master thesis organization studies (2019-2020) extended

Dear Participant, how to foster your commitment to the project network?

An exploratory study on how a lead organization can create network participant

commitment to the lead organization-governed project network

in different environments of tie strength

Master Thesis Organization Studies (2019-2020)

Extended Master Program

Sophie van den Dungen 2000260

7th of December 2020

S.M.A. van den Dungen | 2

Details thesis

Personal details student

Name: S.M.A. (Sophie) van den Dungen

Student number (SNR): 2000260

Administration number (ANR): 175643

Tilburg University

Supervisor 1: dr. R.S. (Remco) Mannak

Supervisor 2: dr. L.A. (Leona) Henry

Master Thesis

Title: Dear Participant, how to foster your commitment to the project

network?

Subtitle: An exploratory study on how a lead organization can create

network participant commitment to the lead organization-

governed project network in different environments of tie

strength

Date: 7th of December 2020


Abstract

Organizations are increasingly attempting to create joint value by participating in temporary

interorganizational projects. Often, these are embedded in a more permanent project network that is

centrally governed by one of the participants, acting as a lead organization. The effectiveness of lead

organization-governed project networks is disputed. Commitment challenges appear as ties between the

lead organization and individual participants are alternating between active and dormant due to the

temporary project nature. As interdependencies are present, network continuity highly depends on the

lead organization’s ability to make a sufficient, timely appeal on the expertise of legally autonomous

network participants. Currently, it is unclear how network orchestration influences commitment, and

how adaptations could contribute to effectively fostering commitment in active and dormant ties.

Therefore, this qualitative, exploratory study contributes by investigating how orchestration practices

by the lead organization can foster network participant commitment, contingent on the alternating

environments of tie strength. Individual participants’ perceptions (N = 18) are central. Results stress the

general importance of autonomy- and integration-enhancing practices, and managerial support and

maintaining personal contact in respectively active and dormant ties. Additional analysis revealed

personal and prior ties reinforce commitment via trust. Implications are discussed, and main

contributions are displayed schematically.

Key words: lead organization-governed networks, project networks, commitment, network

orchestration, tie strength.


Table of contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Problem statement.......................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Research aim and Question............................................................................................................ 8

1.3 Research relevance ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.3.1 Scientific relevance ................................................................................................................................ 9 1.3.2 Practical relevance .............................................................................................................................. 10

2. Theoretical Argument ........................................................................................................ 11

2.1 Network participant commitment ................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Network orchestration by the lead organization .......................................................................... 14

2.3 Tie strength .................................................................................................................................. 17

3. Methods ............................................................................................................................... 20

3.1 Research context .......................................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 22

3.3 Sample Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 23

3.4 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................ 24

3.5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 28

4. Results.................................................................................................................................. 30

4.1 The role of Tie strength ............................................................................................................... 30

4.2 Network participant commitment ................................................................................................ 31 4.2.1 Defining commitment ........................................................................................................................... 31

4.3 Network orchestration by the lead organization in relation to participant commitment ............. 35 4.3.1 Generic tie management ...................................................................................................................... 35 4.3.2 Active tie management ......................................................................................................................... 44 4.3.3 Dormant tie management ..................................................................................................................... 49 4.3.4 Summary on what and how orchestration practices foster network participant commitment............. 51

Results integrated ................................................................................................................... 52

4.4 Additional results ......................................................................................................................... 53

4.5 Expert views ................................................................................................................................ 53

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 54

5.1 Theoretical implications .............................................................................................................. 54 5.1.1 Network orchestration by the lead organization.................................................................................. 54 5.1.2 Tie strength .......................................................................................................................................... 60

5.2 Practical implications ................................................................................................................... 61 5.2.1 Practical implications on the different environments of Tie strength .................................................. 63

5.3 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................................. 64

6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 66

References ............................................................................................................................... 68


Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 82

Appendix 1: Introduction e-mail of the partner organization to introduce the researcher ................ 82

Appendix 2: Information letter preceding participation in the study and informed consent form .... 83

Appendix 3: Semi-structured interview guidelines ........................................................................... 87

Appendix 4: Illustration of the fictional future scenario discussed in the interviews........................ 95

Appendix 5: Interview guideline and presentation for expert interviews .......................................... 96

Appendix 6: Example of thematic framework ................................................................................... 97

Appendix 7: Coding scheme .............................................................................................................. 98

Appendix 8: Translation of quotes in the interviews ....................................................................... 103

Appendix 9: Additional results on Tie strength dimensions............................................................ 104

Appendix 10: Summary of expert interviews .................................................................................. 108


1. Introduction

1.1 Problem statement In today’s 21st century, a society of networks has arisen (Raab & Kenis, 2009), in which networks

increasingly emerge as a significant form to manage projects (Bakker, 2010; Lundin, Arvidsson, Brady,

Ekstedt, & Midler, 2015). Hereby, projects as temporary systems “are usually embedded in more

permanent systems” (Braun, Müller-Seitz, & Sydow, 2012, p. 271). One of these more permanent

systems is the project network (Lundin et al., 2015; Manning, 2010; Manser et al., 2016), defined as “a

setting in which different parties, typically organizations but also the self-employed or ‘entreployees’

are either loosely or more tightly connected in a system that could be referred to as an interorganizational

network” (Lundin et al., 2015, p. 66; Pongratz & Vo, 2003). Within these networks, joint value is

created by pursuing collective goals in temporary interorganizational projects with at least two

autonomous, operationally interdependent network participants (Lash & Wittel, 2002; Manning, 2017;

Sydow & Braun, 2018). The project network is often governed by a lead organization (e.g., Manser et

al., 2016) that has no formal authority over the participants involved and is also participating in projects

of the network (Provan & Kenis, 2008). One of the settings in which project networks manifest is the

consulting profession (Bakker, 2010; Tyssen, Wald, & Spieth, 2013; Lundin et al., 2015), where project-

based assignments require collaborative efforts that are found within the abilities of autonomous

participants (Manning, 2017; Sydow & Braun, 2018). Evidently, lead organization-governed project

networks are emerging in an economy that increasingly relies on project business (Steen, DeFillippi,

Sydow, Pryke, & Michelfelder, 2018). Nonetheless, the effectiveness of these networks is disputed (e.g.,

Andrésen, Lundberg, & Roxenhall, 2012), partly for the reason that “they are difficult to manage, as

members remain autonomous but interact to achieve their own and shared goals” (Provan & Kenis,

2008, as cited in Andrésen et al., 2012, p. 531).

Moreover, the lead organization-governed project network as a distinct interorganizational form

is characterized by dormant as well as active ties (Steen et al., 2018; Sydow & Braun, 2018) among

network participants and the lead organization. The idea is that network participants “can be activated

for a certain task that in turn can be transformed into a project” (Lundin et al., 2015, p. 66), characterized

as an active tie. Accordingly, once the project is completed, the relationship between the network

participant and the lead organization turns into a less active, dormant state “until they are potentially

reactivated for future projects” (Sydow & Braun, 2018, p. 7). Considering this, a contemporary

managerial challenge arises with regard to how the lead organization could secure network participants’

commitment to the project network (Landsperger & Spieth, 2011; Oliveira & Lumineau, 2017).

On the one hand, it is questionable whether participants remain committed to the lead

organization-governed project network (Barlage, Van den Born, & Van Witteloostuijn, 2019), since

they are proceeding to projects and activities of their own organization or other project networks after

completion of a project (Lundin et al., 2015). Thus, the temporariness of projects embedded in the


permanent project network creates a managerial challenge for the lead organization to secure

participants’ commitment to the project network in the intermediate period of active and dormant ties.

Over time, the lead organization needs to alter between active and dormant ties with network participants

to effectively respond to the customer demand and the changing market environment. Potentially

resulting into relatively long-lasting dormant ties with network participants when no new projects can

be introduced to them. How does the lead organization maintain their commitment in the meantime?

Moreover, reactivation of participants “from previous projects also helps avoid search and transaction

costs involved in finding new partners” (Manning & Sydow, 2011, p. 1371).

At the same time, the interdependent nature within project networks gives rise to a challenge

for lead organizations in fostering participants’ commitment in active ties (i.e., to particular project

goals) as participants have their own, autonomous interests in and expectations from projects

(Narayanan & DeFillippi, 2012). In this respect, a network’s internal legitimacy and participants’

commitment to the network is dependent on the influence participants are allowed to exert in decision-

making within projects (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Vangen, Hayes, & Cornforth, 2015). Thus, the

lead organization is faced with a managerial challenge to create participant commitment for the sake of

both active and dormant ties. Enabling reactivation of active and dormant ties between the lead

organization and network participants (Steen et al., 2018) is important for safeguarding continuity and

survival of the project network as a sustainable interorganizational form (Human & Provan, 2000).

Hence, continuity and survival highly depend on the lead organization’s ability to make a sufficient and

timely appeal on network participants’ expertise (Crespin-Mazet, Goglio-Primard, & Grenier, 2017).

Provan and Milward (2001) argue that network effectiveness should also be measured from the

participant level and that networks “need to attract and retain members if they are to survive as a viable

form of social organization” (p. 418). Therefore, this study takes participant commitment as an indicator

of a lead organization-governed project network’s effectiveness and suggests that, in order to safeguard

network survival, the lead organization needs to foster participants’ commitment. Multiple studies

indirectly support this suggestion by finding that commitment leads to improved interorganizational

collaboration, network performance, future intentions and retention (e.g., Landsperger, Spieth, &

Heidenrich, 2012; Hammarfjord & Roxenhall, 2017). Thus, the question arises how lead organizations

can transform temporary projects with participants “into an informal organizational format that is

replicable in future collaboration” (DeFillippi & Sydow, 2016, p. 86). Since securing network

participants’ commitment is “one of the major tasks of the orchestrator” (Bartelings, Goedee, Raab, &

Bijl, 2017, p. 346), network orchestration practices shed light on how the lead organization – as

orchestrator of the network (e.g., Perks, Kowalkowski, Witell, & Gustafsson, 2017) – could foster

participant commitment. Hereby, practices are considered actions or activities executed by the lead

organization (Perks et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, to the researcher’s knowledge, the current state of the literature lacks a universal

strategy for lead organizations on addressing network participants’ commitment because of the different


environments of tie strength between the lead organization and individual participants, previously

referred to as active and dormant ties. Although practices by the lead organization might foster

commitment irrespective of an active or dormant tie (i.e., generic tie management), it could be that

tailor-made practices are required in active and dormant ties to secure commitment. Thus, given the

different environments of tie strength, the question arises how orchestration practices by the lead

organization contribute to creating commitment to the project network.

1.2 Research aim and Question This study qualitatively explores individual network participants’ perspective on how network

orchestration practices are related to commitment to the lead organization-governed project network. In

particular, the aim of this study is to explore potential mechanisms between network orchestration by

the lead organization and network participant commitment, contingent on the different environments of

tie strength (generic, active, and dormant tie management) between the lead organization and the

participant. The qualitative study will be conducted in the Dutch management consultancy sector with

the aid of semi-structured interviews. The context of management consultancy is regarded suitable for

this study, since the project-based assignments in this sector require collaborative efforts that are found

within the abilities of autonomous participants.

This leads to the following research question:

How does a lead organization create participant commitment to a project network in an environment

of different tie strengths between the lead organization and the participant?

The research question is visualized in a conceptual model, presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual model


1.3 Research relevance

1.3.1 Scientific relevance This study aims to advance scientific knowledge on lead organization-governed project networks that

are increasingly emerging in a century in which more and more is being relied on projects (Steen et al.,

2018; Bakker, 2010; Lundin et al., 2015). Although previous research demonstrates the importance of

studying commitment in the context of networks by arguing commitment plays a great role in amplifying

network performance and survival (e.g., Clarke, 2006; Agostini, Nosella, & Venturini, 2019), a recently

performed literature review by Gomes, Barnes, and Mahmood (2016) shows little attention has been

devoted to commitment in the literature on interorganizational networks. Nevertheless, committed

network participants are considered enabling for an enduring collaboration (e.g., Human & Provan,

2000; Roxenhall, 2011). Therefore, this study aspires to develop the network commitment literature in

several ways.

First, this study aims to extend insight into the micro-level perspective of commitment in

centrally governed project networks by putting the individual participants’ perspective central. Although

recently a study has been conducted on network commitment (Bruning, Alge, & Lin, 2018), the focus

herein was on commitment to one’s personal network, instead of a centrally governed project network.

Moreover, prior research in centrally governed networks mostly focused on the network manager as the

level of analysis (e.g., Bartelings et al., 2017). Braun et al. (2012) indicated scientifically little attention

has been devoted to how the perceptions of individuals (like commitment) participating in temporary

projects develop in more permanent systems such as networks and organizations (Barlage et al., 2019).

Therefore, this study strives to contribute by exploring how orchestration practices by the lead

organization are related to network participant commitment by illuminating network participants’

perspective.

Second, this study aims to contribute to the network orchestration literature by exploring how

network orchestration practices might be related to network participant commitment. Although literature

on network orchestration is growing, debate is still ongoing on the versatile role of orchestrators (Nilsen

& Gausdal, 2017; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Nätti, 2018). Bartelings et al. (2017) demonstrated what

orchestration tasks are regarded by network managers to be constitutive of their daily activities in

interorganizational networks of the Dutch healthcare and public safety sector. An explorative

investigation into network orchestration in different contexts is regarded necessary (Zen, Lopes,

Wegner, & Belussi, 2020). Therefore, by answering the research call of Provan and Kenis (2008, p. 248)

who state that within networks “the role of management also needs to be addressed in greater depth”,

this study aims to contribute by exploring how orchestration practices by the lead organization are

related to participants’ commitment to lead organization-governed project networks in the Dutch

management consultancy sector.


