Module 4 through 7 has an associated group discussion that should focus on discussing the course content for that Module. Each discussion will span the two-w

/ Government / By

 

Module 4 through 7 has an associated group discussion that should focus on discussing the course content for that Module. Each discussion will span the two-weeks of the Module. Each student is required to make an initial post during the first week of the Module (i.e., the first Wednesday through Tuesday of the Module) and then respond to at least two (2) peer students’ initial posts during the second week of the Module (i.e., the second Wednesday through Tuesday of the Module). Initial posts should aim to be 200-400 words and while there is no range for peer response posts these should be substantive and include more thought than “I agree with your point” or “I said something similar in my post”. 

Use your own creativity in approaching the initial and response posts. Types of observations and reflections in the posts could include the following (but aren’t limited to this): 

  • Pick a topic or concepts from required readings to reflect upon (e.g., what and why something interested you; what did you find the most interesting or practical that helped you gain new insight or skill). 
  • Critique readings by adding something you can justify, showing how an author missed a point.  
  • Validate something from the readings based on your own experience or other reading.  
  • Include a discussion question for the group based on readings. DO NOT pose generic questions such as “What was your favorite part of the reading?” or similar questions. 
  • Relate readings to contemporary events or news and post a link. 

50

3. Negotiation within collaborative networks
Elise Boruvka and Lisa Blomgren Amsler

INTRODUCTION

Collaborative governance requires that actors enter into collaborative relationships and exer-
cise conflict management skills to solve societal problems. Within collaborative governance,
networks form from multiple actors with shared and differing interests. These actors work
together to achieve goals no single actor can achieve. A single actor may be a principal, an
agent, or both simultaneously. An agent acts as a representative of a principal. Networks
consist of a complex web of interactions between principals and agents. The performance of
the network depends on network actors’ abilities to successfully negotiate disputes (O’Leary
& Bingham, 2007).1 For network conflict management, interest-based negotiation is more
effective than distributive or competitive bargaining, because it builds on open communication
of interests rather than locking members into positions which may render negotiation ineffec-
tive (Kenis & Provan, 2009). In a network, parties share interests in continued relations and
resolving disputes quickly and effectively.

In addition to negotiating internal conflict, networks should consider the public’s role
in decision-making. For networks with government members, public participation may be
necessary and could take the form of dialogue or deliberation. Network actors engage the
public most often during upstream legislative and quasi-legislative processes (Bingham, 2011;
Amsler, 2016). Depending on the network’s purpose and members, public involvement may
not be a necessary or even possible step.

The following sections describe the environment and potential for conflict, different nego-
tiation strategies, alignment between interest-based negotiation and networks, the role of prin-
cipals and agents, and the process for establishing governance mechanisms within a network.

NETWORKS FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE

Governance is a complex process involving multiple actors across sectors seeking compre-
hensively to manage or resolve multifaceted issues. Governance takes place across the policy
continuum, from legislative to judicial processes (Amsler, 2016). To address issues in society
and provide services for the public, governments may need to collaborate with individuals,
organizations in the public, private, and/or nonprofit sectors, and other stakeholders to have
the resources, relationships, and ideas necessary (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003). These actors
(individuals or organizations) combine to collaborate and form a network.

Scholars have defined a network as:

1 Many of the ideas in this chapter were first developed in O’Leary and Bingham (2007). The
authors cite it generally and recommend readers use it as a practice guide for how to manage conflict in
networks.

Handbook

  • Agranoff (2021) Continuous Improvement in Collaborative Management.pdf

472 Public Administration Review • May | June 2018

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 3, pp. 472–478. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12888.

This manuscript was originally submitted

and accepted as an Evidence in Public
Administration article. The feature

editors, Kimberley R. Isett, Brian W.

Head, and Gary VanLandingham, are

gratefully acknowledged for their work

in soliciting and developing this content.

Effective with Volume 78, the Evidence
in Public Administration feature has been

discontinued.

Chris Silvia is assistant professor in the

Romney Institute of Public Management

at Brigham Young University. His research

focuses on leadership and management

in intersectoral networks. His work has

been published in Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Public
Administration, Public Administration
Review, and the Leadership Quarterly .

E-mail: [email protected]

Viewpoint

Abstract: Collaboration 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 .

