Suchergebnisse

AbstractCollaboration has become the predominant approach to solving complex public problems. This choice, however, often is not driven by demonstrated effectiveness. Collaboration is instead chosen in the hope that a networked arrangement will be more effective than individual organizations working on the issue alone. Questions regarding collaborative effectiveness persist and constitute a significant challenge facing both public management practitioners and public administration scholars. In light of the case study in this issue of Public Administration Review by Maurits Waardenburg and colleagues, this article reviews the current thinking on the measurement of collaborative performance and discusses steps that professionals can take to evaluate the effectiveness of their collaborative endeavors.

State and local governments across the United States have increasingly utilized collaborative, interorganizational approaches to the delivery of public services. This shift in governance structure often necessitates that public managers not only lead the agency in which they are employed, but also work within, and often lead, a network. These two different contexts in which public managers operate require different managerial and leadership approaches. This article discusses some of the differences between hierarchical leadership and network leadership, important aspects of collaborative leadership, and the leadership behaviors that are considered effective within collaborative governance structures. The article concludes with a discussion of some best practices for collaborative leadership, including the formation of joint commitment, the identification of resources, the creation of a shared understanding, the achievement of stakeholder support, and the establishment of trust. Adapted from the source document.

State and local governments across the United States have increasingly utilized collaborative, interorganizational approaches to the delivery of public services. This shift in governance structure often necessitates that public managers not only lead the agency in which they are employed, but also work within, and often lead, a network. These two different contexts in which public managers operate require different managerial and leadership approaches. This article discusses some of the differences between hierarchical leadership and network leadership, important aspects of collaborative leadership, and the leadership behaviors that are considered effective within collaborative governance structures. The article concludes with a discussion of some best practices for collaborative leadership, including the formation of joint commitment, the identification of resources, the creation of a shared understanding, the achievement of stakeholder support, and the establishment of trust.

Like most public managers nowadays, local emergency managers operate within complex, uncertain environments. Rapid changes in the scope and severity of the issues increase the extent of intergovernmental collaboration necessary to address such challenges. Using a large data set of county emergency management agency directors, variations in intergovernmental collaboration reflect influences from problem severity, managerial capacity, and structural factors. The results demonstrate that public managers who perceive problems as severe, possess specific managerial skills, lead high‐capacity organizations, and operate in less complex agency structures collaborate more often and more effectively across governmental boundaries.

This study examines whether the various leadership roles undertaken by public sector managers have an important association with subordinates' levels of affective commitment to the organization. Our empirical findings suggest that not all leadership practices matter. It appears that only relations‐oriented and change‐oriented leadership, and to a far lesser extent integrity‐oriented leadership, have a substantive association with affective organizational commitment. Task‐oriented leadership and, to a large degree, integrity‐oriented leadership, are found not to matter much for employees with lower levels of affective commitment, but they look to strengthen fondness of the organization among those with already high levels of affective commitment. Results also suggest that the diversity‐oriented leadership role has no association with affective commitment to the organization.

In his theory about the role of nonprofit enterprise, Henry Hansmann suggested that nonprofit status provides important information to consumers in low-information environments. In this article, we assess whether consumers use nonprofit status to form purchasing preferences as Hansmann predicted. Using choice-based conjoint analysis, we find that under different types of low-information circumstances, study participants prefer goods and services provided by nonprofits to those offered by businesses. In the absence of additional information (such as customer ratings and third-party certifications), nonprofit status serves as an important value signal to consumers. In the presence of additional information, nonprofit status is still relevant in some cases, although it becomes less so. The findings suggest that additional forms of information do not necessarily displace the value to consumers of information about organization type. We reflect on these findings in light of Hansmann's thesis.

Abstract
What role does sector play in citizens' perceptions of products or services in mixed-market settings where governments compete with for-profit and nonprofit vendors or when governments partner or contract with private-sector providers? Do the public and nonprofit sectors have an advantage over for-profit providers? Using choice-based conjoint analysis with a nationally representative paid consumer panel, we examine the relevance of sector to consumers and compare it other signals of quality; namely, price, third-party certifications, and consumer ratings. Of these, subjects are most sensitive to information from consumer ratings. Regarding sector, we find that subjects generally prefer nonprofit to government providers and government to for-profit providers. Sector is most relevant to consumers in low-information environments when the quality of a product or service is otherwise unclear. We extend theory by proposing four possible mechanisms for the differential value of sector to consumers (process quality, product quality, expertise quality, and moral quality).