Finally, this study aims to advance scientific knowledge regarding the fostering of network

participant commitment by investigating the role of active and dormant ties. It has been stated that tie

strength is important to take into account in the evaluation of a network’s effectiveness (Popp, Milward,

MacKean, Casebeer, & Lindstrom, 2014). According to Klaster, Wilderom, and Muntslag (2017),

literature on interorganizational networks primarily investigated the influence of relationships on the

effectiveness of a network. However, the tie strength concept as referred to by studies in the context of

project networks mainly focused on the effect of the dimensions defined by Granovetter (1973). The

operationalization of tie strength in this study deviates from prior studies in order to be able to capture

the dynamic nature of relationships between the lead organization and network participants. To the

researcher’s knowledge, operationalizing tie strength as shifting between active and dormant ties

because of the dynamic temporary nature inherent to project networks (e.g., Braun et al. 2012; Manser

et al., 2016) remains underexposed in the literature. Thus, this study attempts to contribute to the

network literature by extending insight into tailor-made practices fostering commitment to lead

organization-governed project networks.

1.3.2 Practical relevance This study aims to contribute practically by providing lead organizations with a notion of what and how

orchestration practices create network participants’ commitment to the lead organization-governed

project network. Extending practical insight into how certain practices contribute to commitment can

fulfill the goal of providing management guidance in this respect (Manser et al., 2016).

Second, by investigating the relationships from the individual network participants’ point of

view, this study aims to unravel orchestration practices that participants perceive as best practices for

creating participant commitment. These potential insights could be used by the lead organization in

enhancing the profile of the network and in developing unique selling-points of the lead organization-

governed project network. With regard to the attraction of network participants to collaborate on

projects, a unique selling-point can be useful for both internal and external legitimacy purposes.

Third, through the developed insights, both lead organizations and network participants can

increase their consciousness of the functioning of networks they participate in, and what their individual

contribution to this is or might be. Therefore, this study might stimulate self-reflection for all

participants, which in turn could help to act more consciously in lead organization-governed project

networks. Furthermore, this consciousness will aid the lead organization in its prioritization of daily

practices and potentially in preventing from wasting valuable time on practices of which it is currently

believed to foster participants’ commitment with, while the opposite might be the case. Finally, insight

into the role of orchestration practices by the lead organization in relation to network participant

commitment may aid central consultancy firms (i.e., lead organizations) in designing their network pool

effectively.


2. Theoretical Argument

The narrative of the theoretical argument is structured in line with the study concepts. First, the

definition of network participant commitment is outlined. Thereafter, network orchestration in lead

organization-governed project networks is defined, concluded with an exploratory framework. Finally,

clarification is provided on the definition of tie strength and how it is applied in this study to represent

different environments of tie strength.

2.1 Network participant commitment Network participant commitment originates from the traditional concept of organizational commitment:

“an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Porter, Steers,

Mowday, & Boulian, 1974, p. 604). Literature stemming from a later time period provides a broader

conceptualization of commitment by referring to a psychological state, defining commitment as “the

attachment an individual feels to a collective entity, such as a relation, group or organization” (Lawler

& Yoon, 1996, p. 90). In this study, the collective entity concerns the lead organization-governed project

network. A lead organization-governed network refers to a network that is “highly centralized, governed

by and through a lead organization that is a network member” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 234). Since

the type of network under study is centrally, though informally governed by a lead organization, it can

be suggested that network participant commitment indicates an individual’s tendency to remain attached

(Donati, Zappalà, & González-Romá, 2019; Nangoli, Ahimbisibwe, Namagembe, & Bashir, 2013) to

the lead organization, and continue participating in projects of the lead organization-governed project

network. It is indicated that commitment is a decisive factor if interorganizational interactions are

intended to lead to long-term collaborative relationships (e.g., Andrésen et al., 2012). Hence,

demonstrating the importance of focusing on network participant commitment as an indicator of lead

organization-governed project network effectiveness.

This study strives to develop an insight for lead organizations into how network participant

commitment to the lead organization-governed project network can be created and secured. Therefore,

adapted from the original characterization of organizational commitment by Porter et al. (1974), network

participant commitment is characterized by (1) a belief in and acceptance of the lead organization’s

goals and values, (2) a willingness to make a substantial effort on behalf of the lead organization, and

(3) a desire to remain attached to the lead organization-governed project network. Thus, except from

commitment to the lead organization as the central actor of the network, perceptions of commitment to

the collective of relationships within the network or the group of network participants as a whole might

also appear, as previously indicated by Lawler and Yoon (1996). This distinction in commitment to a

collective entity will be clearly highlighted if it arises throughout the study and is illustrated in the

remainder of the theoretical argument.


The foregoing characterization of network participant commitment coheres closely with Meyer

and Allen’s (1991) conceptualization of commitment as a multidimensional construct. Building on this

conceptualization, the definition of network participant commitment can be provided.

Meyer and Allen (1991) conceptualized commitment by making a distinction between three

types of organizational commitment: normative, continuance, and affective commitment. Today, these

are considered most widely studied and acknowledged types of commitment (Mercurio, 2015). The

important role played by the lead organization in project networks because of its central role should be

considered when applying the concept of commitment to lead organization-governed project networks.

Thereby, the lead organization is expected to strategically position between disconnected participants,

facilitate coordination and mediation between them (Klerkx & Aarts, 2013), and providing project leads

to network participants. Moreover, although organizational commitment is not the equivalent of network

commitment, according to Bruning et al. (2018) they could be viewed as “parallel, and interrelated

concepts” (p. 56). Therefore, this study regards the concept of organizational commitment to represent

the scientific foundation of network participant commitment. Combining insights from previous

research on organizational (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1991) and network commitment (Lawler & Yoon,

1996; Bruning et al., 2018), below, this study conceptualizes network participant commitment to lead

organization-governed project networks. Hereafter, referred to as ‘participant commitment’ or

‘commitment’.

First, normative commitment refers to an individual network participant’s perceived moral

obligation or responsibility to remain attached to the lead organization, thereby reflecting a willingness

to contribute to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991) and continue participation in projects of

the network. Further, it can indicate the dedication toward one’s ties (Bruning et al., 2018) in the lead

organization-governed project network. Second, affective commitment refers to an individual’s

“emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement” in the lead organization (Meyer et al.,

2012, p. 226) and/or with other network participants within the project network “whereby one associates

with, affectively attaches to, and defines him or herself according to this network” (Bruning et al., 2018,

p. 56). Individuals demonstrating high affective commitment are willing to remain attached to the lead

organization-governed project network, because of their belief in and acceptance of the lead

organization’s goals and values (derived from Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mercurio, 2015). Third,

continuance commitment concerns a general instrumental motive to remain attached to the lead

organization-governed project network, based on perceived benefits of staying attached to the collective

entity (Cohen, 2007; Bruning et al., 2018). This type corresponds to the transactional perspective of

commitment that “is based on the idea that commitment is the result of economic decisions and

rationale” (Mercurio, 2015, p. 395). Network participants show continuance commitment when they

choose to join the network because the potential rewards are expected to be greater than the costs of

participation (Andrésen et al., 2012; Donati et al., 2019). In this respect, Balfour and Wechsler (1996)

used ‘exchange commitment’ as an alternative term for continuance commitment by theorizing “that


commitment may be formed directly due to rewards received from the organization” (Mercurio, 2015,

p. 395).

Applying this insight to the context of this study, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) might

play a role in in the relationship between network orchestration practices by the lead organization and

network participant commitment in such a way that the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) might be

at work. Potentially, this implies that certain practices executed by the lead organization might signal

an investment in or reward for the network participant, which might “over time provide for mutually

and rewarding transactions and relationships” (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, p. 890), characterized by

trust, loyalty, and commitment (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) from the participant.

Prior empirical research findings on commitment

Mercurio’s (2015) literature review and several meta-analyses (e.g., Donati et al., 2019; Meyer et al.,

2012) demonstrate that of the three-component commitment model, affective is most strongly related to

individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. Normative and continuance commitment have also been positively

associated to participation and retention in entrepreneurial network organizations (Malewicki, 2005;

Landsperger & Spieth, 2011). Sharma, Young, and Wilkinson (2006) argue different strategies are

required to foster affective, normative and continuance commitment in interorganizational relationships.

In light of this, extending insight into how commitment types are influenced may aid lead

organizations in developing strategies to foster participant commitment tailored to the commitment

motives (based on affection, obligation, instrumentality) that are desirable at a certain time-point. For

instance, normative and affective commitment could be desirable for collaborating on new product or

business development, as participants committed based on instrumental motives are expected to

withdraw earlier than participants who are committed based on affection or normative obligation

(Sharma et al., 2006).

In conclusion, the above illustrates the relevance to focus on Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-

component model in investigating how network orchestration by the lead organization is related to

network participant commitment. Although the aim is investigating how network orchestration practices

influence commitment, the distinction between affective, normative, and continuance commitment will

be made in order to nuance insights. Because of the study’s exploratory nature, the researcher withholds

from stating expectations on potential effects of practices by the lead organization on the commitment

types.

Table 1 summarizes the definition of network participant commitment.


2.2 Network orchestration by the lead organization In a lead organization-governed network “all major network-level activities and key decisions are

coordinated through and by a single participating member, acting as a lead organization” (Provan &

Kenis, 2008, p. 235). In lead organization-governed project networks, temporary projects are embedded

in a more permanent system governed by the lead organization, which can represent one of the

participants in projects too (Lundin et al., 2015; Braun et al., 2012). This implies that lead organization-

governed project networks might also show characteristics of participant-governed networks.

Nevertheless, because of the lead organization’s project generating function and a strategic positioning

between disconnected participants to facilitate collaboration (Klerkx & Aarts, 2013), an important role

needs to be fulfilled by lead organization’s management. Accordingly, the lead organization is able to

manage and influence the network (Dhanarraj & Parkhe, 2006; Hinterhuber, 2002; Lorenzoni &

Lipparini, 1999; Müller-Seitz, 2012).

Over time, multiple typologies have been developed by network scholars regarding managerial

roles, practices and activities to manage interorganizational networks (e.g., Agranoff, 2003; Milward &

Provan, 2006; Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Sydow & Windeler, 1994). Associated with the fact that

organizations are increasingly participating in networks “to promote innovation, enter new markets, and

deal with intractable social problems” (Hardy, Lawrence, & Grant, 2005, p. 58), network orchestration

is emerging in management literature (e.g., Busquets, 2010; Hinterhuber, 2002; Müller-Seitz, 2012;

Bartelings et al., 2017). Network orchestration refers to “the role in which the orchestrator consciously

integrates and therefore fine-tunes activities which have to be executed by network partners from various

organizations” (Bartelings et al., 2017, p. 355). This activity-oriented approach is in line with research

that considers “management as a set of activities” (Manser et al., 2016, p. 188).

Indeed, as Lemaire, Mannak, Ospina, and Groenleer (2019) indicate, one of the challenges in

the current state of the network literature concerns the use of different labels and the attribution of

different interpretations to the same concepts. This idea is reinforced by Gjaltema, Biesbroek, and

Termeer’s (2020) review indicating that network management and orchestration literature are

interrelated. Yet, network orchestration is considered more hands-off than network management by

virtue of the fact that orchestration is not based on formal control (Gjaltema et al., 2020). In an attempt

to contribute to an adequate synthesis of research on networks, this study builds on one of Lemaire et

al.’s (2019, p. 207) good research practices by outlining considerations underpinning the researcher’s

choice to focus on network orchestration by the lead organization.

First and foremost, creating (or securing) network participants’ commitment constitutes one of

the crucial tasks of an orchestrator because its interorganizational management role encompasses a

continuous adaptation of plans and goals “based on new opportunities and information that arise from

the network” (Bartelings et al., 2017, p. 346). Moreover, “the critical role of orchestration is

acknowledged for establishing and maintaining inter-organizational networks” (Perks et al., 2017, p.

109).


Second, equivalent to the highly centralized role of lead organizations in lead-governed project

networks (Provan & Kenis, 2008), an orchestrator is considered the central network actor and leads the

network with a lack of formal authority over the participants involved (Busquets, 2010; Bartelings et

al., 2017). Orchestration is about what practices are executed by the central network actor, as well as

how these practices are carried out (Bartelings et al., 2017).

Third, an orchestrator could be perceived as the person who manages network participants’

motives for collaboration in a network of equal participants, i.e., personification of management

(Goedee & Entken, 2013, as cited in Bartelings et al., 2017). In their study in the field of Dutch

healthcare and public safety, Bartelings et al. (2017) identified seven practices constitutive of the

managerial role of orchestrators: operational work, travelling, bridging, networking, preparing

documents, stabilizing the network, and transferring knowledge. These are described in Table 2.

Bartelings et al. (2017) argue the notion on the personification of management is embedded in Milward

and Provan’s (2006) tasks on the management of conflict, commitment and internal legitimacy, and

Agranoff and McGuire’s (2001) typology of activation, framing, mobilizing, and synthesizing. This

indicates that more traditional classifications seem to be embedded in the orchestration classification.

In conclusion, this study takes Bartelings et al. (2017) classification of orchestration practices

as a starting point in the exploration of how lead organizations can create network participant

commitment to the lead organization-governed project network. Accordingly, this study defines

orchestration practices as actions or activities executed by the lead organization, as orchestrator of the

network (Perks et al., 2017). Nevertheless, in this study ‘network orchestrator’ and ‘lead

manager/organization’ are used interchangeably to refer to the lead organization executing the practices.

Nevertheless, as Bartelings et al.’s (2017) network orchestration classification is not focused on

fostering commitment to lead organization-governed project networks in specific, an open approach is

adopted in the exploration of potential mechanisms between network orchestration and commitment.


2.3 Tie strength A lead organization’s network ties create potential “opportunities for social capital transactions”, as

resources are embedded and could be accessed through relationships (i.e., ties) in the network (Wu, Li,

Wu, & Hu, 2020, p. 891; Adler & Kwon, 2002). Therefore, tie strength can be regarded to play a

fundamental role in the creation of network participants’ commitment to the lead organization-governed

project network.

Within an increasing number of project networks, the corresponding field (e.g., consultancy)

can develop into a “project ecology” in which network participants set up projects and then disintegrate

into dormant relationships after project completion, before reconvening for another project (Lundin et

al., 2015, p. 67). Thus, implying a need for orchestration practices by the lead organization tailored to

active and dormant ties in order to foster network participants’ commitment to the project network.

Originally, the concept of tie strength has been defined as the “combination of the amount of

time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which

characterize the tie” (Granovetter, 1973, p. 1361). Thereby, a distinction is made between strong and

weak ties. A strong tie is referred to as “tight emotional relationships, frequent interaction and prior ties”

(Wu, Zheng, Zhao, & Zuo, 2020, p. 1047). A weak tie represents the opposite: loose emotional

relationships, infrequent interaction, and little or a lack of prior ties (Granovetter, 1973).

Although these theoretical dimensions of tie strength exist, the focus in this study is on the

potential dynamic intensity of relationships between network participants and the lead organization over

time (Mariotti & Delbridge, 2012). This for the reason that the essence of project networks is that

environments of tie strength between the lead organization and individual participants alternate between

active ties of project participation and dormant ties after project completion (Lundin et al., 2015).

Environments of Tie strength

Accordingly, this study makes a distinction between two environments of tie strength: active and

dormant ties. Derived from Lim, Correa, Lo, Finegold, and Zhu (2013), an active tie can be defined as

a tie between the lead organization and a network participant involving interaction on an ongoing project

for a certain period of time. For dormant ties, one commonly accepted definition is lacking (Lim et al.,

2013). Lim et al. (2013) defined dormant ties as “those in which two users communicated regularly for

a period but then ceased communication for one of many potential reasons” (p. 361). Translated to the

context of project networks, a dormant tie concerns the period in which the participant is not part of any

project in the lead organization-governed project network, because (a) the project of before is finished

without any new upcoming project, or (b) the participant did not participate in any project of the network

yet. However, in contrast to Lim et al.’s (2013) notion that communication ceases, this study rather

indicates with a dormant tie that a finished project does not necessarily imply communication ceases

between the lead organization and the participant.


To illustrate the alternating environments of tie strength, some participants are actively involved

in projects currently (i.e., active tie), others have been while the relationship is currently dormant, and

even with others there is a social relationship but no prior joint project experience (i.e., dormant tie).

This alternation takes place irrespective of weak and strong ties between the network participant and the

lead organization (Levin, Walter, & Murnighan, 2011). Nevertheless, the evolution of active into

dormant ties and the other way around occurs quite fluently. Therefore, it is expected that the cut-off

between active and dormant ties is not always entirely clear to network participants. Moreover, with

regard to the network orchestration-commitment relationship in different environments of tie strength,

it might be that some orchestration practices are applicable to both active and dormant ties. Based on

that, a generic tie is included to represent a general mode of tie between the lead organization and the

network participant, irrespective of active and dormant ties.

Empirical research findings on Tie management

On the one hand, Ebers and Maurer (2016) found that prior project commitments and relationship-

oriented investments are not decisive for participants’ future commitment to project network

collaborations. On the other hand, familiarity and repetitive interactions between the lead organization

and participants might create emotional attachments (i.e., commitment), trust, and norms (Macneil,

1980; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994), thereby creating a ‘shadow of the past’ (Ahola, 2009). In addition,

Andrésen et al. (2012) stated the length and emotional intensity of a relationship are considered crucial

factors influencing “commitment in dyadic relationships” (p. 532). Potentially developed trust and

norms might play a role in generic, active, and dormant ties in relation to commitment.

Furthermore, when the lead organization-governed project network pool increases in number of

participants, it might become difficult to maintain active project ties with all participants (Walter, Levin,

& Murnighan, 2015). This implies that dormant ties are most likely inevitable.

In this exploratory study, it is investigated how network orchestration practices by the lead

organization can be tailored to these alternating environments of tie strength. The network orchestration

framework by Bartelings et al. (2017) might contain practices relevant for fostering participants’

commitment throughout these environments1.

To conclude, based on the theoretical considerations on network participant commitment (section 2.1),

the conceptual model is updated. The model is visualized in Figure 2.

1 Although the focus in this study is on different environments of tie strength (generic, active, and dormant ties),

an additional analysis focused on Granovetter’s (1973) tie strength dimensions in relation to network participant

commitment. This because prior research demonstrates the importance of tie strength dimensions regarding

implications for network collaborations (e.g., Andrésen et al., 2012).


3. Methods

3.1 Research context This study was conducted in the Dutch management consultancy sector. Management consultancy is

one of the sectors in which increasingly is being relied on networks for managing projects (Bakker,

2010; Tyssen et al., 2013; Lundin et al., 2015). With the emergence of a society of networks (Raab &

Kenis, 2009) and project networks (Lundin et al., 2015), the organizational structure of traditional

consultancy firms has evolved into lead organization-governed project networks. Hereby, consultancy

firms function as lead organizations that adapt their organizational capacity to the fluctuating market

demand by making an appeal on abilities of legally independent network participants in temporary

projects (Crespin-Mazet et al., 2017).

Within the scope of this study, network participants were selected from two lead organization-

governed project networks in the public domain of the Dutch management consultancy sector. To

improve understanding of the research context, these project networks are described. The selection and

data collection process are outlined in more detail in section 3.3 and 3.4.

Lead organization-governed project network A

This project network offers professional trainings, workshops, advice, interim management, and project

management in the non-profit sector, in all kinds of policy areas within the local authorities (e.g.,

municipalities). The lead organization was established in 2012, with the aim to contribute to sustainable

changes and improvements in the public domain. The lead organization comprises of one managing

partner and one secretary and is located in the province of North-Brabant. In order to offer the services,

the lead organization collaborates in temporary projects with independent trainers, coaches, and

consultants, originating from a variety of organizations that are distributed throughout the country. The

network participants are active in one of the following domains: civil, public, social, legal, safety,

management and organization, politics and governance, human resource management, or interim

management. The majority of participants originates from a self-proprietorship (i.e., self-employed

person or freelancer). Independent of their legal entity, all concern network participants who represent

an organization in the lead organization-governed project network. The participants are temporarily

called upon by the lead organization. Either in order to mobilize joint abilities, or to deploy their

expertise for a customer, such as delivering a training. The lead organization updates, improves, and

sharpens the versatility of services on a regular basis and is in charge of secretarial and logistical support.


Lead organization-governed project network B

The additional project network approached in phase 2 of the data collection (section 3.4) offers

professional trainings, advice, interim management, coaching, and audits in the project and program

management domain of the non-profit sector. The lead organization is located in the province of Utrecht

and was established in 2011 by the managing partner. Since then, this manager constitutes the one and

only legal representative of the lead organization. In order to offer customized solutions, the lead

organization collaborates in temporary projects with independent trainers and consultants that are

distributed throughout the country. Among these representatives, the majority originates from a self-

proprietorship (i.e., self-employed person or freelancer). Independent of their legal entity, all concern

network participants who represent an organization in the lead organization-governed project network.

All participants work on complex organizational changes.

Derived from the above, participants of network A and B are located in different regions, which is in

line with Lundin et al.’s (2015) notion that lead organization-governed networks “may be more likely

to stretch well beyond regional boundaries” (p. 66).

To conclude, as ties between the lead organization and individual participants are alternating between

active and dormant due to the temporary project nature, challenges in terms of fostering participants’

commitment appear for the lead organization. Moreover, participant commitment is crucial to safeguard

continuity and survival of lead organization-governed project networks (Human & Provan, 2000).

Henceforward, this context is suitable for answering the research question by exploring how

commitment can be created in different environments of tie strength.


3.2 Research Design To develop understanding on how network participant commitment to a lead organization-governed

project network is created, a qualitative cross-sectional research design has been executed, featuring an

exploratory nature. A qualitative approach enables an in-depth investigation into phenomena within the

field of project management, networks, and organization studies (Von Danwitz, 2018). Based on the

current state of the literature (see chapter 1 and 2) that indicates insight is limited on how lead

organizations can foster network participant commitment and what role the alternating environments of

tie strength play in this respect, it was decided to explore experiences of individual network participants

by executing a qualitative cross-sectional design.

The cross-sectional design has been executed with the aid of a qualitative data collection

method. Specifically, qualitative data have been collected at one point in time (i.e., cross-sectional) by

conducting semi-structured interviews with individual network participants. Qualitative research allows

for flexibility to make adaptations on the design as the research proceeds (Mason, 2017), e.g., by

alternating open- and close-ended questions (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). By exploring

patterns and relationships on how participant commitment is created in the qualitative interview data,

the researcher generalized observations in the sample to the wider study population. Therefore, this

study is defined as inductive (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Spector, 2017).

Furthermore, the ‘how’ question is typical to qualitative research (Connolly, 1998) as well as

focusing on obtaining insights into social phenomena in particular contexts (Chowdhury, 2015;

Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006). Both are covered in this study: ‘How does a lead organization create

participant commitment to a project network in an environment of different tie strengths between the

lead organization and the participant?’. The central phenomenon of commitment seems to cohere with

some of Ritchie and Ormston’s (2014) features “that may necessitate the sole use of qualitative inquiry,

at least in the first instance” (p. 37). Specifically, this study touches upon their feature of the intangible

nature of the study subjects of commitment and tie strength, as these are difficult to capture and can

materialize in several ways. Further, the project network comprises of professionals with particular

positions, which requires “exploratory and responsive questioning” (Ritchie & Ormston, 2014, p. 38).

Since this study aims to investigate commitment of network participants represented by

organizations and self-proprietorships (hereafter considered organizations), the unit of analysis is

formed by the individual organization. As each organization in the network is represented by an

individual, these representatives were invited to participate. Therefore, the unit of observation concerns

the organizational representative. For network participants concerning self-proprietorships, the unit of

observation and unit of analysis are identical, as these organizations constitute of one individual only.

In addition, the lead organization’s representative is the unit of observation, since exploratory interviews

were held with the lead manager to develop insight into the context of the project network. Although

the unit of observation is formed by the lead manager and the organizational representative, please note

perceptions of the latter are central in this study on how network participant commitment is created.


3.3 Sample Strategy The study sample was drawn from a population that consisted of organizations participating in a lead

organization-governed project network in the management consultancy sector in the Netherlands. Based

on access to the partner organization’s network, one particular lead organization-governed project

network was used as point of departure for selecting network participants. This project network

consisted of a population of approximately 40 organizations2 that were considered as network

participants of the lead organization-governed project network. Considering the scope of this study, this

number was decreased by using purposive sampling for the selection of organizations.

To facilitate the selection process, several conversations took place between the researcher and

the managing partner of the consultancy firm. The managing partner possesses information on the

history and context of the interorganizational relationships and is familiar with the dynamics in the

network and the consultancy field. As a consequence, and based on theoretical considerations, the

following sampling criteria were applied for the selection of network participants. First, the network

participant is currently connected to the project network governed by the lead organization (i.e.,

consultancy firm) or has been connected to it during at least one of the following years: 2017, 2018 or

2019. Because of the emergent nature of project networks (Bakker, DeFillippi, Schwab, & Sydow,

2016), it is important to include participants who have been connected in an earlier time period to prevent

any underrepresentation of network participants’ perspective. In this way, the researcher also took into

account a potentially smaller pool of network participants as a consequence of Covid-19. Second, in

addition to being participant of the lead organization-governed project network, the participant

represents another organizational entity (e.g., sole proprietorship, an organization, institution, or

association). Hereby, the requirement of autonomous network participants (e.g., Manning, 2017) in

project networks is fulfilled. Finally, the connection between the network participant and the lead

organization comes down to at least one of the following forms: product or service development, project

work on behalf of the lead organization, interorganizational projects with multiple network participants,

or involvement in network-related activities (e.g., meetings). This latter criterium fits the context of the

lead organization-governed project network under study.

After formulating selection criteria, network participants were selected based on exploratory

conversations with the lead manager. Consequently, the initial number of 40 participants was decreased

to 15 participants that fulfilled the selection criteria. This considerable decrement indicates the various

characteristics of participants in the network and signals the presence of dormant ties. Hence, this

decrement entailed a limitation on the study’s validity.

Please note that during the interviews, the researcher considered the selected network

participants as representatives of the relevant experience by zooming in on their overall experience in

lead organization-governed project networks of the Dutch management consultancy sector, as some

2 Please note: this number of organizations has been determined in July 2020 and might change over time due to

the evolving nature of the project network.


appeared to participate in multiple lead organization-governed project networks. This might contribute

to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms between network orchestration and commitment, since

this situation might leverage even more challenges for lead organizations to secure participant

commitment.

After the interviews with 15 participants were finished (Phase 1), the researcher took a moment

to evaluate whether sufficient data was gathered to answer the research question. Accordingly, it was

decided to approach a second lead organization in the management consultancy sector to select

additional participants for the sample. The steps taken in this later phase of the study (Phase 2) are

outlined in more detail in the data collection section.

3.4 Data Collection The data collection process comprised of several steps. After the exploratory conversations on the

selection of network participants, the lead organization approached participants by phone and e-mail

(Appendix 1) to introduce the researcher and the study. The lead organization asked explicitly whether

participants were willing to participate in this study. Selected participants expressed their willingness

toward the lead organization to participate in an interview. Subsequently, after approval for the research

was granted by the Ethics Review Board (RP231), the researcher sent invitations for voluntary

participation to the individual representatives of the selected organizations. Invitations comprised of an

information letter and informed consent form (Appendix 2), containing a description of the study and

interview procedure. Apart from voluntary participation, the letter stressed anonymity, explicitly asked

for permission on audio-recording the interview and explained the data storage procedure. A couple of

days later, the researcher called the respondents for an introductory talk and to schedule the interviews.

Prior to interviewing the network participants (i.e., unit of analysis and observation), the first

interview was held with the lead manager (i.e., unit of observation) with the aim to explore the context

of the project network. An interview guideline was used as a guidance (Appendix 3). Since the

perceptions of individual organizational representatives are the unit of analysis in this study, the

interview with the lead manager did not constitute a focal part of the data analysis.

Individual semi-structured interviews with network participants were conducted in July, August,

and September 2020. To safeguard coherence in the information obtained from respondents, interviews

were conducted with the aid of an interview guideline (Appendix 3). The interview questions have been

reviewed by two assistant professors of Organization Studies, who have substantial experience in the

field of network collaborations and functioning. The semi-structured interview guidelines have guided

the researcher throughout the interviews by covering topics and outlining questions that fit the

definitions of the study concepts. Along this line of ensuring construct validity, the interviews are

expected to deliver the information needed to provide an answer on the research question.

