in

2012, the focus of the federal government for the

foreseeable future will be to reduce the federal

deficit and debt. Doing so will mean further

reductions and with many programs, elimination

of financial support the federal government has

historically invested in local government. Areas

where reduction or elimination of federal support

will occur include public safety, transportation,

social services, utilities, environment, and

housing.

At the macroeconomic level, an important

development is the transformational change that

is occurring in the economic foundation through

which Americans are employed. While the econ-

omy is enjoying a reduction in the unemployment

rate, and manufacturing jobs are on the increase,

there are indications that the jobs being created

are not those that we have identified as histori-

cally supporting the middle class (Department

of Labor, February 2012; Goodman and Healy

2009). A countervailing trend with the drop in

unemployment is that the underemployment rate

remains large. Currently, 18 percent of people in

the workforce are identified as being underem-

ployed (Jacobe 2011).

Also troubling for local government

finances, adjusting for inflation, the after-tax

incomes of the vast majority of people who pay

taxes to local government (the 21st to 80th per-

centiles of the population) have grown at

approximately 1 percent per year since 1979

(Plummer 2011). It is very difficult for citizens

to support equal, much less higher taxes if their

adjusted for inflation income will not allow

them to support a progressive life style.

Another important sociological–economic

trend impacting the ability of the citizenry to

support government services is the economic

stratification of American’s and their relative

inability to move upward in the economic sys-

tem (Deparle 2012). People who perceive they

lack positive economic mobility through

employment will be less willing to support the

tax system required to meet the service

demands of those very citizens.

Infrastructure Demands

As local government is the government closest

to the people, and as the federal government

becomes a declining governmental partner, it

will fall on state and local government to

address the nation’s $2.2 trillion infrastructure

deficiency that includes water, wastewater,

roads, bridges, dams, aviation, and parks and

recreation systems. According to a report by the

American Association of Civil Engineers,

unless a plan to aggressively address this $2

trillion infrastructure deficit is addressed,

American society will see a decline in not only

its basic quality of life but also its rudimentary

safety (Engineers 2009). An example of the

deficit that must be filled by state and local

governments is reversing the deterioration of

our national highway system, which has

resulted from the failure of the federal govern-

ment to adjust transportation taxes to the new

economy. According to a report in Governing

magazine the deficit in federal gas tax monies

to the year 2020 significantly exceeds $1 tril-

lion (Buntin et al. 2012). The political paralysis

in Washington will likely stop our national

infrastructure decline from being addressed by

the federal government. Therefore, if we as a

people are not willing to accept a precipitous

decline in our transportation infrastructure,

addressing the infrastructure deficits will by

default, fall to state and local governments.

Consolidation and SpecialDistricts

To gain substantial service efficiencies, and

thereby meaningfully reduce the cost of ser-

vice, local governments have historically

focused political efforts on dramatically chang-

ing organizational design and service delivery.

Efficiencies have been realized by consolidat-

ing services and creating special districts. If

as projected, the fiscal health of local govern-

ment will not recover in tandem with the

Abels 31S



private economy, and therefore it becomes

necessary for local government to go beyond

traditional cutback methodologies, will further

government consolidation and creation of

special districts be the next answer? When

evaluating these tools two questions must be

addressed. Is consolidating local governments

or creating special districts politically feasible,

and two, will success with either make a

substantial reduction in the cost of providing

service? First, we will look at consolidation.

Government and Functional Consolidation

Consolidation may take two forms. The first is

government consolidation with the second

being functional consolidation of services.

Functional consolidation involves the assign-

ment for service responsibility from one or sev-

eral governments to another unit of

government. Examples of services where func-

tional consolidation occurs are fire safety, pub-

lic safety dispatching, specialized police

functions, building inspection, development

plan review, and so on.

The consolidation of governments is the

merging of governance and service delivery

systems and is credited with several efficiency

advantages that ultimately will reduce the cost

of government. These include more effectively

attracting region-wide economic development,

improving bond ratings thus reducing interest

costs, reducing service, governance, and

administrative duplication, and, reducing costs

by obtaining economies of scale (Toledo Busi-

ness Journal 2003).

Consolidating smaller with larger govern-

ments is politically very difficult. From 1902

to 2010, there have been 105 referendums

where voters were asked to approve the conso-

lidation of governments. Only twenty-seven

were approved (Linebough 2011). For those

governments that were successfully consoli-

dated some studies question the ability of

consolidated governments to produce an out-

come of gaining efficiencies by either creating

economies of scale or through elimination of

redundant costs. A study conducted for the

Indiana Township Association evaluated

governments that have been consolidated, and,

concluded that no correlation (Wendell Cox

Demographia 2009) exists between efficiency

gains and consolidation and, in some consolida-

tions, spending actually increased (Wendell

Cox Demographia 2009). Consolidation

resulted in increased costs because service lev-

els and the cost for personnel were elevated to

the level of government with the highest ser-

vice level, or the highest salaries and benefits

for personnel. The study continues by claiming

that in Pennsylvania and New York, research

indicates that smaller units of government are

actually associated with greater efficiency

(Wendell Cox Demographia 2009, 3). While

this report was conducted for a group with a

vested interest in negative results, the findings

parallel other research which points out that the

Nashville-Davidson County as well as

Jacksonville-Duvall County consolidation

resulted in increased long-term spending (Haw-

kins and Ward 1991). Supporting the analysis

that consolidated governments by structural

alignment do not guarantee budget solvency,

in 2011 the County Manager for the unified

government in Kansas City detailed that fiscal

distress is causing severe reductions in budget

expenditures thus forcing further reductions in

personnel (Kansas City Business Journal 2011).