Chris Silvia
Brigham Young University

Evaluating Collaboration:
The Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another

Public organizations at all levels of government
routinely engage in collaborative arrangements
to deliver services and develop policy. The

public management literature offers many rationales
for these organizations ’ decision to collaborate.
Some believe that an increase in collaboration has
been spurred by the realization that the issues with
which public organizations are grappling are often
too complex, costly, or extensive for a single entity
to adequately address (O ’ Leary, Choi, and Gerard
2012 ). Organizations must therefore work together to
effectively confront these complex problems.

The promise of the effectiveness of collab

Evidence-Based Prevention of Organized Crime: Assessing a New Collaborative Approach 315

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 2, pp. 315–317. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12889.

Martijn Groenleer is professor of law
and governance in the Tilburg School of
Governance and director of the Tilburg
Center for Regional Law and Governance,
both at Tilburg University in the Netherlands.
His research focuses on the analysis and
design of regulation and governance in
multiactor and multilevel settings.
E-mail: [email protected]

Jorrit de Jong is lecturer in public policy
and management at Harvard University ’ s
Kennedy School of Government. He is
faculty director of the Bloomberg Harvard
City Leadership Initiative and academic
director of the Innovations in Government
Program at the Kennedy School. His
research and teaching focus on leading
innovation in the public sector.
E-mail: [email protected]

Herman Bolhaar is senior fellow in
the Ash Center for Democratic Governance
and Innovation at Harvard University ’ s
Kennedy School of Government. He was
chair of the Board of Prosecutors-General,
the executive board of the Dutch Public
Prosecution Service, from 2011 to 2017.
As a practitioner, he initiated several
innovations in the fight against organized
crime. As a senior fellow, he focuses on
strengthening cross-sector collaboration in
crime prevention and repression.
E-mail: [email protected]

This manuscript was originally submitted
and accepted as an Evidence in Public
Administration article. The feature editors,
Kimberley R. Isett, Brian W. Head, and Gary
VanLandingham, are gratefully acknowledged
for their work in soliciting and developing
this content. Effective with Volume 78, the
Evidence in Public Administration feature has
been discontinued.

Maurits Waardenburg is a PhD
candidate in the Tilburg Center for Regional
Law and Governance, Tilburg University. He
is also a research fellow in the Ash Center
for Democratic Governance and Innovation
at Harvard University ’ s Kennedy School
of Government. His research focuses on
performance management in collaborative
governance settings.
E-mail: [email protected]