The semi-structured interviewing method is suitable for the research design for the following

reasons. First, it enables the researcher to confine to the central concepts and mechanisms under study,


whilst simultaneously enabling respondents to tell their stories and add more depth to their answers on

questions (Adams, 2015; Rabionet, 2011). Thus, semi-structured interviews allow for flexibility

(Easton, 2012). Flexibility enables the researcher to ask open-ended questions (Adams, 2015) and to

follow up on respondents’ answers as the interview proceeds. This flexibility can be considered crucial

in the qualitative exploration of how participants’ commitment is created. Moreover, the qualitative

interview method is a ”powerful tool to capture the voices and the ways people make meaning of their

experience” (Rabionet, 2011, p. 563).

Phase 1: Lead organization-governed project network A

Individual interviews were conducted with fifteen network participants, originating from fifteen

different organizations in the Netherlands. Initially, sixteen organizational representatives (i.e., network

participants) were invited, of which 15 actually participated in a semi-structured interview.

After the introduction, the interview started with the question: “What is the origin of the

collaboration between your organization and the lead organization? How did this collaboration come

about over time?”. The guideline contained sub-questions of which the interviewer decided whether it

was necessary to ask, depending on the answers provided by the interviewee. Further, the question was

asked: “What actions do you consider effective to foster your commitment to the lead organization-

governed project network?“. Additionally, to shed light on the comparative angle of active and dormant

ties (i.e., to assess the different environments of tie strength) between the lead organization and the

network participant, the following questions were asked: “If the relationship between you and the lead

organization becomes a bit distant (i.e., dormant tie; when not participating in any project of the

network). What actions could contribute to securing your commitment to the lead organization-governed

project network?”. The same type of question was asked for when the relationship becomes active (i.e.,

active tie; actual participation in a project of the network). To assess tie strength dimensions, existing

scales (e.g., Granovetter, 1973) were used to develop questions on the relationship history, the type, and

reciprocal services characterizing the relationship between the network participant and the lead

organization. Finally, to probe for experiences and additional factors influencing commitment,

respondents were asked to reflect on a fictional, potential future scenario (see Appendix 4).

After completion of the fifteenth interview with network participants originating from lead

organization-governed project network A, the researcher created a moment of evaluation to consider

whether the data collected so far contained a common thread for answering the research question. In an

exploratory study, it is attempted to “maximize the opportunities for developing hypotheses or theories

that explain the social phenomenon at stake” (Bleijenbergh, 2010, p. 61). Accordingly, with the aim to

gain a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms and to improve the study’s validity, it was

decided to contact an additional lead organization-governed project network.


Phase 2: Lead organization-governed project network B

Through researching the Internet on lead organization-governed project networks, the researcher

discovered a potential suitable context. A personal LinkedIn-message was sent to the lead manager with

the aim to become acquainted. Consequently, an interview was scheduled with the lead manager to

explore the context. Just as is the case in network A, it became clear that network B comprises of thirteen

individual network participants, originating from different organizations. Since the project network and

participants fulfilled the selection criteria, and the lead manager was willing to provide partial access to

the network, invitation letters were sent to five network participants. Among the five participants invited,

three responded and were willing to participate in the study. As a result, three additional interviews were

scheduled in September.

In total, 18 network participants participated in an interview. After the eighteenth interview, the

researcher was able to identify a common thread throughout the interviews. Correspondingly, it was

decided to withhold from sending any further invitations to network participants.

3

3 As displayed in Table 3, out of the 18 participants in total, 14 concern sole proprietorships. Hence, Table 3 may

improve readers’ understanding of the research context, which can be helpful for interpretation of the results.

Table 3


Expert interviews

To gain a deeper understanding on the results, two expert interviews were conducted after the data

analysis was finished. First, with an experienced business coach in project networks within the

management consultancy sector. Second, with PhD student from Tilburg University, who is an expert

in the field of solo self-employment. The results were presented and discussed in order to reflect on the

interpretation, comparability, and generalizability of the findings in practice. Expert interviews were

used to compensate for the limited external validity of this study by making use of the knowledge and

background of these experienced, acknowledged experts. The main findings were incorporated in a

presentation prepared as guidance for the interviews. The interview guideline and presentation are

provided in Appendix 5.

In total, 22 individual interviews have been conducted (Table 4), lasting between 60 and 90 minutes.

Due to the Covid-19 crisis, 18 interviews were conducted digitally, and 4 in a private gathering room at

a location of the participant’s choice. If the location enabled to follow-up on the governmental measures,

the researcher offered participants the opportunity to meet in person for conducting the interviews.

Table 4

Data collection overview


3.5 Data Analysis Qualitative data analysis is a process of interpreting collected data in order to comprehend and describe

how respondents give meaning to the social phenomenon under study (Boeije, 2009; Gibbs, 2002, as

cited in Chowdhury, 2015). Data analysis was alternated with data collection, making it an iterative

process (e.g., Morgan & Nica, 2020) that aided the researcher to compare interview data, and to adjust

the analysis as the research proceeded. As respondents provided permission for audio-recording the

interviews by signing the informed consent form, the researcher was able to transcribe all interviews

accurately. In accordance with the European data protection law and data management procedures of

the Ethics Review Board of Tilburg University’s school of Social and Behavioral Sciences, all data are

anonymized and stored in a secured private Surf Drive folder. Data can be made available in consultation

with the researcher.

The inductive data analysis strategy (Thomas, 2003) was used to analyze the data. First, the

researcher familiarized with the data by carefully reading the interviews. Thereafter, the interviews were

coded by using ATLAS.ti, a qualitative software program. Coding was applied with the aid of first and

second cycle coding methods (e.g., Saldaña, 2013). To start, first cycle coding was performed – an open

coding approach used to identify concepts, themes, and characteristics in the data (Saldaña, 2013). Open

coding concerns a process of inspecting data with the aim to develop open codes (Bryant & Charmaz,

2010). The transcripts were interpreted word for word in order to formulate open codes that could be

deployed to words, sentences, or entire paragraphs capturing respondents’ views. This resulted in 125

open codes, forming the basis of the coding framework. Codes identified in the open coding step are

specific dimensions of network orchestration, commitment, and tie strength in the language of

respondents. Example codes are: ‘experienced support’, ‘affection’, and ‘personal contact’. To improve

the coding, a randomly selected transcript was reviewed by a professional who assigned open codes,

independent from the researcher. The researcher evaluated the coding by reviewing this transcript.

Following, second cycle coding – axial coding – was used to review and sort open codes into

categories that reflect dimensions of the central study concepts, and to explore “how the categories and

subcategories relate to each other” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 209). Based on definitions and existing scales of

the study concepts, the researcher was able to construct code groups where open codes were assigned

to. Codes with overlapping themes were linked and merged to decrease redundancy (Rich, 2013). An

example is the categorization of ‘signaling new opportunities’ and ‘acquisition’ into axial code

‘networking’, to reflect one of the network orchestration dimensions by the lead organization. This axial

code was inspired by Bartelings et al. (2017) definition of networking. Thus, axial coding represented a

transitional step between the open and theoretical coding process (Saldaña, 2013).

Finally, selective coding (i.e., theoretical coding) was applied by relating codes to study

concepts, which in turn were aggregated to overarching dimensions and relationships between concepts

(Saldaña, 2013). Some examples are outlined. With the aid of existing scales on commitment (Bruning

et al., 2018; Meyer & Allen, 1997), the categories ‘affection’, ‘sense of belonging’, and ‘identifying


with the network’ were aggregated into selective code: ‘affective commitment’. In addition,

‘networking’ and ‘commitment’ were integrated to: ‘networking in relation to commitment’. The coding

scheme is displayed in Appendix 7.

In sum, a distinction was made between codes covering (a) study concepts, (b) interpretation of

concepts, (c) relations between concepts, and (d) underlying mechanisms. The thematic analysis

approach (Spencer, Ritchie, Ormston, O’Connor, & Barnard, 2014) was adopted to carefully analyze

the data on the different environments of tie strength. A thematic framework was developed to

systematically capture practices by the lead organization that are relevant for commitment in times of

active and dormant ties (see Appendix 6). This generic method (Ryan & Bernard, 2000) was useful to

differentiate between tie management categories, and ultimate aided in answering the research question

(Spencer et al., 2014). The steps applied in the data collection and analysis process are visualized in

Appendix 7.


4. Results

In this section, the results are presented based on the qualitative data analysis of 18 interviews with

network participants. First, the role of tie strength is elaborated on. Thereafter, network participant

commitment is defined. From section 4.3 onwards, the results on network orchestration practices in

relation to commitment are presented. Interview quotes are presented to reinforce the results, whereby

anonymity is guaranteed. Lastly, the results of an additional analysis and the expert views are discussed.

4.1 The role of Tie strength As outlined in the theoretical argument, although a number of tie strength dimensions exist (Granovetter,

1973), the focus in this study is on the distinction between the environments of tie strength: active and

dormant ties. The concept of tie strength is integrated in the presentation of the results on network

orchestration in relation to commitment by making a distinction between (1) what practices were

identified to be perceived as influencing commitment in general (applying to both dormant and active

ties, i.e., generic tie management), (2) what practices were identified as specifically relevant at times of

actual participation in a project (active tie management), and (3) at times of no participation, i.e., without

a project (dormant tie management). The following quote illustrates the alternating nature of active and

dormant ties as a result of the temporary nature of projects in the network: “A kind of swarm as you see

with birds. You get together at the moment you need each other and want to make use of each other’s

expertise. Then you all go your own way again. The other time, you get together again at a different

moment, maybe with some other birds, and you create something beautiful again”4.

Table 6 illustrates the role of tie strength in this study. Assuming the power of repetition, this illustration

will be shown again in the introduction of the results on generic, active, and dormant tie management.

4 Please note: all quotes have been translated by the researcher from Dutch to English. Appendix 8 provides an

overview.


4.2 Network participant commitment

4.2.1 Defining commitment This section displays the results with regard to the phenomenon central in this study: network participant

commitment, hereafter shortly referred to as commitment. Since the aim of this exploratory study is to

unravel how the relationship between network orchestration and commitment works, this qualitative

study focuses on identifying potential underlying mechanisms rather than comparing potential effects

of practices on specific types of commitment. Therefore, this study primarily focuses on commitment

in general. Nevertheless, all interviews were screened for indicators of the commitment types. Therefore,

to nuance insights on the relationships, the results elaborate on the types of commitment to the lead

organization-governed project network5: (1) normative, (2) affective, and (3) continuance commitment.

At the end of this section, Table 7 summarizes the indicators of the commitment findings outlined below.

Normative commitment

A sense of moral obligation to commit to their profession by participating in the lead-governed network

was indicated to demonstrate participants’ commitment: “I also think it is a fantastic profession and you

also would like to help that profession further and give a next generation a chance in that profession

too. So, then I think it is kind of almost your moral duty to contribute to that”. Related to this, a perceived

responsibility to meet agreements or explicit expectations were referred to as a manifestation of

commitment: “If I made myself available, I will come too. I mean, there can be all kinds of circumstances

– there is no judgment about that – but there are quite a few colleagues who say: ‘Yeah, sorry’, a month

or a few weeks in advance, ‘I cannot do it because…’”. Further, the majority of respondents indicated

that their commitment is represented by a perceived loyalty toward the lead organization: “My personal

loyalty to such a company. Well, it doesn't get me to look somewhere else very quickly”. Next to an

expression of normative commitment, quotes such as these that indirectly refer to retention perceptions

were identified as a common thread throughout the interviews. Due to the personal factor in the

relationship with the lead organization, respondents indicated to feel a sense of loyalty to the lead

manager.

5 To increase readability, hereafter referred to as ‘lead-governed network’.


Affective commitment

A recurring pattern in the data is that connecting a potential customer to the lead organization is

considered a demonstration of commitment, based on perceived affection of the participant toward the

lead organization: “When I get the question, I always connect [the customer] with [lead organization

A], because the mutual contact is very good”. This quote shows indicators of affective commitment.

Another recurring theme was the ‘likeability factor’ held by participants toward the lead organization,

illustrated by another respondent: “That [commitment] has to do with the likeability factor, so to speak.

[Lead manager A] or people with whom I have good contact, I simply grant them more in comparison

to an anonymous agency where I do not know anyone, for instance”. By the same token, commitment

is defined as an act of granting each other (business) opportunities. Another respondent illustrated what

this can entail in practice: “In my view, it [commitment] is seeing opportunities from both sides, and in

doing so looking for each other, and adjusting accordingly”.

Furthermore, the majority of network A considers affective commitment as emotional

attachment to the lead-governed network by indicating to feel part of a collective: “It [commitment] is

also a kind of family feeling which you can pick up when you are looking for it. It is like coming home”.

Another respondent argued likewise: “It is also nice to be connected to something with others. Because,

if you have your own agency, you are just on your own of course. So, those networks also give you

something. At least, you hear about or are a bit involved in certain matters”. Whereas, respondents from

network B expressed affective commitment to a large extent by their willingness to identify with the

legitimacy of the lead organization, e.g.,: “[Lead manager B] has a big name in that field of project

management of course, and I have pledged my heart on it. And I think it is just – honor is a bit of a big

word – but I really like being on [the lead manager’s] website”.

Moreover, intrinsic motivation is important for commitment since it was mentioned as an

integral part of it. A respondent from network B stated: “The commitment – and above all, I would call

it ‘intrinsic motivation’ – is because it is a nice project, or a challenging project, and because you

collaborate with great people”. Respondents from both networks implicitly indicate that their colleague

participants in the network also show signals of affective commitment: “It [network participants] are

intrinsically motivated people, who would like to develop their profession. Either by teaching or by

making an administrative effort for a trade union. And you notice that too. You meet these people

everywhere again”. Concluding, the examples outlined above refer to commitment based on affect

toward the lead organization and the collective entity of the project network.


Continuance commitment

Indicators referring to the notion of ‘what is in it for me?’ to participate in the lead-governed network

were mentioned by all respondents, either explicitly or implicitly. A respondent from network A stated:

“It [commitment] is often about: what’s in it for me? You must benefit from it [participation] somehow,

to be part of it”. Likewise, a respondent from network B indicated perceived benefits are decisive for

commitment: “At [lead organization B], I just earn my money and I do not really put time in it. And with

those other [network] clubs, I put in tons of time. Well, whether it is going to pay off, that is the question”.