Special Districts

Special districts are the fastest growing unit of

government, now representing over 40 percent

of all governments in the United States (Sha-

fritz, Russell, and Borick 2011). Special dis-

tricts whether dependent as a subunit of an

existing city or county, or as an independent

entity, do represent an excellent example of a

collaborative system, and are formed to provide

a discrete service typically fire, emergency res-

cue, parks, community development, water

management, housing, or a very narrow func-

tion such as cemetery administration.

For the manager, special districts present

comparable problems as seen in service conso-

lidation. First, the formation and powers of spe-

cial districts must be authorized by state

government. If state authorization provides the




framework for districts, the formation and

delegation of powers will require the county

to incorporate the new entity in conjunction

with all participating jurisdictions, and may

politically or legally require a referendum of

the people affected by the new quasi-

government. Such a political/legal process can

take years to finalize, thereby not allowing the

manager to make timely and effective response

to declining resources.

There is also mixed opinion about the

actual successes of special districts in obtain-

ing significant efficiencies through economies

of scale. Where Farmer (2010) points out that

regional agencies have produced economies of

scale and lower unit costs, other studies point

out that special districts are most useful as

systems to capture new revenues, not to create

economies of scale (McCabe 2000). A recent

study of special districts by Berman and West

looks at the values which motivates managers

of districts and finds that cutting costs or

economy is not a dominant value with only

28.6 percent saying it is a very important

value. Financial viability, equity, and service

effectiveness are rated as more important than

cutting costs (Berman and West 2012). These

studies and personal empirical conclusions

show that special districts are typically

formed for the purpose of raising new revenue

as a counter to revenue restrictions. Especially

to offset property tax limitations placed on

local government through state legislative

action.

Special districts confront some of the same

cost pressures as consolidation. As an example,

formation of districts is simplified when per-

sonnel from joining governments are brought

to the level of the member who is providing the

highest salary and benefit levels. As the cost of

personnel is one of the largest costs for ser-

vices, special districts can actually lead to

higher costs when personnel costs are elevated

to that of the member government who has the

most lucrative salary and benefit package. Per-

petuation of higher costs can be further exacer-

bated by the fact that special districts do not

have the public transparency or accountability

as found in local governments.

Consolidation and formation of special

districts have been, and in the future will be

used by local government as tools to lower the

cost of government. However, as both are out-

side the immediate control of the manager, may

not significantly reduce costs, and, take exten-

sive time to formalize, they are not responsive

to the manager’s need to find immediate cost

reduction by creating deep service efficiencies.

Local Government as a ComplexAdaptive System

Adapting to a future with diminished resources

requires an understanding of the new complex-

ities confronting local government in the

twenty-first century. First, in contrast to what

is identified as the traditional community, citi-

zens in the twenty-first century increasingly see

themselves connected regionally, nationally,

and even globally. With our international infor-

mation network, and with an economy where

people work in employment patterns that are

regional, national, and many cases interna-

tional, the twentieth-century pressure for man-

agers to insure citizens clearly identified their

tax dollars with the unit of government provid-

ing service has meaningfully decreased in the

twenty-first century. In other words, citizens’

expecting the name of the city or county to be

on the fire truck and police car is no longer a

dominate feature in the twenty-first century

(Friedman 2005). The traditional hierarchical

command system based on rational, planned

changes with management controlling the com-

ponents of the organizational system in order to

attain the greatest financial efficiency and pro-

gram effectiveness are rapidly changing. A

focus on management responsibility for plan-

ning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinat-

ing, reporting, and budgeting as espoused by

scientific management theorists such as Luther

Gulick (Shafritz and Hyde 2012) is being sup-

planted with new responsibilities that include

the development of collaborative networks,

creating positive systems for citizens engage-

ment, and focusing on strategic goals with

decentralized program and service execution.

Abels 33S



In the twenty-first century, local govern-

ments’ face what Agranoff and McGuire label

as ‘‘wicked’’ problems or problems with no dis-

cernible solution. Because of the complexities

and the interconnectedness of agencies and their

respective missions’, solutions to these

‘‘wicked’’ problems cannot be resolved by orga-

nizations through a unitary approach. As prob-

lems are fragmented, power, and authority to

resolve these problems must be dispersed to

many organizations; public as well as private

organizations, all possessing overlapping respon-

sibility for the mission (Agranoff and McGuire

2001). Paralleling this problem or issue fragmen-

tation, twenty-first century local governments

operate in a system where unpredictable, over-

whelming, and conflicting information enters the

organization from many disparate sources, at a

multitude of unpredictable points. Information

affecting the accomplishment of the organiza-

tional mission enters into all constituent parts of

the organization, with external actors often pit-

ting one unit against another in order to obtain

an organizational response that is favorable to

their unique issue. In the new twenty-first cen-

tury, environment players beseeching govern-

ment for favor possess little concern for equity,

or organizational standard operating procedures.

Incremental adjustments to existing policies that

do not result in meeting discrete demands are not

acceptable to the external actors placing demands

on local government (Paarlberg and Bielefeld

2009). Many people placing demands on local

government do not hold a strong, or for that

matter, any value on providing service to insure

outcome equity for all stakeholders affected

by local government service or regulation

(Bourgon 2009).

An ill-fated outcome of the reinventing

government philosophy that advocates for citi-

zens to be treated as customers (Osburne and

Plastrik 1992) has been the creation of the

McGovernment society (Ritzer 2008). Moving

away from the public interest may not have

been the conscious goal for the reinventing

government movement, (Osborne and Plastrik

2000) however, because the reinventing gov-

ernment paradigm has placed so much empha-

sis on customers and competitive customer

choice, we as public administrators have incul-

cated our citizens with a value system where

they perceive that government services should

be delivered to them very quickly, cheap, and

custom made to the their individual customer

needs. The McGovernment value is now a real-

ity and deeply embedded in our political psy-

che. A value focused on individual desire that

will not allow public organizations the luxury

to channel, collect, and process information

through a centralized hierarchal structure con-

trolled by select members of the organizational

hierarchy.

Another critically important factor is man-

agers cannot effectively control the process

through which information enters the organiza-

tion. Attempting to channel information

through a central receiving or processing point

will result in unacceptable delays in addressing

information requests, service demands, and will

lead to citizen and stakeholder dissatisfaction

due to lost information and unacceptable delays

in response. The role for the manager in this

environment is to train employees so they

understand how to respond to information from

the external environment, have the knowledge

and resources to address unique situations pre-

sented by external stakeholders, and, are

empowered to respond (Agranoff and McGuire

2001). What unavoidably will be lost through

decentralization will be the equity of response

that historically was a central management

tenet for public administrators. In this new

environment management, theorists pose the

question whether local government or our pub-

lic institutions should be concerned with either

process or outcome equity (Bourgon 2009).

Unpredictable and rapid societal and eco-

nomic changes are also dramatically affecting

public expectations, with local government

operating in an integrated environment with

many independent (public, private, nonprofit)

organizations possessing some responsibility

for missions that also fall in the domain of local

government. In the twenty-first century, man-

agers see the mission of local government

extending beyond the responsibility of one

local government, with many missions span-

ning beyond government to nonprofit and in




some cases private entities (Blomgren and

O’Leary 2011). Local government operate in

this complex environment with little historical

understanding or management knowledge

about how new systems should be designed to

coordinate and make sense of this evolving

environment. The historical system used by

local government has not integrated the multi-

tude of private and public organizations into a

unified and coordinated service delivery sys-

tem, all focused on a set of unified responsibil-

ities and operating through an integrated chain

of command.

In the twenty-first century, attaining max-

imum efficiency and effectiveness mandates

that managers design systems that facilitate

organizational units and personnel within

those units to be responsive to the informa-

tion or citizen demands entering into each

organization subunit. Management will

operate without a realistic expectation that

a centralized structure will evaluate that

input or attempt to control a centralized

response. While all organizational compo-

nents will be oriented to the organizational

mission and vision, decisions or reaction to

information will not be controlled through

unitary hierarchal command systems.

Authority for decisions and actions appropri-

ate to one organizational component will be

decentralized to that component with top

management focusing on coordinating

cross-departmental or sectorial issues.

Addressing the complex problems of the

twenty-first century while concurrently

attaining the operational efficiencies made

possible through enlarging the service deliv-

ery system, managers will view their role

as organizing and coordinating networked

systems that are multidepartmental and

include public, private, and nonprofits orga-

nizations (Bourgon 2009). In this new world,

cities and counties must develop innovative

and quickly adaptive systems that can timely

and accurately read, and then respond to the

political, technological changes, as well as

increased social complexities that encompass

local government (Paarlberg and Bielefeld

2009). In collaborative networks, managers

will integrate personnel and critically impor-

tant, financial resources into temporary sys-

tems focused on unified missions (Bennis

and Slater 1998). Instead of directing, man-

agers will concentrate on remolding bureau-

cratic systems, reshaping bureaucracies into

team-based units, and creating networked

systems that will cross-political jurisdictions

and are cross-sectorial in form.

Local Government Experiencewith Collaboration

As described by Agronoff (2007), collaborative

networks are not uncommon to local govern-

ment. From Council of Governments to special

districts, local governments have historically

used a form of networks to address specific

issues. With the exception of special districts

organized around missions that involve public

safety and emergency management, networks

have been used primarily for the collection and

distribution of information rather than service

delivery. Even though the environmental sys-

tem in which government functions has expo-

nentially magnified in its complexity, local

governments have not responded by replacing

unitary hierarchies with new multisectoral,

multiorganizational, and multigovernmental

networks (Wachhaus 2012). Agronoff (2006)

claims that most networks are formed as sepa-

rate administrative units created for the purpose

of knowledge management and education, with

only a minority formed to unify service deliv-

ery. However, as local government managers

evaluate their organizational capacity to meet

citizen expectations under a mandate of

decreased resources, coupled with the reality

of dispersed responsibility and power, service

networks will gain prominence as a primary

vehicle for the delivery of cross-boundary local

government services. These networks will be

both unitary networks that involve one govern-

mental entity as well as cross-jurisdictional and

cross-sectorial networks that comprise several

jurisdictionally related governments. Also

included in multisectorial networks will be pri-

vate and nonprofit organizations that hold an

Abels 35S



overlapping mission with local government

(Agranoff and McGuire 2001).

Forms for OrganizationalNetworks

Networked systems used by local government

may take several forms. The historical form

commonly used by government is one of shared

governance. In a shared governance system, all

stakeholders are involved, but no stakeholder is

in charge. In shared governance, a new organi-

zation is created to manage and disseminate

information, as well as to coordinate actions

of the stakeholders (Agranoff 2007). Shared

governance has also been used to coordinate

interconnected services provided by several

jurisdictions or agencies. However, as each

agency maintains operational and command

control, services provided are fragmented.

Thus, optimum efficiencies are not attained and

variations in service levels are the end outcome.

The second form commonly identified with

special districts is the creation of an indepen-

dent administrative and command entity with

a mission to provide limited and discrete ser-

vices to members of the network. Governments

receiving a service through this network will

interact with the independent organization,

typically appointing members to its governing

structure, but policy and management decisions

are controlled through the independent entity.

In a special district, the members relinquish the

provision of service to the independent entity as

well as direct control over the operations and

financing of the service. Financing is usually

a function of a special tax levied by the inde-

pendent entity. In essence, while special dis-

tricts help consolidate fragmented service

delivery systems, they do not by definition

change the organizational structure through

which the service is delivered. Special districts

such as fire districts are typically operated

through a hierarchal command and control

structure. The correlation of a special district

with a collaborate system rests with special dis-

tricts identified as an organization to which

other organizations have, through legislative

action and/or a popular referendum, delegated

the responsibility and authority to provide a

governmental service.

A variation of an independent authority is

that a government can establish a dependent

authority to deliver a service. A dependent

authority may provide services in several polit-

ical jurisdictions and are governed by a higher

elected body such as a county. An example of

a dependent authority is a fire district that pro-

vides service to unincorporated areas of the

county, while also serving several cities within

the county. As true with the independent dis-

trict, the only correlation between a dependent

district and a collaborative network is that ser-

vices are provided to several jurisdictions by

one organization. The same dependent service

arrangement is found when counties franchise

to one city the delivery of regional water and

sewer services.

The third form of network, unitary govern-

ance, is one where government, nonprofit, or

private organization has the command author-

ity for providing services in two or more polit-

ical jurisdictions with other governments,

nonprofits, or private organizations allocating

resources and contracting responsibility for ser-

vice delivery to that organization. The delega-

tion can be temporary with the delegation of

authority and resources’ ending after a short-

term mission is accomplished, or it can be long

term with a multiyear delegation of authority.

This network is created when one or more orga-

nizations, public, private, and nonprofit, dele-

gate resources and authority to another

organization, so that organization will assume

the leadership role in addressing a particular

mission that is common to the stakeholder

organizations. With this delegation of author-

ity, stakeholder organizations also allocate

mission-specific financial, personnel, and

operational resources to the control of the cen-

tral organization (Kenis and Provan 2009). A

principle advantage such a lead agency has

over consolidation or special districts is legisla-

tive authority is not required to create a lead

agency although the financial allocation to the

lead agency will be legislatively appropriated

by those governments who are members of the

collaborative team. A major advantage of




organizing a lead agency for service delivery is

that it can be organized by management for the

respective stakeholder organizations. Should one

or more of the legislative bodies not appropriate

funds to the lead agency those governments can

still participate by managers executing an inter-

local agreement that allocates personnel and

resources as stipulated within the interlocal

agreement. In many cases, governments not

able to directly appropriate funds will be able

to contribute financial resources based on pro-

gram budgets approved through the legislative

process.

Lead teams can fulfill many functions and

services of local government, to include public

works activities involving road construction/

reconstruction and drainage improvements.

Collaborative lead teams may also generate

substantial operational efficiencies by unifying

the management and operations of recreational

leagues as well as maintaining recreational

facilities. Economic and community develop-

ment, emergency management, and many pub-

lic safety functions will also recognize

efficiencies through collaborative teams

(Kapucu and Garayev 2011). Administratively,

establishing health clinics, human resource

administration, information technology, engi-

neering, code enforcement, animal control are

ideally suited for collaborative teams.

Lead teams organized through unitary gov-

ernance offers local government the optimum

alternative for gaining maximum service effi-

ciency. Cross-jurisdictional efficiencies as well

as increased service effectiveness may be rea-

lized when a service has a direct or indirect

impact on one or more adjoining governmental

jurisdictions, or when services provided by

local government are within the mission of a

private or nonprofit organization. Providing

social services to economically disadvantaged

or homeless populations represents a perfect

example of a mission that transcends govern-

mental, private, and nongovernmental organi-

zational (NGO) boundaries.