After the publication of the U.S. Department
of State ’ s 2005 Trafficki

  Module 4 through 7 has an associated group discussion that should focus on discussing the course content for that Module. Each discussion will span the two-weeks of the Module. Each student is required to make an initial post during the first week of the Module (i.e., the first Wednesday through Tuesday of the Module) and then respond to at least two (2) peer students’ initial posts during the second week of the Module (i.e., the second Wednesday through Tuesday of the Module). Initial posts should aim to be 200-400 words and while there is no range for peer response posts these should be substantive and include more thought than “I agree with your point” or “I said something similar in my post”.  Use your own creativity in approaching the initial and response posts. Types of observations and reflections in the posts could include the following (but aren’t limited to this):  Pick a topic or concepts from required readings to reflect upon (e.g., what and why something interested you; what did you find the most interesting or practical that helped you gain new insight or skill).  Critique readings by adding something you can justify, showing how an author missed a point.   Validate something from the readings based on your own experience or other reading.   Include a discussion question for the group based on readings. DO NOT pose generic questions such as “What was your favorite part of the reading?” or similar questions.  Relate readings to contemporary events or news and post a link.  50 3. Negotiation within collaborative networks Elise Boruvka and Lisa Blomgren Amsler INTRODUCTION Collaborative governance requires that actors enter into collaborative relationships and exer- cise conflict management skills to solve societal problems. Within collaborative governance, networks form from multiple actors with shared and differing interests. These actors work together to achieve goals no single actor can achieve. A single actor may be a principal, an agent, or both simultaneously. An agent acts as a representative of a principal. Networks consist of a complex web of interactions between principals and agents. The performance of the network depends on network actors’ abilities to successfully negotiate disputes (O’Leary & Bingham, 2007).1 For network conflict management, interest-based negotiation is more effective than distributive or competitive bargaining, because it builds on open communication of interests rather than locking members into positions which may render negotiation ineffec- tive (Kenis & Provan, 2009). In a network, parties share interests in continued relations and resolving disputes quickly and effectively. In addition to negotiating internal conflict, networks should consider the public’s role in decision-making. For networks with government members, public participation may be necessary and could take the form of dialogue or deliberation. Network actors engage the public most often during upstream legislative and quasi-legislative processes (Bingham, 2011; Amsler, 2016). Depending on the network’s purpose and members, public involvement may not be a necessary or even possible step. The following sections describe the environment and potential for conflict, different nego- tiation strategies, alignment between interest-based negotiation and networks, the role of prin- cipals and agents, and the process for establishing governance mechanisms within a network. NETWORKS FOR COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE Governance is a complex process involving multiple actors across sectors seeking compre- hensively to manage or resolve multifaceted issues. Governance takes place across the policy continuum, from legislative to judicial processes (Amsler, 2016). To address issues in society and provide services for the public, governments may need to collaborate with individuals, organizations in the public, private, and/or nonprofit sectors, and other stakeholders to have the resources, relationships, and ideas necessary (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003). These actors (individuals or organizations) combine to collaborate and form a network. Scholars have defined a network as: 1 Many of the ideas in this chapter were first developed in O’Leary and Bingham (2007). The authors cite it generally and recommend readers use it as a practice guide for how to manage conflict in networks. Handbook Agranoff (2021) Continuous Improvement in Collaborative Management.pdf 472 Public Administration Review • May | June 2018 Public Administration Review, Vol. 78, Iss. 3, pp. 472–478. © 2017 by The American Society for Public Administration. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12888. This manuscript was originally submitted and accepted as an Evidence in Public Administration article. The feature editors, Kimberley R. Isett, Brian W. Head, and Gary VanLandingham, are gratefully acknowledged for their work in soliciting and developing this content. Effective with Volume 78, the Evidence in Public Administration feature has been discontinued. Chris Silvia is assistant professor in the Romney Institute of Public Management at Brigham Young University. His research focuses on leadership and management in intersectoral networks. His work has been published in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration, Public Administration Review, and the Leadership Quarterly . E-mail: [email protected] Viewpoint Abstract: Collaboration 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 . Chris Silvia Brigham Young University Evaluating Collaboration: The Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another Public organizations at all levels of government routinely engage in collaborative arrangements to deliver services and develop policy. The public management literature offers many rationales for these organizations ’ decision to collaborate. Some believe that an increase in collaboration has been spurred by the realization that the issues with which public organizations are grappling are often too complex, costly, or extensive for a single entity to adequately address (O ’ Leary, Choi, and Gerard 2012 ). Organizations must therefore work together to effectively confront these complex problems. The promise of the effectiveness of collab Evidence-Based Prevention of Organized Crime: Assessing a New Collaborative Approach 315 Public Administration Review, Vol. 78, Iss. 2, pp. 315–317. © 2017 by The American Society for Public Administration. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12889. Martijn Groenleer is professor of law and governance in the Tilburg School of Governance and director of the Tilburg Center for Regional Law and Governance, both at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. His research focuses on the analysis and design of regulation and governance in multiactor and multilevel settings. E-mail: [email protected] Jorrit de Jong is lecturer in public policy and management at Harvard University ’ s Kennedy School of Government. He is faculty director of the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative and academic director of the Innovations in Government Program at the Kennedy School. His research and teaching focus on leading innovation in the public sector. E-mail: [email protected] Herman Bolhaar is senior fellow in the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University ’ s Kennedy School of Government. He was chair of the Board of Prosecutors-General, the executive board of the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, from 2011 to 2017. As a practitioner, he initiated several innovations in the fight against organized crime. As a senior fellow, he focuses on strengthening cross-sector collaboration in crime prevention and repression. E-mail: [email protected] This manuscript was originally submitted and accepted as an Evidence in Public Administration article. The feature editors, Kimberley R. Isett, Brian W. Head, and Gary VanLandingham, are gratefully acknowledged for their work in soliciting and developing this content. Effective with Volume 78, the Evidence in Public Administration feature has been discontinued. Maurits Waardenburg is a PhD candidate in the Tilburg Center for Regional Law and Governance, Tilburg University. He is also a research fellow in the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University ’ s Kennedy School of Government. His research focuses on performance management in collaborative governance settings. E-mail: [email protected] After the publication of the U.S. Department of State ’ s 2005 Trafficki

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Your Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.