Thus, continuance commitment concerns a rational consideration to attach oneself to and participate in

the lead-governed network. Indicators of continuance commitment came forward in the form of making

a deliberate choice whether or not to commit to the project network by weighing costs and benefits of

participation. This commitment type can be mainly illustrated by the following consideration of a

respondent in network A: “If I have the time and opportunity, I will do it [participation]. And then, that

yields new experiences for me, but also the money”. Furthermore, continuance commitment came to the

fore by indicating considerations on how to approach the decision-making process once confronted with

more than one project opportunity, originating from multiple (lead-governed) networks. Multiple factors

seem to be part of the cost-benefit estimation, which ultimately triggers participants to commit to one

of the project networks. Instrumental thinking is predominantly present here: “I think such a [lead

organization] is just a broker of knowledge that I have. And that is also the way [lead manager A] looks

at it. So, I get what I want out of the collaboration”.

Simultaneous expressions of normative, affective and continuance commitment

For illustration purposes of how commitment types are identified concomitantly, some examples are

provided. First, identification with the lead-governed network (affective commitment) can coincide with

a perceived responsibility to do so (normative commitment) in order to represent the network as good

as possible: “Despite the fact that I am myself and that I work for [my own organization], I am teaching

there on behalf of [lead organization A]. And yes, you do try to represent that organization as good as

possible”. Likewise: “I think it is a form of loyalty to use my LinkedIn to communicate that I work with

[lead organization A], and that it is a good company too”. Second, within cost-benefit considerations,

next to continuance, indicators of affective and normative commitment arise too, meaning multiple types

of commitment are identified in tandem: “You are happy that you share the vision. It is from there, that

the collaboration comes about. But I do not want to make much more of it. It is just: [lead organization

A] is the broker. I have the knowledge. There is just mutual appreciation and a high likeability factor

that I have”. Another respondent from network A stated: “When it [the collaboration] is going to cost

money, we do not like it anymore. It does not even have to generate a lot of money. We just stay logged

in. Every year, we consider whether we will continue to work together like this. That’s it. Whether there

is Corona or not, or whatsoever, we are loyal to each other”. The two previous quotes contain indicators

of affective and continuance, and normative and continuance commitment, respectively.


Table 7.

Results on network participant commitment


4.3 Network orchestration by the lead organization in relation to participant commitment In this section, orchestration practices and corresponding mechanisms are central. Separate subsections

are dedicated to present the results on generic, active, and dormant tie management in relation to

commitment. To optimize the structure and for reasons of parsimony, practices (in italics) are grouped

into categories. Quotes contain practices of the category in more detail.

4.3.1 Generic tie management Five orchestration categories are identified with regard to generic tie management: autonomy- and

integration-enhancing practices, interpersonal practices, networking, and stabilizing.

In the investigation of the relationship between network orchestration and commitment, it became clear

that some participants experience situations in which their need for autonomy versus integration in the

network are potentially conflicting. In practice, this tension seems to represent some reference point of

situations lead organizations have to deal with in orchestrating the network, often related to commitment

in a direct or indirect sense. The findings on this autonomy-integration tension experienced by some

respondents are outlined to shed light on the context of network orchestration in lead-governed

networks. Hence, the following paragraph forms a starting-point of the findings on autonomy- and

integration-enhancing practices.

Table 8

Illustration role of tie strength


Autonomy versus Integration

Although autonomy is desired and typical to network participants’ legally independent identity on the

one hand, the need for integration in and relatedness to a collective entity was also referred to on the

other hand: “It also gives a sense of belonging when you work for an agency, which you do not have

when you work on your own. (…) That is what I feel when working on my own: it is lonely sometimes.

If I work for [lead organization A], it is not lonely as I have all sorts of contacts”. On the contrary, lead

organizations’ expectations on integration of participants into the collective can conflict with

participants’ striving for autonomy, illustrated by a respondent from network B: “You were supposed to

participate in the way they work at [lead organization]. Every Friday, you were supposed to come to

the office. And once a month they have a Friday afternoon session (…). You were also supposed to

participate in that, while there was no concrete project assignment for me yet. So, actually that did not

work, because you do not have an income stream to compensate for that”.

Further, a tension between the needs for autonomy and integration seems to unfold in situations

where the boundary between the business of a participant’s own organization and that of the lead-

governed network feels ambiguous: “I sometimes find it complicated how the construction [my

organization and lead organization] together, and [lead organization] and [my organization] as

separate entities. How that construction [works]… There is an overlap”. This was illustrated by a

situation in which a customer approaches a participant directly, requesting for an assignment the

participant performed on behalf of the lead-governed network before: “Then, it gets a bit complicated

sometimes, because then I think: Yeah, wait a minute. That is the same [project], but that is my very

own customer”. The following quote of a respondent from network B summarizes the tension and

indicates how certain characteristics of project networks, such as prevailing interdependencies, may give

rise to a perceived tension between autonomy and integration: “This type of organization is very much

about the game of freedom and bondage. On the one hand, you are free, because yes, you are

independent so there is no one who can give you commands. And on the other hand, you are very

dependent on each other”. Related to this tension, autonomy- and integration-enhancing practices

executed by the lead organization were identified in relation to commitment.

Autonomy-enhancing practices

First, autonomy-enhancing practices are identified as enablers of commitment and are represented by

flexibility of the lead organization. Flexibility captures practices in the sphere of ‘freedom’, ‘easiness’,

and ‘adaptability’. Stimulating freedom in the decision whether or not to commit to a project: “I have

the freedom to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [to a project]”, was indicated by the majority in network A and B as

reason for committing to lead-governed networks in general. The flexible way of acting by lead

managers is regarded positive for commitment, since it fits participants’ need for autonomy: “For me, I

really think that [an action that contributes to commitment] is the flexibility. (…) That is very much what

[lead manager A] believes in, too. So, I think that is the most important reason for me to collaborate”.


Another respondent elaborated on a situation in which an appeal was made on the flexibility of the lead

manager to fulfill the need for autonomy: “That was a really tough [project], part of which I did myself

and part of which was done by [lead organization A]. You will never hear [lead manager] about that.

That just goes very easy. (…) I can just have a lot of influence on that”. Moreover, flexibility executed

by the lead organization in response to the autonomy-integration tension is determining how

commitment is influenced. A respondent illustrates this finding: “[Lead organization A] brought me

into contact with that [customer]. [Lead manager A] said: ‘You can do it on your own title’”. This quote

illustrates the lead manager was approached by a customer who specifically asked for the respondent’s

expertise. The flexible response by the lead manager was indicated to positively influence trust: “That

[way of responding] is for me trust in [lead manager A], in them as [lead organization A], as a

collaborative partner”. Another respondent of network A stated: “Since we have so much trust in each

other and know each other so well in that respect, it will always be fine for us [how we take care of a

customer who asks for my expertise]”.

Further, the theme ‘non-exclusivity’ is found as antecedent of commitment, whereas

‘exclusivity’ is found to have a negative influence on commitment. When lead organizations expect

participants to be exclusively attached to their network, and not to any other project network in the field,

the need for autonomy is unsatisfied (i.e., autonomy-integration tension), and commitment diminishes:

“There are other [lead organizations] who really want their teachers to be exclusive, and who are thus

really pinned down to it. However, [lead manager A] does not have that at all. [He/She] just selects the

right person for the project at hand. It really does not matter whether that person also teaches for others

[lead organizations]”. Concluding, giving trust by acting flexible and enabling a shifting between

multiple networks (i.e., fulfill need for autonomy) fosters participants’ willingness to identify with the

lead-governed network, pointing to affective commitment.

Figure 3. Partial findings on generic tie management

Affective

commitment

Underlying mechanisms

Trust

Flexibility

Non-Exclusivity

Autonomy-enhancing

practices

Need for autonomy

Lead organization

Network participant


Integration-enhancing practices

Second, integration-enhancing practices by the lead organization are centered on facilitation of

connection and fostering the collective network entity. To start, organizing network meetings were

frequently mentioned to have a positive influence on commitment. By this initiative, the lead

organization puts effort in relationships with participants individually, facilitates contact between them,

and attempts to increase social bonding. Network meetings are generally considered an instrument to (1)

secure participant commitment to the lead organization, and (2) create participant commitment to the

wider network. Hence, the lead organization functions as a ‘bridge’ between participants. Alongside,

bridging by itself is a practice indicated to foster commitment by fulfilling the need for belonging.

In particular, network meetings are found as best practice among the integration-enhancing

practices, since almost all respondents regard this to positively influence their commitment: “I think

days like these [network meetings] very much help to get a personal sense of belonging. And I think that

is very important. I think so myself. I work as a self-employed person, but I have the feeling that I work

with [lead manager A], you know”. Most argued this initiative is good for social bonding within the

network, pointing to affective commitment. Furthermore, these meetings are perceived as strategic

opportunity to expand participants’ personal network by getting to know other participants, or as

opportunity to learn from each other, indicating continuance commitment. According to the majority,

the meetings create a positive internal network image, since they are perceived as investment in

participants by the lead organization: “It [network meeting] is also a gift from [lead organization A] to

us, and I really appreciate that”. This potentially translates into an obligation to give something in

return, i.e., (normative) commitment. Some who did not experience a network meeting yet, indicated it

would foster commitment: “That [knowledge meetings] would also help [in securing my commitment].

Which makes you see that the other person wants to invest in you as well. (…) That you think: ‘Oh, he

does that for me. Then I do something in return.’ You know, that is the way it goes, isn’t it? Of course,

this is on a subconscious level, but if you offer something to me, then I already owe you, so to speak. On

a subconscious level”. As a consequence of the offered meeting by the lead organization, the norm of

reciprocity seems present. Thus, indicating a social reciprocity mechanism between network meetings

and continuance and normative commitment.

Affective

commitment


Social reciprocityNetwork meetings

Bridging

Integration-enhancing

practices

Need for belonging

Continuance

commitment

Normative

commitment

Lead organization Network participant



Interpersonal practices

Third, to the question: “What actions have contributed to securing your commitment to the collaboration

with the lead organization?”, respondents indicated trust is important for the effectiveness of lead-

governed networks. This is illustrated by quotes from five different respondents: “You organize a

network on the basis of trust”, “We work on the basis of trust”, “We have a very simple agreement: we

assume trust”, “That is the beauty of such a collaboration: based on trust”, “It [network collaborations]

is all about trust. Trust, trust, trust. And [lead manager A] gives trust. Well, I think [he/she] does that

perfectly”. Explicitly, 15 out of 18 respondents regard trust as fundamental network principle.

In an attempt to unravel how lead organizations give trust, follow-up questions were posed. It

was indicated trust is given by means of openness, transparency, and honesty of the lead manager: “Just

being open and honest with each other. Not having the idea that there might be a second, hidden

agenda”. The respondent continues: “That you can also just discuss some confidential matters with each

other”. It was indicated that by being open, one can build up trust in relationships. Openness also comes

forward by lead managers’ willingness to share and exchange resources for the benefit of customer

demands: “[Lead manager B] shares a lot and that gives me a great deal of trust in [him/her]”.

Altogether, interpersonal practices of openness, transparency and honesty are indicated to

influence commitment: “That [what makes me committed] are three words: openness, transparency,

and honesty. That is what I appreciate. And then, I do not mean I appreciate it about [the lead

organization], but about the person [lead manager A] I am dealing with”. When transparency or

honesty is lacking from the lead manager, it was stated to negatively influence commitment: “At one

point, I also used that [lack of transparency and honesty] as an argument to say: ‘I am quitting, because

you [lead manager] are selling something I cannot deliver. You tell the [customer] the wrong story, and

I face the problems’”. Further, concerning future intentions on the collaboration, openness and honesty

were indicated to foster commitment: “Just continue to work on the current basis and communicate

open and honestly. Actually, that is the communality we have when it comes to interpreting the concept

of ‘trust’ towards each other. To honor that”.

Affective

commitment


Openness

Transparency


Trust

Honesty

Social reciprocity

Lead organization

Network participant



Networking

Fourth, networking by the lead organization is found to increase participants’ chances for new business

and projects in the lead-governed network. Networking is defined as the interaction of the lead manager

with the existing network of participants and customers, as well as the development of professional and

customer relationships. Acquisition is considered to form a precondition for commitment: “With such a

network organization, it is of course nice that the acquisition is done, because then you are a little less

busy with that yourself. That is why network organizations are very important to me”. This quote

illustrates the finding on commitment based on instrumental cost-benefit considerations (continuance

commitment) through the need for integration. To achieve acquisition, market developments are

monitored and screened for new opportunities by the lead organization. A frequently mentioned practice

coinciding with acquisition is selection of participants for projects: “If [lead organization A] needs

someone for a particular project or training, and they think I am suitable for it, they approach me”. It

was indicated that lead managers engage in conversations with potential customers to clarify the demand

and, consequently, select and connect the customer to participants: “[Lead manager A says to a potential

customer] like: ‘I can send one of my colleagues to continue talking to you about it?’ Well, that is how

we get in [at the customer]”. Thus, acquisition and selection by the lead organization involves attempts

of tapping into participants’ knowledge, skills and abilities, and mobilizing them to commit. Further,

attention to and investment in participants by acquisition and selection seems to influence commitment

in a way that participants would do something in return by giving commitment to the lead-governed

network. Hence, social reciprocity appeared as underlying mechanism in this relationship. The above

consideration concerns an obligatory motive to be attached (commit), indicating normative commitment.

Projects initiated by the lead organization were indicated by some to play an important role in

securing business continuity. In this context, regular provision of opportunities to participate in projects

may positively contribute to participants’ commitment. In other words, networking by the lead

organization could induce perceptions of stability, which in turn can create continuance commitment, as

illustrated: “The first year I had quite a few projects that came from my own network, which I did on

behalf of [my own organization]. But this year, yeah, that is when it changed. Anyway, [lead manager

B] keeps on generating work. So now [he/she] is very helpful to me. This year anyway. To still have an

income flowing from [him/her]”.

However, some realize networking is also something they should or could do (more) themselves.

Some indicated to do so by signaling customer demands in their professional and social networks that

might translate into projects for the lead-governed network: “As I have been in the field for years, I also

have regular contact with many [customers]. And then sometimes you hear something which is a signal

for us to pass on to – for instance – [lead organization A]. Like: ‘You should get in touch with that

[customer], because I have heard that they are interested.’ So, you really need each other throughout


the network”. Referring potential customers to a lead organization signals a belief in and willingness to

identify with the lead-governed network, which is considered affective commitment6.

Stabilizing

Finally, stabilizing points to the importance of (a) allocating tasks and responsibilities to participants in

the network, and (b) making agreements; in order to provide clarity, manage expectations and prevent

perceptions of uncertainty. Allocation concerns the division of tasks and responsibilities among network

participants in active and dormant ties. This is indicated to foster continuance commitment by providing

stability on what participants’ role is in the network and project. E.g.,: ”[Lead manager A] often says:

‘join the conversations [with other participants]’, you know. ‘Just listen to it.’ After all, if something

needs to be taken care of, it can also be handed over more easily because of this”.

Besides, a necessary aspect for securing commitment is that agreements are made and acted

upon by the lead organization: “As long as I have the feeling that agreements are met by [lead

organization A], I also have, so to speak, more loyalty towards [lead organization A] than to those other

[lead organizations]”. Another respondent stated: “[Making agreements], so you know what you are

working on together. And there is that role of trust again. (…) When that [trust] is gone, we won’t work

together anymore”. Accordingly, the practice making agreements is indicated to positively influence

normative (loyalty) and affective commitment (identify with) via stability and trust, respectively.

6 Not incorporated in Figure 7 because this finding relates to acquisition by network participants, whereas the

Figure captures practices executed by the lead organization.

Normative

commitment


Acquisition

Selection

Networking

Perceived stability

Social reciprocity Continuance

commitment

Need for integration





Affective

commitment


Perceived stability

Allocation

Making agreements

Stabilizing

Trust


Normative

commitment

Continuance

commitment


StabilizingPerceived stability

Making agreements

Social reciprocity

Network

participant

Underlying mechanismsNetworking

Trust

Autonomy-enhancing

practices


practices

Need for belonging

Interpersonal

practices

Acquisition

Selection

Allocation

Network meetings

Bridging

Flexibility

Non-Exclusivity

Openness

Transparency

Honesty

Affective

commitment

Continuance

commitment


Social reciprocity

Need for autonomy

Normative

commitment

Lead organization

Network participant

Figure 8. Generic tie management overview


4.3.2 Active tie management Three orchestration categories are identified as specifically relevant for fostering commitment in active

ties: managerial support, autonomy-enhancing and integration-enhancing practices.

Managerial support

Respondents of network A and B indicate the lead organization takes on a supportive role during the

execution of projects. This role manifests in operational support, feedback, and recognition.

First of all, operational support encompasses the execution of administrative work in

preparation of and during projects. As a respondent from network A puts it: “The moment the

relationship increases in intensity, it is often about planning-related stuff. And then [the secretary]

comes around the corner, from the office. Then [he/she] starts scheduling, and so you also have a lot

more e-mail contact. Plus, much more mutual coordination takes place”. All respondents illustrated

supportive practices that can be accommodated to operational support: “You can put it this way: the

back office is actually taken care of by [lead organization A]. Thus, the one who prepares the invoice,

and who has to book and check the invoice. The materials that need to be prepared for a project”. This

relieves participants in the execution of the project. Hereby spared time is desirable for working on

participants’ own organization and/or in other project networks. Operational support by the lead

organization is also reflected by functioning as primary contact person toward customers: “When a

customer has a question or remarks to [lead manager A]. Well, then [lead manager A] will contact me

again. Thus, at the moment projects are in progress or training sessions are given, we do have more

intensive contact”. Operational support seems to positively influence commitment: “I love it when the

organization lies at such [a lead organization]. That all materials are there when I arrive, that a room

has been arranged, and that I can spar with someone”.

The latter quote points to the opportunity for feedback as second practice concerning managerial

support. In practice, throughout the execution of projects, feedback appears in the form of a sparring

partner or mentor by the lead organization. A respondent indicated: “That is what you actually discuss

with [lead organization A] and [lead organization X], and the others too. For example: How do we

Table 9



approach that? What exactly is the customer demand?”. Lead managers’ advisory role as sparring

partner was frequently mentioned as answer to the question what participants drive to commit to the

lead-governed network, e.g.,: “I can spar with [lead manager B] once in a while. So, if – for example –

I am busy with that customer without [lead manager B] being involved, I can take a moment from time

to time: ‘Take a look at this. I intend to do this and this.’ And then we can just spar for a while. I always

find that pleasant”. So, by providing operational support and (mutual) feedback opportunities during

projects, commitment is fostered by fulfilling a need for integration in the network.

Additionally, the convenience by which a lead organization is accessible contributes to

perceived opportunities for feedback: “You can always call [lead manager A], whenever there is a

problem, or if you really would like to know something”. However, it was indicated by respondents from

both networks that availability for consultation differs over time. Sometimes because of busy schedules,

accessibility of lead organizations is reduced, meaning questions about an ongoing project are answered

at a later point in time. Nevertheless, respondents showed high understanding on this and indicated it

does not negatively influence their commitment.

Third, recognition by the lead organization toward participants is considered supportive: “You

always feel flattered when you are specially asked for – especially for such a project”. Perceived mutual

appreciation is referred to play a role in fostering commitment: “In any case, the mutual appreciation

between my contact person at [lead organization A] – between [lead manager A] and me – [contributes

to my preference for and commitment to the lead-governed network]”. Moreover, recognition forms an

integral part of cost-benefit considerations to commit (continuance commitment) to a particular network:

“Actually two important things [that contribute to my commitment]. The contact and how you are

treated. (…) The piece of honor, so to speak. And yes, [the honor] is higher at one [lead organization]

than at the other. So, then the choice becomes easier, I think”.

Underlying mechanism

Operational support

Feedback

Recognition

Managerial support

Affective

commitment


Continuance

commitment


Figure 9. Partial findings on active tie management


Autonomy-enhancing practices

In active ties, autonomy-enhancing practices are regarded to foster commitment by means of

empowerment. Empowerment indicates how the lead organization makes participants feel empowered

by providing opportunities to exert influence in projects: “You know that you are not considered an

appendage [by lead organization A], but that you actually have an influence on the whole process [of

the project]”. The respondent continues: “Personal fulfillment, customization [of projects], is very

important to achieve mutual commitment on certain matters”. The customized approach by the lead

organization is identified as enabling factor of empowerment: “The [customer] also has real control

over how they want it [the assignment] to be arranged”. Thereby enabling participants to contribute

based on their autonomous expertise: “That you go along [with the lead organization] as an expert [to

a potential customer] to really customize the assignment they would like to give. So, that piece of

personal customization [empowerment] is important then [for creating my commitment]”.

Furthermore, lead managers provide partial autonomy on how projects are executed by

participants, which is indicated to positively influence affective commitment by fulfilling the need for

autonomy: “[Lead manager A] lets you free, and also says: ‘how much time do you think you will need

for that?’ So, that works very fine”. Another respondent argued: “That [autonomy] is also why I once

became a self-employed person. I must have the room to make my own decisions”. Demonstrating trust

in participants by empowerment was cited several times in a way indicating a potential underlying

mechanism of trust in relation to commitment: “[Lead manager A] gives them the feeling and confidence

that they are contributing and have something to say. And I think people appreciate that more than: ‘I

pay you, so I decide’”. Likewise: “Trust is simply given [by lead manager B] in the sense of: ‘You can

do that. You are going to do that.’ And I can do it the way I think is good. And of course, for certain

customers or in certain situations, we have pre-consultations. (…) In fact, I can operate very

independently, autonomously”.

Although empowerment seems to relate to commitment via trust and fulfilling participants’ need

for autonomy, a downside for the network’s legitimacy might appear if a lot of freedom is given by the

lead organization on how participants approach customers and/or projects on behalf of the network: “If

[lead manager B] messes it up [at a customer], or I [as network participant] mess it up, it radiates to

everyone [in the network]. Or when I tell a completely different story, and one month later a colleague

comes in and tells diametrically the opposite, that is weird too of course”. This indicates that when a

lead-governed network is predominantly managed towards autonomy, an imbalance between autonomy

and integration of participants might appear. When participant integration in the network is insufficient,

the way customers are approached by the lead organization and participants, might be inconsistent.

Hence, this can diminish commitment: “I have come there [at a customer] a couple of times to ‘pick up

the pieces’. I will no longer do that. (…) The [lead organization] promised [the customer] a lot and did

not keep its promises. There is nothing I can do about that. I cannot vouch for the [lead organization]”.

This implicitly stresses the need for stabilizing (see section 4.3.1) and integration-enhancing practices.


Integration-enhancing practices

Third, respondents indicate the lead organization takes on an integrative role between stakeholders

during the execution of projects and facilitates information exchange. This is captured by the practice

of transferring knowledge.

As referred to in the generic tie section, the majority indicates lead managers form the linking

pin (i.e., bridge) between network participants. In active ties, the transfer of knowledge and information

between participants is regarded very positive for network effectiveness: “[Lead manager A] can easily

transfer things. [He/She] interacts even more with – for example – [participant X] and [Y] than I do.

And then, [he/she] always communicates that back to me”. Another respondent argued: “That [project]

is just a nice product of people who are working on the same things. And that is connected by – in this

case – [lead manager A]. (…). We were all working on a piece of it, and [lead manager A] actually

brought it together”. Likewise, in network B: “I have had contact with [participant Z] once, at [lead

manager B’s] request. We had a Zoom meeting with the three of us. But that had purely to do with: let’s

see – with the three of us – how a specific tool works digitally. (…) So, that was very nice and also

pleasant”. In this way, the lead organization stimulates mutual knowledge exchange and facilitates

tapping into each other’s expertise.

Related to the above, being informed on developments in projects is regarded important.

Especially, transferring knowledge is considered to contribute to commitment, illustrated by a

respondent from network A: “Just like project [X]. All sorts of things are happening around there, also

things that are going past me. I would like to be informed about that. Eventually I will be, but I want to

be informed up-to-the-minute”. Respondents shared ideas on how transferring knowledge between

participants in active ties can be facilitated by lead organizations, which might foster commitment via

enhanced quality of projects.

A respondent from network A advocates for a digital transfer system:

“I can imagine that if [participant X] and [Y] give a training together, and [X] has given two

day sessions, that [X] can put somewhere in the system: (…) Important things that might be

useful to know on day three for [participant Y]. (…) I believe that if [participant X] does that,

[Y] can do the job even better”.

Autonomy-enhancing

practices

Empowerment Affective

commitmentCustomized

approach

Need for autonomy


Trust

Lead organization Network participantLead organization

Figure 10. Partial findings on active tie management


Likewise, a respondent from network B advocates for a shared system to foster collectiveness:

“It might be a good idea for these kinds of questions [arising throughout the performance of a

project] to be included in a kind of encyclopedia of [lead organization B] that is visible to all

colleagues. Because, for example, I am not going to e-mail [participant] about this. While I

think that might also help me a lot, but [he/she] is not aware that I have this unanswered

question”.

Concluding, findings suggest quality might represent an underlying mechanism in the relationship

between transferring knowledge and commitment.


Autonomy-enhancing

practices

Empowerment Affective

commitmentCustomized

approach

Need for autonomy

Trust

Lead organization Network participantLead organization

Operational support

Feedback

Recognition

Managerial support

Affective

commitment


Continuance

commitment


practices

Transferring

knowledge

Quality

Commitment

Figure 11. Active tie management overview The dotted lines represent partially supported mechanisms

The gray box represents an enabling factor


4.3.3 Dormant tie management With regard to dormant ties, two practices are identified as specifically relevant for securing

commitment. These can be categorized as interpersonal and integration-enhancing practice.

Interpersonal practice

First, maintaining personal contact appeared as most frequently mentioned practice in both networks to

be performed by lead managers when the aim is to secure participant commitment: “I just think that you

should always maintain contact. Always pursue the dialogue”. Nevertheless, maintaining contact is

perceived as responsibility of both parties in the dyadic relationship: “If the partnership is important to

you, there are no excuses. Then you just plan it. That is what I think”. Another respondent illustrated:

“Then [after a project finished], I think we did not see each other for another year and a half. And then

last year, I thought gosh, that is actually a pity. Let me get in touch with [lead manager A]”.

Nevertheless, personal preferences can differ regarding how lead organizations should maintain

contact with participants, and vice versa. “There are people for whom it is no problem that you have not

had contact for two years. (...) But there are also people who say after six months: ‘Yeah, you know,

that is worthless. First, I do not hear from you for a long time, and then suddenly, I have to do this or

that for you’”. Another respondent illustrated: “Sometimes you have friends. Even if you do not see each

other for a year, it is still fine. And if you see each other every day, it is also fine. And that is the feeling

I have towards [lead manager A]”.

In light of this, it is indicated important to familiarize with each other before the actual

collaboration starts. By making mutual expectations subject to discussion beforehand, confusion and

misunderstandings can be avoided at a later stage, e.g.,: “It was a bit awkward in the beginning.

However, that – if I analyze it afterwards – had to do with expectation management. (…) It did take

quite a while before the actual business was finally started”.

Table 10



A respondent from network A argued that lead organizations should maintain contact for

strategic reasons on the network-level:

“It is extremely important to maintain relationships with whom you have less or no contact for

a certain period of time. (…) The smaller party of today can be a very large one tomorrow. And

then you need each other (…) in the sense of being able to strategically expand in networks.

After all, the more alternatives you have, the more choices you can make and the less dependent

you are on that specific partner in your network”.

In conclusion, the results indirectly suggest legitimacy might represent an underlying mechanism in the

relationship between maintaining personal contact and participant commitment. Anyway, maintaining

personal contact with all participants is considered to play a role in securing legitimacy, both inside and

outside the network. Moreover, despite the present situation of Covid-19, and hence, little project

prospects, it became clear that lead managers successfully maintain personal contact with participants:

“You cannot imagine a worse time than this Corona time, but you cannot get a better example than this.

Even during Corona when all of [lead manager A’s projects] are gone, [he/she] is still very busy with

all the network partners. (…) In no time, [he/she] shifts with everyone around. (…) I think [he/she] does

that very well. Just maintaining contact”.

Integration-enhancing practice

Aside maintaining personal contact, providing updates on developments of and in the network were

mentioned as a good way to keep participants ‘logged in’, e.g.,: “I can stay up to date via LinkedIn on

what [lead organization A] does. Then I have no further contact, but at least I stay informed of what

they do. So, I think it is important that you know what the subjects are that those organizations are

currently working on. Because that can also serve as starting point to contact them [myself].”


Maintaining personal

contactCommitment

Legitimacy


Providing updates Need for integration



practice

Figure 12. Dormant tie management overview

The dotted lines represent partially supported mechanisms



4.3.4 Summary on what and how orchestration practices foster network participant commitment In sum, to foster network participant commitment, lead organizations should execute practices that

induce participants’ perceptions of trust, stability, social reciprocity, and the need for autonomy,

integration and belonging. Specifically, networking, stabilizing, integration-, autonomy-enhancing and

interpersonal practices are found to foster participants’ commitment to a lead organization-governed

project network through one of the underlying mechanisms summarized above.

Especially, in active ties, lead organizations should empower participants to contribute, facilitate

knowledge transfer and offer managerial support to foster their commitment. To secure participants’

commitment in dormant ties, lead organizations should maintain personal contact with participants and

provide them updates on developments of and in the network. Figure 13 schematically summarizes the

identified practices and mechanisms in relation to network participant commitment.


Results integrated



Stabilizing Perceived stability

Making agreements Social reciprocity

Network

participant


Trust

Autonomy-enhancing

practices


practices

Need for belonging


Acquisition

Selection

Allocation

Network meetings

Bridging

Flexibility

Non-Exclusivity

Openness

Transparency

Honesty

Affective

commitment

Continuance

commitment


Social reciprocity

Need for autonomy

Normative

commitment

Lead organizationNetwork participant

Operational support

Feedback

Recognition

Managerial support

EmpowermentCustomized approach

Providing updatesTransferring knowledge


LegitimacyMaintaining personal contact


Integration-enhancingIntegration-enhancing

Quality

Trust

Autonomy-enhancing

Active tie Dormant tieGeneric tie Active tie Dormant tieGeneric tie Active tie Dormant tieGeneric tie

Figure 13. Results integrated


4.4 Additional results An additional analysis was performed to investigate how tie strength is related to participant

commitment. The results touch upon an interpretation of tie strength that deviates from the central focus

in this study. Several tie strength dimensions are identified in relation to commitment: emotional

intensity and developed mutual trust (e.g., prior ties) between participant and lead manager. These will

be further elaborated on in Appendix 9.

4.5 Expert views

To gain a deeper understanding on the results and the relation to practice, two expert interviews were

conducted. Expert 1 is an experienced business coach in project networks within the Dutch management

consultancy sector. Expert 2 is a PhD student from Tilburg University, who is an expert in the field of

solo self-employment. An extensive summary of the interviews is provided in Appendix 10.

In line with findings on generic tie management, Expert 1 illustrated the autonomy-integration

tension is very inherent to collaborating within networks, yet it can be partially alleviated by making

clear agreements between a participant and the lead organization: “Make agreements, formulate those

clearly and transparently with each other, and continue the dialogue on it”. Thus, agreeing on the

importance of stabilizing and interpersonal practices for securing commitment. Moreover, making

agreements on how participants’ acquisition efforts are rewarded, could reinforce tapping into each

other’s talents and networks, and hence, enhance network effectiveness (Expert 1).

Considering the aim to secure participant commitment, Expert 2 regarded network meetings as

best practice. These can improve a network’s legitimacy by investing in the employability of individual

participants (especially freelancers), whilst subtly hinting dependency on the lead organization should

be minimized: “You do not make freelancers too dependent, as you say [by these network meetings]:

‘Hey, we are good for you, but be aware that there are also others [participants] involved’”. Experts

agreed that participants should minimize dependency on one lead organization-governed project

network and confirmed the importance of transferring knowledge to enable learning, e.g., through

network meetings: “When you organize such a networking event, you really invest in someone’s

development and network. And if there is one thing that is important to freelancers, it certainly is

networking”. (Expert 2).

Furthermore, the experts acknowledged the importance of acquisition and selection in relation

to perceived stability for network participants, and its influence on commitment. Expert 2 interpreted

the finding in light of exchange relationships between lead organization and self-employed participants.

Nevertheless, the expert questioned the usefulness of this exchange relationship: “From the moment you

commit to another lead organization too, you put the commitment of that first lead organization at risk

as you cannot give two training sessions on one and the same day”.

Finally, by ensuring a balance in expertise within the network, i.e., sufficiently heterogeneous,

Expert 2 stated that the lead manager’s challenge to secure commitment might become less challenging.


5. Discussion

This section interprets and summarizes the results of this qualitative study. The results entail important

implications for theory and practice, which will be discussed in greater detail in the following

subsections. Furthermore, limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.

5.1 Theoretical implications This qualitative study aimed to explore how network orchestration and tie strength contribute to network

effectiveness, by focusing on network participant commitment in the context of lead organization-

governed project networks. The study aspires to develop the network and commitment literature by

investigating the network orchestration-commitment relationship from an individual participant’s point

of view. Three key contributions can be distinguished.

First, by extending insight into how a lead organization can create network participant

commitment, this study enriches the network and commitment literature in the form of a network

orchestration framework, tailored to fostering participant commitment to lead organization-governed

project networks (Table 11). Combined, the framework and the uncovered underlying mechanisms in

relation to commitment (Figure 13, p. 53) represent the first key contribution of this study.

Second, this study is among one of the first to extend insight into tailor-made practices fostering

commitment by including the concept of tie strength. In consideration of the temporary nature of projects

in the network, tie strength was used to capture the alternating nature of ties between the lead

organization and individual network participants (i.e., generic, active, and dormant tie management).

Third, prior research rarely investigated how perceptions and attitudes (like commitment)

develop of individuals participating in temporary projects embedded in more permanent networks (e.g.,

Braun et al., 2012). This study extends insight into this micro-level perspective by illuminating

individual network participant’s point of view in lead organization-governed project networks of the

Dutch management consultancy sector. In doing so, this study builds on Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-

component model of commitment by applying it to network participant commitment. The following

paragraphs elaborate further on the three key contributions.

5.1.1 Network orchestration by the lead organization

Although commitment has been found to play a great role in amplifying network performance and

survival (e.g., Clarke, 2006; Agostini et al., 2019), literature on interorganizational network

collaborations demonstrates that little attention has been devoted to commitment (Gomes et al., 2016).

Furthermore, literature on network orchestration is growing, though it remains fragmented as debate is

ongoing on the roles of orchestrators (Nilsen & Gausdal, 2017; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Nätti, 2018).

This study took notion of the existing orchestration framework by Bartelings et al. (2017) while

investigating how lead organizations can create network participant commitment to the lead

organization-governed project network.


Nevertheless, Bartelings et al. (2017) identified orchestration practices that are perceived by

network managers to be constitutive of their daily practices in a centrally governed network of the Dutch

healthcare and public safety sector. Since this study illuminates individual participants’ perspective and

is conducted in the Dutch management consultancy sector, apart from taking note of Bartelings et al.

(2017) framework, an open approach was used to explore how practices by the lead organization are

perceived by network participants in relation to their commitment.

Therefore, based on the qualitative, exploratory nature of this study, its first key contribution is

the development of a network orchestration framework (Table 11), tailored to fostering participant

commitment to lead organization-governed project networks in the Dutch management consultancy

sector. Based on the findings, the categorization of practices uncovered by Bartelings et al. (2017) can

be interpreted and updated. Nuances should be made and identified practices be added.

Table 11

Network orchestration framework, tailored to lead organization-governed project networks, adapted

from Bartelings et al. (2017)


This study refines Bartelings et al.’s (2017) orchestration framework by merging ‘operational work’ and

‘preparing documents’ into operational support as one of the practices included in the category of

managerial support. Further, by replacing the label ‘travelling’ with maintaining personal contact, since

maintenance of contact between lead managers and participants primarily takes place virtually

(telephone, e-mail). This practice appeared crucial for dormant tie management.

Moreover, although autonomy-enhancing practices constitute a new orchestration category in

comparison to Bartelings et al. (2017), integration-enhancing practices overlap with their orchestration

tasks ‘bridging’ and ‘transferring knowledge’. In short, this study refines the framework (1) by merging

these two tasks into the category of integration-enhancing practices and expanding it with the practice

network meetings and providing updates, and (2) by distinguishing between transferring knowledge and

providing updates to express information sharing by the lead organization in active and dormant ties,

respectively.

From the following paragraph onwards, the section continues with an interpretation of key

findings concerning the framework. Hereby, uncovered practices in this study are showcased in italics.

Discussion of the findings on Network orchestration in relation to Network participant commitment

To start, certain orchestration practices as identified by Bartelings et al. (2017) were regarded of

continuous importance and were perceived to be so nonstop. For instance, in line with Cristofoli,

Trivellato, and Verzillo (2019), stabilizing appeared to be perceived by network participants as an

important practice that is or should be continuously executed by lead managers, independent of an active

or dormant tie. In addition, networking was equally identified in the data. More precisely, this study

identified an overlap between stabilizing and networking. As the lead organization’s main role was

considered the acquisitor of the network, the orchestration practice of networking came to the fore very

clearly. Whereas networking is defined as looking “for new partners to enrich the network” (Bartelings

et al., 2017, p. 352), this study found that networking is generally perceived as the identification of new

project and market opportunities by the lead organization. Selecting new participants was also found to

be constitutive of networking by the lead organization, but the focus of networking was regarded to lie

more on the exploration and exploitation of market opportunities.

Related to this, network participants perceive the regular initiation and provision of project

opportunities (i.e., networking) by the lead organization as stabilizing, as this assures participants of

business continuity. Especially in dormant ties, this initiative by the lead organization constitutes a

reason for reactivating contact with network participants. Further, allocation of tasks and responsibilities

and meeting agreements are two practices of the stabilizing category, which were indicated to contribute

to commitment. Despite the corresponding name of ‘stabilizing’ found by Bartelings et al. (2017), and

this study’s identified ‘stabilizing’ category that seem to carry a stability-enhancing capacity, the

definition of stabilizing could be slightly adapted based on the individual network participants’ view.


As can be derived from the above, stabilizing practices in this study were generally identified

as being focused on ensuring stability for individual network participant’s business and the continuation

of the dyadic relationship between a participant and the lead organization. This definition deviates from

Bartelings et al.’s (2017, p. 352): “to keep the network stable, the orchestrator tries to run network

activities as effective and efficient as possible”. This discrepancy may be attributable to the following

three factors. One of them being the given that within the current study, the micro-level perspective of

network participants is highlighted, whereas Bartelings et al. (2017) highlighted the network

orchestrator’s perspective. In addition, Bartelings et al. (2017) investigated the healthcare and public

safety sector, whereas this study is conducted in the management consultancy sector. The third factor

concerns the dynamic context of lead organization-governed project networks. Within this context,

uncertainty is more or less a given because of a high interdependency, temporal nature of projects, and

the inherently ignorance of the duration of dormant ties. On top of that, this study was conducted during

the Covid-19 crisis, whereby it became clear that many projects were either cancelled or postponed until

a later, yet unknown moment. These circumstances potentially activated uncertainty levels among

participants concerning network membership continuation to play a greater role than before. Moreover,

while interpreting and reflecting on the findings with experts, the expert in self-employed persons

indicated that if one would set up a quantitative study on this study topic, there might be a high

probability that for participants originating from sole proprietorships (14 out of 18 participants in this

study), perceived security and commitment would correlate very highly. This because self-employed

participants might be more susceptible to experience feelings of uncertainty with respect to the number

of projects they are involved in. Considering this, the finding with regard to the overlap of networking

and stabilizing, and the potential mechanism of perceived stability in the relationship between these two

practices and commitment becomes even more understandable.

Second, the interpretation of stabilizing deviates from Cristofoli et al. (2019), who defined it based on

Bartelings et al. (2017) as reflecting “the effort by the network manager to support trust” (p. 1783) and

to secure stable, enduring contacts between network participants. The role of trust came forward as one

of the key findings in this study, although in a different manner. Namely, trust was identified as potential

underlying mechanism in the relationship between several orchestration practices (stabilizing,

autonomy-enhancing and interpersonal practices) and participants’ affective commitment (Figure 13,

p. 53). Specifically, this study suggests that among the three commitment types, affective seems most

influenceable as the majority of identified orchestration categories seem to address affective

commitment, predominantly via trust. Thereby, this study demonstrates the potential influence a lead

organization can exert to foster participants’ identification with network by inducing trust. Hence, this

study reflects the important role played by lead organizations in the process of supporting trust in

network participants, in contrast to trust between participants as indicated by Bartelings et al. (2017).

Although stabilizing is indicated to play a role in the network orchestration-commitment relationship by


inducing trust, autonomy-enhancing and interpersonal practices rather seem to partly address Bartelings

et al. (2017) definition of stabilizing. Therefore, the orchestration framework is expanded with

autonomy-enhancing and interpersonal practices.

However, while critically contemplating the above consideration, one could identify a paradox

with respect to the comparison between Bartelings et al. (2017) definition of stabilizing and autonomy-

enhancing practices by the lead organization. On the one hand, providing autonomy to participants in

active ties might foster the stability of relationships within the network, since autonomy can positively

influence commitment. On the other hand, providing autonomy requires a certain extent of flexibility

from the lead manager to give up control (i.e., empower participants) and demonstrate trust in the

participant instead, while still remaining responsible for project outcomes in the eyes of customers. The

paradox lies in the heading of ‘stabilizing’ formulated by Bartelings et al. (2017) as opposed to the

partial interpretation of what empowerment requires from lead managers: flexibility.

In more concrete terms, lead organizations might need to execute stabilizing practices to induce

participant commitment, whilst also executing autonomy-enhancing practices to create commitment.

Building trust by means of autonomy-enhancing (e.g., flexibility), interpersonal practices (openness,

transparency, honesty), and stabilizing (i.e., making agreements) seems to provide a way to manage this

practical tension for lead managers and to assure participant commitment.

The need for autonomy and relatedness

Furthermore, the findings extend insight into self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) by

demonstrating the importance of individual psychological needs in the context of project networks.