The fourth form is the unitary self-

organized unit. Most commonly recognized

by community oriented policing teams or

code inspection teams, unitary teams are

relatively organic as they are organized at

the point where a specific issue is presented,

such as the department or section within one

organization. Short term and problem

focused, these teams may be organized by

managers or by line personnel who are

experiencing a problem or issue that while

it can be addressed solely by their organiza-

tion, requires the assistance from other per-

sonnel outside their section or department.

With certain issues, personnel from other

governments possessing an overlapping

responsibility for the issue may be asked to

assist as a member of the team. These teams

function either hierarchically or may operate

more organically as matrix teams. If orga-

nized through a matrix format authority and

responsibility will be delegated to all mem-

bers of the team so they can take necessary

unilateral action to accomplish the team

mission.

Lead Agency CollaborativeTeams

Collaborative lead teams will be organized by

that organization with the primary mission for

the issue and/or that has the largest amount of

resources to invest in accomplishing the mis-

sion (Kenis and Provan 2009). It will not

inevitably be the largest government or orga-

nization involved in the network. Some mis-

sions, for example, those dealing with social

or economic problems, the agency with the

primary mission may be a private NGO.

When this is the case, government must dele-

gate responsibility to the NGO (Agranoff and

McGuire 2003). In most cases, such a delega-

tion of authority and appropriation of

resources will require managers to obtain leg-

islative budget authorization.

All organizations, governmental, nongo-

vernmental agencies, and private organizations

who share a common mission will assign per-

sonnel and allocate resources to the lead agency

for the purpose of operationalizing the colla-

borative teams. The lead agency will manage

the operation and authorize expenditure of

resources. As participating members will

Abels 37S



allocate resources including personnel, finan-

cial, and operational; new forms of financial

and program accountability must be created

and formalized between all members within the

network.

Forming lead agencies poses a major cul-

tural change for managers. The theoretical basis

for public organizational networks assumes that

each public agency that is a member of the net-

work will maintain day-to-day operational con-

trol over network operations that involve its

programs (Agranoff 2007). However, this is not

the case in collaborative systems using the lead

team concept. True today as it was in more histor-

ical writing of public administration, creating

efficiency in operations is enhanced through

economies of scale and when organizational

work units make timely and clear responses to

changing circumstances. A vital component for

efficient operations is instituting unity of com-

mand for the network, which can only be attained

when members formalize a governing charter

that delegates full operational control to the lead

agency.

In conjunction with operational control, the

lead organization will be charged with insuring

outcome accountability. Participating organiza-

tions will assist in the design of the outcome

performance metrics, but the lead agency will

be responsible for accomplishing the metrics

established by network members.

The greatest weakness and possibility for

failure for lead teams is the loss of legitimacy

and parochial resentment by network mem-

bers as control for operations, finances, and

outcomes shifts to the lead agency. This

weakness can be mitigated by the formation

of a network advisory team, consisting of

management representatives from all network

members. Advisory teams will meet regularly

and be charged with writing a unified mission

for the team, agreeing to a formula for allo-

cating personnel and other resources from

each network member to the team, establish-

ing metrics for financial and outcome

accountability, identifying, and providing

advice on perceived problems in team opera-

tions, and evaluating financial accountability

and performance outcomes.

Principles for Formation andOperation of a Lead Agency

To establish collaborative networks, managers

must view government operations from a multi-

jurisdictional strategic perspective while con-

currently organizing administrative and

managerial systems into new operational colla-

borative systems. Through a global, strategic

orientation, managers will identify all political

jurisdictions and organizations that have over-

lapping responsibility for a service function

within their political jurisdiction. With poten-

tial network players identified, managers must

remove jurisdictional prerogatives, and, either

accept responsibility for being the lead agency

in service delivery or, to delegate lead agency

authority to another political jurisdiction or

organization.

Strategic Orientation

To address the complexities of our commu-

nities in a world of reduced resources and

increasing service expectations, cities and

counties will continue to form special districts,

consolidate governments, and organize shared

service coordinating organizations. But shared

governance systems will only marginally, if

at all, provide an answer to the new dynamics

facing cities and counties in the twenty-first

century. While forming consolidated govern-

ments and special districts will potentially pro-

vide important answers to the resource

limitations of local government, consolidation

as well as the formation of special districts

requires political collaboration that is

extremely difficult to realize. As described, the

historical success of consolidating govern-

ments is not encouraging.

Also difficult to create, special districts are

typically focused on limited services such as

public safety, water management, and so on.

The formation of special districts also poses a

major management problem because the man-

ager cannot be assured that actual formation

of the independent body will be politically fea-

sible. And, formation of special districts is a

political action outside the direct control of the




manager. However, what is in the direct power

of the manager and will allow the organization

to attain significant organizational efficiencies

is the organization and operationalization of

collaborative lead teams for the purpose of pro-

viding multijurisdictional service delivery.

