Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of boundary spanners on trust and performance of urban governance networks: findings from survey research on urban development projects in the Netherlands

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has extensively analyzed the role, and indicated the importance, of network management for the functioning and performance of public or governance networks. In this article, we focus on the influence of boundary spanning actors in such networks—an aspect less examined in the governance network literature. Boundary spanners are considered to be important for governance network performance. Building on the literature, we expect a mediating role of trust in this relationship. To empirically test these relationships, we conducted survey research (N = 141) among project managers involved in urban governance networks: networks around complex urban projects that include the organizations involved in the governance process (the formulation of policies, decision making, and implementation) in these complex projects. We found a strong positive relationship between the presence of boundary spanners and trust and governance network performance. The results indicate a partially mediating role of trust in this relationship. Furthermore, we found that these boundary spanners originated mainly from private and societal organizations, and less from governmental organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although the literature on boundary spanning and the more sociological research on bridging ties and structural holes show strong similarities, there is relatively little mutual awareness or interaction (Fleming and Waguespack 2007). While an extensive comparison is beyond the scope of this article, we could note that the sociological research is relatively more focused on the consequences of the network structure, for example, for the position of the broker (putting the broker in a position of power) (see Fuchs 2010), where the boundary spanning literature is more focused on the nature of agency, that is, the effects of boundary spanning activities for (inter)organizational performance. We follow this later perspective, examining the effects of boundary spanners on network performance.

  2. These four cities are relatively the largest cities in the Netherlands. Amsterdam has 783,000 inhabitants, Rotterdam 611,000, the Hague 497,000, and Utrecht 313,000. The fifth city, Eindhoven has 214,000 inhabitants, which is substantially lower.

  3. The municipalities of the Hague and Rotterdam did not provide us with the telephone numbers of the project managers. In Rotterdam, we visited the managers’ departments to promote the survey.

  4. The different types of organizations were derived from the literature (e.g. Koppenjan and Klijn 2004; Klijn et al. 2010a) and the sessions with the eight project managers to validate our survey questionnaire (see section “Methods”).

  5. We used AMOS Version 18.0.

References

  • Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Pshychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cristofoli, D., Markovic, J., & Meneguzzo, M. (2012). Governance, management and performance in public networks: How to be successful in shared-governance networks. Journal of Management and Governance. doi:10.1007/s10997-012-9237-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Ties and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. A. (2011). Investigating the impact of project managers’ emotional intelligence on their interpersonal competence. Project Management Journal, 42(4), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos, J., Bressers, N., & Scholten, P. (2013). Water governance as connective capacity. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2007). Trust in complex decision-making networks; a theoretical and empirical exploration. Administration and Society, 39(1), 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos, J., & Teisman, G. R. (2011). Symposium on water governance. Prologue: water governance as a governments actions between the reality of fragmentation and the need for integration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(1), 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos, J., & van Meerkerk, I. (2011). Institutional evolution within democracy: Local self-governance meets local government. In J. Torfing & P. Triantafillou (Eds.), Interactive policy making, metagovernance and democracy (pp. 169–186). Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. J., Paulin, M., & Bergeron, J. (2005). Contractual governance, relational governance, and the performance of interfirm service exchanges: The influence of boundary-spanner closeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. (2007). Boundary spanning, broker age, and the emergence of leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, E. R. H. (2010). Rethinking the role of the state in technology development: DARPA and the case for embedded network governance. Research Policy, 39(9), 1133–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate; the theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jemison, D. B. (1984). The importance of boundary-spanning roles in strategic decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juenke, E. G. (2005). Management tenure and network time: How experience affects bureaucratic dynamics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kern, K., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Cities, Europeanization and multi-level governance: Governing climate change through transnational municipal networks. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(2), 309–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe: An assessment of ten years of research on the theme. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, A. J. (2010a). Trust in governance networks; its impact and outcomes. Administration and Society, 42(2), 193–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H., Steijn, A. J., & Edelenbos, J. (2010b). The impact of network management strategies on the outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E.-H., & Teisman, G. (2003). Institutional and strategic barriers to public- private partnerships: An analysis of Dutch cases. Public Money and Management, 23(3), 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kort, M., & Klijn, E. H. (2011). Public–private partnerships in urban regeneration projects: organizational form or managerial capacity? Public Administration Review, 71(4), 618–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, R., & Delbecq, A. (1978). Organizational/environmental interchange: A model of boundary spanning activity. The Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly (29:2), Jun 2005, pp 335–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996) Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In: Kramer, R.M. en T.R. Tyler (Eds.) Trust in organizations. London: Sage, pp 114–139.

  • McGuire, M., & Agranoff, R. (2011). The limitation of public management networks. Public Administration, 89(2), 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K., & O’Toole, L. J. (2007). Modelling public management: Empirical analysis of the management-performance nexus. Public Administration Review, 9(4), 503–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 421–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musso, J. A., Weare, C., Oztas, N., & Loges, W. E. (2006). Neighborhood governance reform and networks of community power in Los Angeles. The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4), 422–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J. (Ed.). (2000). Debating governance: Authority, democracy, and steering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., & Milward, B. H. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdue, D. (2001). Neighbourhood governance: Leadership, trust and social capital. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2211–2224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramalingam, S., & Mahalingam, A. (2011). Enabling conditions for the emergence and effective performance of technical and cultural boundary spanners in global virtual teams. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(2), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seabright, M. A., Levinthal, D. A., & Fichman, M. (1992). Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 122–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, C., Klijn, E. H., Kübler, D., Sørensen, E., & Sullivan, H. (2011). Explaining the democratic anchorage of governance networks: Evidence from four European countries. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 33(1), 7–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H. J. (1992). Boundary spanners: A key component for the effective interactions of the justice and mental health systems. Law and Human Behavior, 16(1), 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. (2000). Agency and social networks: Strategies of action is a social structure of position, opposition, and opportunity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 651–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teisman, G. R. (2000). Models for research into decision-making processes: On phases. Streams and Decision-Making Rounds, Public Administration, 78(4), 937–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thal, A. E, Jr, & Bedingfield, J. D. (2010). Successful project managers: An exploratory study into the impact of personality. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(2), 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2011). Conclusions and perspectives. In J. Torfing & P. Triantafillou (Eds.), Interactive policy making, metagovernance and democracy (pp. 263–276). Colchester: ECPR Press.

  • Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4), 587–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hulst, M., De Graaf, L., & Van den Brink, G. (2012). The work of exemplary practitioners in neighborhood governance. Critical Policy Studies, 6(4), 434–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meerkerk, I. F., Boonstra, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2012). Self-organization in urban regeneration: A two-case comparative research. European Planning Studies. Doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722963.

  • Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: how citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 17–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(103), 124.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, Room M7-08, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Ingmar van Meerkerk & Jurian Edelenbos

Authors
  1. Ingmar van Meerkerk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jurian Edelenbos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingmar van Meerkerk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Meerkerk, I., Edelenbos, J. The effects of boundary spanners on trust and performance of urban governance networks: findings from survey research on urban development projects in the Netherlands. Policy Sci 47, 3–24 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9181-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9181-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation