**Abstract**

This chapter derives from an overview of key research findings and core concepts on network leadership, focusing on leading purpose-oriented networks. These are increasingly viewed as prominent modes of local service delivery as local government transitions to "local governance" and where local government mostly follows a lead organization format. The literature encompassing local leadership emphasizes the context of structures and processes for any leader's action. This chapter treats the importance of the institutional factors in the era of local network governance, using the New Institutional approach, focusing especially on discursive institutionalism, together with and network governance theory. As public managers are increasingly relying on inter-organizational networks providing public services, the manner they lead them is of great importance. The following chapter presents vital factors that may assist their effective leadership in an era of local network governance.

**Keywords:** local networks, network leadership, new institutionalism, purpose-oriented networks, local government

## **1. Introduction**

The past three decades have witnessed changes in the structure, function, and leadership modes of public organizations, both at the local and national levels. These changes are captured in the literature by the Post New Public Governance (NPG) approach [1], a holistic view of government in which citizens and nongovernmental actors become partners in the public management process [2–4]. "Focus on governance involves the use of institutions and structures of authority and collaboration to allocate resources and to coordinate and control joint action across the network as a whole" [5]. The literature describes these changes using various terms, such as collaborative governance, collaborative leadership and management, new public governance, co-governance, and meta-governance [1, 6–13]. Ansell and Gash [9] define governance as both the structure of "laws and rules that pertain to the provision of public goods" and as the process of "collective decision making that includes both public and private actors" (p. 545). The move toward a collaborative mode of governance derives from the phenomenon known as the hollow state, "…a metaphor for the increasing use of third parties, often non-profits, to deliver social services and generally act in the name of the state" ([14], p. 360).

At the local level, this condition occurs due to the lack of local government (LG) capacity to provide multiple services to meet the needs and demands of the citizenry. Consequently, local government is growing increasingly conscious of the potential of working as a collaborative network to provide these services in the municipal arena [15, 16]. Collaboration enables external organizations such as non-profits, non-local public, private organizations, and citizens to share knowledge and experience to initiate novel solutions to different social, educational, and environmental wicked problems [17, 18].

Local authorities now employ network modes of governance to include people and organizations which play a greater role in the provision of local services, generally organized as a purpose-oriented network, defined as "a network comprised of three or more autonomous actors who participate in a joint effort based on a common purpose" ([19], p. 210). Berthod and Segato [20] and Lemaire et al. [21] proposed the term "purpose-oriented" networks to extend the well-known term of art "goal-directed networks". According to this line of research goal-directed refers to network members who have identified and agreed on a set of goals that guide the work of the network, which is not necessarily reality-based [22]. "Purposeoriented networks' (PONs) highlight the collective purpose that is "translated into actionable goals whose achievement can be monitored" (Carboni et al., p. 15), thus encompassing the complex reciprocity between the network members as well as the environment in which they operate. Such networks are understood to solve the wicked problems which characterize service delivery in local authorities.

The idea underpinning PON's is that by combining actors' differing capabilities, skills, and resources the network's outcomes will be improved [23]. In the local arena, these networks are generally headed by one lead organization, e.g., the local authority, which selects the other network partners, while coordinating decisions and activities [5]. This organization usually possesses sufficient resources and legitimacy to lead together with the capacity to take on most of the responsibilities of running and coordinating the network's activities. Given local policy makers' increasing reliance on networks to achieve the provision of public goods and services, leadership constitutes a paramount challenge facing contemporary local governance. Thus, changes in leadership style and form are required [24, 25], and these, in turn, affect the establishment and coordination of these networks [26].

## **2. Major challenges to local leadership in era of purpose-oriented networks**

Synchronizing collaboration activity and enhancing informational flow presents a primary challenge, due to the multiplicity of opinions and interests of the various network actors [27, 28]. Moreover, even with a strong lead-organization, network organizations are dynamic, not static [29, 30], often including and excluding certain actors or adapting to changing needs by altering the form of network governance [5]. Networks create numerous managerial dilemmas by diminishing the lead actor's degree of control over adherence to public policy. Monitoring and coordinating public policy implementation, for example, while at the same time permitting autonomy to network actors concerning the delivery of the public service requires constant attention [1, 10, 31–33]. There is always a risk of poor coordination and of defection by one or more partners [34]. Furthermore, in certain cases, an action can increase conflict and create tension in a network. These tensions might lead to misunderstanding and a reluctance to engage with the lead organization in the future [35]. Different cultural characteristics may cause friction, diminishing a commitment from different management levels: the internal world of the organization employing

#### *The New Institutional Approach as a Lens on Local Network Leadership DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101988*

the participants and the external world of the network in which their organization is involved [36]. Cultural tensions may include different approaches to decisionmaking, levels of professionalism, and methods of providing service. When individual parties within the network expect different outcomes from the collaboration because of different norms or have different ways of communicating cultural friction is almost inevitable. In sum, these tensions create coordination fatigue, with the result that the coordination of network activities requires considerable time and effort. In addition, unequal distribution of power between network members can create cases in which powerful stakeholders influence network decision-making to favor certain interests, resulting in harm to the public interest and potential corruption [37]. Naturally, these types of tensions may impair the local network's ability to produce high-quality local services and perform effectively.

Therefore, leading autonomous organizations, not directly subject to local authorities, raise questions about accountability, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to shape, implement, and monitor local policies reducing the quality of local services [38]. To overcome these tensions and affect the overall local network, network leaders should possess the capacity to make decisions and mobilize the resources required to implement their policies [39]. As a result, considerable effort has been taken in the public administration literature on this issue, focusing on diverse coordinative, facilitative, and mobilizing leadership skills and behaviors required for effective local network leadership [28, 40–48]. The main thrust of this research holds that lead organization managerial and leadership behaviors exerted by the local authority with the aim of enhancing network collaboration may help minimize the mentioned these above-mentioned risks, thus adapting to complex and dynamic environments [49].

However, while most literature draws attention to leadership skills, less attention has been paid to the characteristics of the specific local context as a crucial factor. Local government literature thus calls for a new local leadership style concentrating more on agenda-setting and network brokering in creating a vision, but less focused on policy implementation [50, 51]. This entrepreneurial model concentrates on context to mobilize and attract resources, generating new policies which establish collaborative networks with other governmental or non-governmental actors [25, 52–54].

Consideration of context is important because local leaders do not act in a homogeneous local environment and because various features distinguish local authorities from each other. Local government does not operate in a vacuum; it is embedded in the external political the environment within the local context [55–61]. This situation is quite evident in the local contexts where, in addition to structural characteristics, there is a cultural difference in the local authority. Together these factors shape the leadership environment influencing the leaders and their ability to govern [25].