A fundamental organizational principle for

collaborative networks is their characteristic

of being decentralized, and swiftly adaptive to

changes in the organizational environment

(Agranoff 2007; Grobman 2005; Bouaird

2008). To operationalize this concept at the

micro or operational level, chief executive offi-

cers from all applicable public, NGO, and pri-

vate organizations must dedicate leadership

and resource support to the lead agency tasked

with forming the collaborative team.

Formation of multigovernmental collaborative

teams requires the proactive involvement of a city

or county’s chief executive officer, working in

tandem with the chief executive officers’ from

other public and private network members. The

formation of lead teams or for that matter shared

governance coordinating teams, is not organic

and will not automatically occur in response to

new environmental realities. Design and forma-

tion will happen only through the intervention and

progressive partnerships formed by the managers

of the respective governments working with man-

agers from private and NGO. The chief executive

officers must eliminate parochial prejudices and

establish the operational charter that will govern

the operations of collaborative lead teams.

Operational Orientation

A common theme in the literature discussing

collaborative networked systems is the concept

of government service delivery evolving from

one of unitary jurisdictional responsibility to

one of network responsibility. It is conceptua-

lized that networks will not operate using a tra-

ditional hierarchy but instead will modify the

form of organization to one more closely iden-

tified with a matrix, where power and authority

are dispersed throughout the organization. A

basis for network administration is the new net-

worked organization will be characterized by

self-organizing, self-regulating units that do not

require centralized control (Morcol and Wach-

haus 2009; Agranoff 2006; Grobman 2005).

Unity of command is not a controlling manage-

ment principle with dynamic matrix teams. In

the matrix organization, team members are

empowered to make decentralized decisions

with all levels of the team coordinating and

completing operational action planning as they

learn from the environment they encounter.

Consensus decision making will address the

issues and problems faced by the organization

(Senge 1990; Bennet and Bennet 2004; Paarl-

berg and Bielefeld 2009; Morcol and Wach-

haus 2009).

With some missions, for example economic

development, community development, as well

as selected traditional areas of service delivery,

a decentralized matrix form of organization

may be the most effective organizational struc-

ture. Operating through a decentralized matrix

may allow the system to respond quickly and

with flexibility to new information and continu-

ally changing situations. However, several the-

orists such as Agranoff and Bennet who

advocate for collaborative systems as the orga-

nizational structure best able to tackle the com-

plexity of today’s world, also recognize that

hierarchal systems will work in tandem with

collaborative networks and, in fact may be the

desired organizational form through which col-

laborative networks function (Agranoff 2006;

Bennet and Bennet 2004). Many missions com-

pleted by local government, while they require

networked response because they involve mul-

tiple jurisdictions, do not have a mission that is

significantly impacted by an unstable or unpre-

dictable environment. Numerous ongoing mis-

sions of local government consist of routine

procedures where constant standard operating

procedures should be followed to insure effi-

ciency as well as effectiveness of operations.

With services such as public works projects to

include drainage, road reconstruction, traffic

management, and public safety services includ-

ing emergency management, emergency rescue

and fire suppression, efficiencies are derived

through combining jurisdictional efforts and

resources in a unified front, (Kapucu 2009) and

not necessarily by operations being organized

Abels 39S



through a postmodern collaborative network

structure such as matrix teams. Because of their

predictability and routine, many traditional ser-

vices can most effectively operate by network-

ing affected multijurisdictional organizations

into a unified hierarchical operating structure.

Charter for Strategic Alignment

When outlining how collaborative organiza-

tions should be managed, Agranoff suggests the

new form of organization, what he labels as a

‘‘collaborararchy’’ will typically be chartered

by member organizations (Agranoff 2007,

83). Agranoff also suggests that mutual trust

may be a substitute for mandated authority

(Agranoff 2007, 28). Klijn and Bennet support

the more informal agreement among members

by suggesting that cooperation will result

because of an evolution to a common under-

standing of the complex nature of the issues and

mutual interactions required to successfully

operate in this environment (Klijn 2008; Ben-

net and Bennet 2004). However, as buttressed

by the historical principles of management,

organizational success in the twenty-first cen-

tury is fostered by clarity and well-understood

procedures. Therefore, collaborative networks

involving more than one formal entity, where

the network uses resources distributed by these

entities, and, has as its purpose the accomplish-

ment of mission/missions that transcend several

political jurisdictions, success is absolutely

dependent upon the execution of a well-

defined charter that clearly outlines functions,

responsibilities, and standards for accountabil-

ity. For local government, the charters govern-

ing collaborative lead teams should contain as a

minimum five basic components. These are (1)

formal statement of the mission/missions, (2)

identification of the lead agency, (3) allocation

of personnel from each network member to the

lead agency, (4) financial appropriation from

each network member to the lead agency for

operations, capital, and equipment, and (5)

establishment of program and financial

accountability measures.

Writing the initial draft of the charter may be

the responsibility of one entity, probably the

lead agency, but must reflect the collective

needs and values of all members who are part

of the collaborative team. Charters may be for

limited missions such as reconstructing a street

or improving a drainage basin, or may be for

more long-term missions, for example, provid-

ing low-income housing, street maintenance, or

economic development.

Subsequent to formalization of the opera-

tional charter, the lead agency will need to form

an advisory team made up of representatives

from each network member. Advisory teams

should meet periodically and will have the

responsibility to evaluate mission progress and

make operational or other adjustments as the

environment and situation dictate.

Conclusion

Local government has entered a new era, an era

marked by two transformative changes. First,

local government is experiencing an ongoing

restructuring of the system of public finance

with political emasculation of the revenue base

through which government services have his-

torically been funded. The second change is the

accelerating economic, technological, informa-

tion, and social change occurring in the world,

our nation, and our communities. This change

is noted by the increasing complexity of the

problems and issues which confront local gov-

ernment. Many of these issues cannot be solved

by one unit of local government, and numerous

services delivered by local government cross

the boundaries of several governmental juris-

dictions as well as rest within the mission of

private and nonprofit organizations.

A favorite tool for local government to gain

economies of scale and therefore attain effi-

ciency has been to consolidate government or

to form special districts. Both have significant

limitations, but creating system efficiencies

by enlarging the service area will continue to

be a popular approach to reduce system cost.

Managers cannot quickly or for that matter

directly effect consolidation or create special

districts. However, managers can attain large-

scale system efficiencies from the economies

of scale realized when services are integrated




through collaborative multigovernmental,

mutijurisdictional, multisectorial networks.

Adapting to this new environment, managers

of local government must view their principle

leadership responsibility as establishing regional

collaborative networks, networks that include

multiple governments, integrated with private and

nonprofit organizations. Moving beyond the

shared governance model used predominately in

the twentieth century, twenty-first century man-

agers will identify regional opportunities through

an expansive vision that encompasses a wide

breadth for networks, and when identified, will

establish unitary governance charters for the net-

works to operate. This role will constitute a para-

digm shift as managers relinquish direct control of

personnel and resources to a unitary governance

network of organizations charged with collabora-

tively addressing public issues. If their govern-

ment is not the lead agency, managers will

become coordinators, advisors, evaluators, and

champions for the multiple operational networks

which are charged with the mission to manage and

deliver regionalized public services.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest

with respect to the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the

research, authorship, and/or publication of this

article.

References

Agranoff, R. 2006. Inside collaborative networks:

Ten lessons for public managers. Public Adminis-

tration Review 66: 56–65.

Agranoff, R. 2007. Managing within networks add-

ing value to public organizations. Washington,

DC: Georgetown University Press.

Agranoff, R., and M. McGuire. 2001. Big questions

in public network management research. Jour-

nal of Public Administration 11:295–326.

http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/login? url¼http://search.

proquest.com/docview/60135826? accountid

¼10003 (accessed December 30, 2011).

Agranoff, R., and M. McGuire. 2003. Inside the marix:

Integrating the paradigms of intergovernmental

and network management. International Journal

of Public Administration, 1401–22. doi/10.1081/

PAD-120024403 (accessed December 30, 2011).

Bennet, A., and D. Bennet. 2004. Organizational sur-

vival in the new world: The intelligent complex

adaptive system. 6th ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands:

Butterworth-Heincmann.

Bennis, W., and Slater, P. 1998. The temporary soci-

ety: what is happening to business and family life.

San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Berman, E. M., and J. P. West. 2012. Public values in

special districts: A survey of managerial commit-

ment. Public Administration Review 72:43–54.

Blomgren, B. L., and R. O’Leary. 2011. Federalist

51: Is the past relevant to today’s collaborative

public management? Public Administration

Review, Supplement to Volume 71:578–89.

Bouaird, T. 2008. Emergent strategic management &

planning systems in complex adaptive systems.

Public Management Review 10:319–40. doi/10.

1080/14719030802002741 (accessed January 5,

2012).

Bourgon, J. 2009. New directions in public adminis-

tration; Serving beyond the predictable. Public

Policy & Administration 24:309–30. doi/10:

1177/0952076709103813.

Buntin, J., C. Cournoyer, E. Daigneau, T. Newcombe,

and D. Scott. 2012. Issues to watch. Governing, Jan-

uary:22–7.

Dennis, B. 2011, December 26. Washington

Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/

economy/falling-home-values-mean-budget-

crunches-for-cities/2011/12/14/gIQAwWmtHP_

story.html?hpid¼z2 (accessed December 14,

2011).

Deparle, J. 2012. Harder for Americans to rise from

lower rungs. New York: New York Times.

Engineers, A. S. 2009, March 25. Report card for

America’s infrastructure 2009. http://www.infra-

structurereportcard.org/sites/default/files/RC2009_

full_report.pdf (accessedDecember 13, 2011).

Farmer, J. 2010. Institutional collective action &

special purpose governments: Special district

formation & regional governance. http://

ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/login?url¼http://search.

proquest.com/docview/59926488?accountid¼10003 (accessed December 15, 2011).

Abels 41S



Friedman, T. L. 2005. The world is flat. New York,

NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Grobman, G. 2005. Complexity theory: A new away

to lool at organizatioanal change. Public Admin-

istration Quarterly 29, http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/

login?url¼http://search.proquest.com/docview/

226980469?accountid¼10003 (accessed Decem-

ber 20, 2011).

Hawkins, B., and K. Ward. 1991. Governmental con-

solidation as a strategy for metropolitan develop-

ment. Public Administration Quarterly 15

(Summer): 253-267.

Jacobe, D. 2011, Deccember 1. Chief economist.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151064/November-

Underemployment-Year-Ago.aspx(accessed

December 13, 2011).

Kansas City Business Journal. 2011, July 11. Unifed

government in Kansas City, Kansas, faces serious

revenue declines. Kansas City Business Journal.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/

2011/07/11/unified-government-kansas-city-reve-

nue.html (accessed December 13, 2011).

Kapucu, N. 2009. Public Administration & Cross

Sector Governance in Response to Recovery

from Disasters. Administration & Society 41:

910–14. doi/10.1177/0095399709348881

(accessed January 21, 2012).

Kapucu, N., and V. Garayev. 2011. Collaborative

decision making in emergency & disaster man-

agement. International Journal of Public Admin-

istration 34:366–75. doi/10.1080/01900692.

2011.561477 (accessed January 21, 2012).

Kenis, P., and K. Provan. 2009. Towards an exogen-

ous theory of public network performance. Public

Administration 87:440–56. doi/10.111/j.1467-

9299.01775.x (accessed January 5, 2012).

Klijn, E.-H. 2008. Complexity theory & public

administration: Whats new. Public Management

Review 10:299–317.

Lambert, L. 2011, December 20. Revenues up for

state and local governments. Reuters: EST.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-

revenues-governments-idUSTRE7BJ1UN20

111220?feedType¼RSS&feedName¼domestic

News&rpc¼22&sp¼true (accessed December

14, 2011).

Linebough, K. 2011, June 8. Threats to town halls stir

voter backlash. Wall Street Journal. http://online.

wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023040665045

76341332888910372.html (accessed December

15, 2011).

McCabe, B. C. 2000. Special district formation

among the states. State & Local Government

Review 32 (Spring):121–31. http://www.jstar.

org/stable/4355258 (accessed December 7,

2011).

Morcol, G., and A. Wachhaus. 2009. Network, &

complexity theories: A comparison & prospects

for a synthesis. Administrative Theory & Praxis

31:44–58. http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/login?url¼http://search.proquest.com/docview/196609948?

accountid¼10003(accessed January 19, 2012).

ONeill, B. 2011, December. Seasons greeting letter

to members of ICMA.

Osborne, D., and P. Plastrik. 2000. The reinventors

fieldbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Osburne, D., and P. Plastrik. 1992. Reinventing

government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is

transforming the public sector. Reading, MI:

Addison-Wesley.

Paarlberg, L. E., and W. Bielefeld. 2009. Complexity

science: An alternative framework for under-

standing strategic management in public service

organizaitons. International Public Management

Journal 12 (April):236–60. doi/10.1080/

10967490902865180 (accessed December 20,

2011).

Plummer, B. 2011, October 26. The CBO takes on

income inequality. Washington Post. http://

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/

the-cbo-takes-on-income-inequality/2011/10/26/

gIQAzcPqIM_blog.html (accessed December 15,

2011).

Ritzer, G. 2008. The McDonaldization of Society :5.

Los Angeles, California:Pine Forge Press.

Segall, L. 2011, December 22. Initial Joless claims

fall to lowest level since April 2008. http://

money.cnn.com/2011/12/22/news/economy/

unemployment_benefits/index.htm?iid¼SF_E_

LN (accessed December 13, 2011).

Senge, P. 1990, Fall. The leader’s new work: Build-

ing learning organizaitons. Sloan Management

Review 32:7–23.

Shafritz, J. M., and A. C. Hyde. 2012. Notes on the the-

ory of organization. In Classics of public adminis-

tration. 7th ed., ed. J. M. Shafritz and A. C. Hyde,

81–9. Boston Massachusetts: Wadsworth Centage

Learning.




Shafritz, J. M., E. Russell, and C. P. Borick. 2011.

Introducing public administration. 7th ed, p. 96.

USA: Longman.

Toledo Business Journal. 2003, September. Unigov:

Approach transforming a number of regions.

http://www.toledobiz.com/Files/tbj_special_uni-

gov01.html (accessed December 13, 2011).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic

Analysis. 2011, December. US Economy at a

glance: Perspective from BEA accounts. http://

www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/12%20December/

1211_gdpecon.pdf (accessed December 15, 2011).

Wachhaus, A. 2012. Anarchy as a model for network

governance. Public Administration Review 72

(January/February): 33–42.

Wendell Cox Demographia. (2009, February). Govern-

ment consolidation in Indiana: Seperating rhetoric

from reality. Prepared for Indiana Township

Association.

Bio

Michael Abels is an instructor in the School of Pub-

lic Administration at the University of Central Flor-

ida where he teaches in both undergraduate and

graduate programs. He served for over twenty years

as the manager for cities in Florida and Ohio and is

recognized as Credentialed Manager through the

International City/County Managers Association.

He has written articles for Public Management, The

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,

and Cities & Villages. His primary research interests

are local government, public policy, strategic plan-

ning, and leadership.

Abels 43S



Documents

Managing through Collaborative Networks: A Twenty-First Century Mandate for Local Government