Although SDT has been investigated on the interorganizational level more recently (e.g., Roehrich,

Hoejmose, & Overland, 2017; Robson, Schlegelmilch, & Bojkowszky, 2012), to the researcher’s

knowledge, the importance of participants’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Gagné &

Deci, 2005) in the context of project networks has not been demonstrated earlier. Based on the findings,

this study extends insight into the influence of the personal need for autonomy and the social need for

relatedness on how lead organizations can foster participant commitment.

First, all practices of the autonomy-enhancing orchestration category were identified to

potentially foster commitment to the lead organization-governed project network by addressing

participants’ need for autonomy. Therefore, this study coheres with Gagné and Deci’s (2005) definition

of autonomous motivation: “acting with a sense of volition and having the experience of choice” (p.

333), which is found to positively influence commitment (e.g., Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017; Schummer,

Otto, Hünefeld, & Kottwitz, 2019). Thus, implying that intrinsic motivation regarding the need for

autonomy can be fulfilled by lead organizations, which might foster participants’ commitment.

Second, interpreting the study findings in light of Gagné and Deci’s (2005) formulated need for

relatedness, integration-enhancing practices can be considered best practices to induce participants’

commitment by addressing their need for belonging. In particular, network meetings can foster affective


commitment for the reason that participants perceive it as a nice event, representing an opportunity to

become acquainted with other network participants and to enhance social bonding within the network

(i.e., need for relatedness). Moreover, as participant commitment to lead organization-governed project

networks seems to go hand in hand with situations of experiencing a potential dual identity tension

(autonomy versus integration), the results confirm Bartelings et al.’s (2017) notion that “the creation of

a shared identity is not easy” (p. 346). In conclusion, the needs for autonomy and relatedness as indicated

by Gagné and Deci (2005) clearly emerged as one of the starting points for lead managers to tailor

orchestration practices to fostering participants’ commitment to the network. The practical implications

section (section 5.2) discusses how orchestration practices might be linked to these needs.

The role of trust and social reciprocity

In contemplating one of the key findings regarding the mechanism of trust as referred to earlier, a trust-

based relationship can be considered a potential precondition for commitment. This finding confirms

the study of Moynihan (2009) who argued that trust emerges to play a crucial role in centralized

networks. The lead organization’s lack of formal authority over network participants seems to be

associated with the role of trust. Moreover, despite the presence of a formal year contract between one

(out of the 18) network participants and a lead organization, trust still appeared to play a major role in

fostering commitment. Furthermore, the findings seem to cohere with the form of trust as conceptualized

by Pratt and Dirks’ (2007) in their commitment-based view of trust. They contended that trust is “a

volitional acceptance of the existence of both the vulnerability and the benefits associated with being in

the relationship” (p. 117). This study indirectly supports this statement by finding that, despite the

presence of trustful relationships between the lead organization and network participants, continuance

commitment (i.e., attachment based on cost-benefit considerations) can still be present. The potential

costs (i.e., vulnerability) and benefits of participation seem integral to the decision to commit.

Second, in consideration of social reciprocity as one of the key mechanisms identified in the

relationship between network orchestration practices and participant commitment, social exchange

theory (Blau, 1964) may provide an explanation. Namely, some practices executed by the lead

organization (e.g., network meetings) can activate a certain consciousness of reciprocity, which in turn

can trigger participants to give commitment in return for the chances and opportunities they are provided

with. Thereby, this mechanism of social reciprocity can be interpreted in light of Blois and Ivens (2006),

who state that “norms most closely associated with relational exchanges are those that might be expected

to enable trust and commitment to develop” (p. 353). Adding to this, social reciprocity forms the sole

underlying mechanism that has been found in the relationship between network orchestration and all

three commitment types (normative, continuance, affective). Thus, indirectly confirming Cropanzano

and Mitchell (2005) by finding that investing in participants may yield “mutually and rewarding

transactions and relationships” (p. 890), characterized by participant commitment to the lead



5.1.2 Tie strength

Furthermore, this study focused on how network participants’ commitment can be fostered in active ties

(ongoing projects) and dormant ties (after completion or in between projects). Prior studies on networks

mainly investigated the dimensions of tie strength as identified by Granovetter (1973). Whereas project

networks in particular lend themselves as an appropriate context to investigate the role of active and

dormant ties, the current state of the social network literature shows challenges of dormant ties remain

widely unaddressed (Levin et al., 2011). In this study, tie strength represented a rather unexposed aspect

of the network literature, pointing to one of the study’s key contributions.

As displayed in Figure 13 (p. 53), this study made a distinction between generic, active, and

dormant tie practices in relation to network participant commitment. Hence, insight is developed into

how participants’ commitment can be fostered by a lead organization that is surrounded by these

different environments of tie strength with individual participants. The implication of this distinction is

that this study goes beyond a sole identification of how network participant commitment can be created

in general (generic tie management), by providing insight into what practices in specific contribute to

commitment in dormant and active ties. Thus, contributing to the literature by providing an insight into

how lead organizations can tailor practices to active and dormant ties.

With regard to dormant ties, the uncovered practice of maintaining personal contact coheres

with Coleman’s (1990) findings that relationships should be maintained to prevent them from ceasing

(Levin et al., 2011). Nevertheless, a few participants indicated that, despite not having had contact with

the lead organization for a considerable long time (e.g., one year), reactivation of the tie still occurred

very fluently. Thus, this study nuances earlier research arguing that continuous maintenance is necessary

to prevent social capital from dissolving (Burt, 1992; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

Finally, based on an additional analysis, among the tie strength dimensions (Granovetter, 1973),

emotional intensity, reciprocal services, and mutual trust between the lead organization and individual

participants seem to play an important role in creating participant commitment. Personal transactions

(i.e., emotional intensity) were found as enabler of trust and empowering participants (i.e., autonomy),

which were identified as underlying mechanisms in relation to participant commitment. This is in line

with Marsden and Campbell’s (1984) assumption “that emotional closeness – not frequency of recent

communication – determines a tie’s strength” (Levin et al., 2011, p. 934).


5.2 Practical implications From a practical viewpoint, the value of the study findings is threefold.

In the first place, this study contributes to the existing knowledge base of network orchestration

by providing a practical-based framework tailored to fostering participants’ commitment to lead

organization-governed networks. On top of that, the orchestration practices are tailored to different tie

categories (generic, active, dormant). Therefore, this practically oriented framework acknowledges the

implications of alternating active and dormant relationships between lead organizations and individual

participants and provides lead managers (i.e., orchestrators) with practical suggestions on how to adjust

their practices accordingly. Combined with the uncovered mechanisms between orchestration practices

and commitment, this study raises awareness among lead organizations’ representatives about the

potential impact of their day-to-day actions on the perceptions of network participants. By internalizing

how specific practices may have a potential influence on participants’ commitment, lead organizations

can increase their capability to effectively foster participant commitment.

Second, as indicated before, this study demonstrates the great importance of autonomy- and

integration-enhancing practices to foster network participants’ commitment by fulfilling their needs for

autonomy, integration and/or relatedness. In light of this, several orchestration practices uncovered in

this study can be considered to have a potential influence on the need for autonomy and relatedness,

defined by Gagné and Deci’s (2005) self-determination theory.

Accordingly, Table 12 illustrates how the autonomous, yet interdependent nature of participants

might play a role in how commitment to a lead organization-governed project network is created.

Specifically, Table 12 provides lead organizations with a practical notion of potential influences on

participants’ need for autonomy and relatedness (Gagné & Deci, 2005). The practical implications

continue after the Table.


Third, network orchestrators (e.g., lead organizations) can learn from this study with regard to

interpersonal practices that have been found to positively influence participants’ commitment. Practices

of openness, transparency, and honesty by the lead manager were indicated to foster commitment

indirectly, via increased trust. These practices correspond to the manifestation of a fairness approach

towards stakeholders: “an open and honest exchange of relevant information” (Bridoux & Stoelhorst,

2014, p. 109). The practical implication of this finding is revealed by interpreting it in light of Bridoux

and Stoelhorst’s (2014) conclusion that a fairness approach is effective in the attraction, retention, and

motivation of reciprocal stakeholders to create value. Thus, in order to create and secure participants’

commitment, lead organizations should pursue the dialogue in an open, transparent and honest manner.

Table 12

Orchestration practices in light of Self-Determination Theory (e.g., Gagné & Deci, 2005)


5.2.1 Practical implications on the different environments of Tie strength

Furthermore, three additional practical implications are suggested on how the lead organization could

foster and secure commitment among participants (1) in general (generic tie implication), (2) in active

ties (active tie implication), and (3) in dormant ties (dormant tie implication).

First, within the networks investigated, a general shared vision seemed to be lacking as it was

not explicitly present. At least, only a few participants were able to elaborate on what shared vision the

collaboration is based. To anticipate on this finding and with an eye on fostering commitment, this study

recommends lead organizations to jointly develop a shared vision of the network. A shared vision

capturing an overarching goal for the lead organization and individual participants might foster

participants’ identification with the network (affective commitment), is expected to benefit in integrating

efforts of all network participants (Li, Wang, & Chen, 2008), and is found to stress the mutual gains of

network participation (Locke & Latham, 2006). Moreover, developing a shared vision is expected to

increase trust between network participants, claimed by social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Since this

study found that lead organizations contribute to the inducement of trust in participants, increasing trust

between participants might be a favorable consequence of the development of a shared vision.

Alongside, organizing network meetings can promote the development of interpersonal relationships

between participants (Moretti, 2017). Therefore, this study recommends seizing opportunities to act

upon the shared vision, once it is formulated and agreed upon. For instance, programs could be set up,

whereby network participants with relevant expertise come together in temporary project groups to

collaborate on a certain matter.

Second, with regard to dormant tie management, the practical implication is related to the most

frequently mentioned practice: maintaining personal contact. Just as Bartelings et al. (2017) stated that

“often the daily agenda is unpredictable and depends on the task or situation the orchestrator is

confronted with” (p. 356), participants indicated the lead manager is often swayed by the issues of the

day. Therefore, it is recommendable to schedule regular moments of ‘get-togethers’ in order to make

sure maintaining contact is not forgotten about. In addition, this study recommends pursuing a

personalized approach in maintaining contact with each individual participant, since the demonstrated

personal interest by lead managers was regarded as valuable and fostering commitment.

Third, when attracting new participants to the network, it is recommended to actively promote

the possibilities the lead organization provides with regard to empowerment and managerial support.

This practical implication is provided as a suggestion to utilize the practices specifically relevant in

active ties. Hence, lead organizations can communicate their unique selling-points to attract new

collaboration partners. Finally, to further facilitate the transferring of knowledge for the sake of active

ties, it is recommended for lead organizations and network orchestrators in general to set up an online

knowledge platform. By means of this platform, knowledge can be transferred both between participants

and the lead organization as well as among participants. As a result, participants involved in the same

project can share information with each other (e.g., experiences about customers), work on shared


documents, and answer each other’s questions. Hereby, an online knowledge platform carries the

potential to utilize participants’ knowledge and experiences better and can function as a means to

stimulate interpersonal and interorganizational connections between network participants. Thus, lead

organizations could exploit the findings on openness and transparency as enablers of participant

commitment by transferring knowledge in active ties.

5.3 Limitations and Future Research Although the study was conducted very conscientiously, a number of limitations are worth noting.

To start, the cross-sectional design makes drawing conclusions about causal relationships

impossible (Bryman, 2012). Network participants and the lead organization are alternating between

active and dormant ties, making tie strength upheaval to change over time. Moreover, commitment is a

continuous developing construct in terms of type composition and levels (Sharma et al., 2006). This

calls for longitudinal future research to investigate the dynamics in project networks that are emergent

by nature (Bakker et al., 2016), and how this contributes to the development of commitment over time.

Second, a limitation concerns the limited external validity of the findings. The purposive

sampling method used in this study implies a nonrandom selection of participants (Etikan, Musa, &

Alkassim, 2016; Straits & Singleton, 2011). The researcher was provided access to a limited selection

of participants originating from project networks of two lead organizations. This means a selection bias

was created, since sample selection was upheaval to the lead organizations’ preference. From project

network A (40 participants) and B (13 participants), only fifteen and three participants participated in

this study, respectively. Therefore, generalizing results to all participants in the network is impossible.

Moreover, generalizability of the findings to lead organization-governed project networks in other

sectors and countries is limited, since the sample comprises of participants from project networks in the

Dutch management consultancy sector. Nevertheless, the choice for either being able to generalize study

findings or to investigate a phenomenon more in-depth is a consideration inherent to qualitative research

(Wright, O’Brien, Nimmon, Law, & Mylopoulos, 2016). Considering future research, replicating the

qualitative study (a) by selecting participants from other projects networks in management consultancy,

and (b) within other sectors and countries, will most likely contribute to a broader understanding of how

network participants’ commitment is created.

Third, the qualitative, exploratory nature does not allow to test for actual effects of network

orchestration practices on commitment and specific types of commitment. Hence, the emergence of

continuance commitment among most participants does not imply this is their primary type of

commitment manifestation. Nevertheless, by screening the data for indicators of the commitment types

originating from existing scales (e.g., Bruning et al., 2018; Meyer & Allen, 1997), the researcher

attempted to differentiate the findings on commitment to the least extent possible. Future research could

fill this identified gap by performing a quantitative study in the context of project networks. This would

allow for a further thorough investigation of the network orchestration-commitment relationship.


Moreover, quantitative studies allow for including control variables while testing for effects, which

could enable for taking into account any factors that might influence the variables under study. For

instance, it would be interesting to control for prior experience between network participants and the

lead manager as experience affects collaborations (e.g., Provan & Lemaire, 2012; Popp et al., 2014).

Fourth, the semi-structured interviews allowed for an investigation of participants’ attitudes and

beliefs but lacked the ability to measure the manifestation of actual behaviors of commitment (i.e.,

intentions might differ from behavior). This study tried to control for any discrepancy between indicated

intentions and actual behavior of participants by checking what the lead managers said about them in

the exploratory interviews. Yet, an interesting fourth opportunity for future research is to measure actual

participant commitment manifestations by focusing on behavioral commitment (Andrésen et al., 2012).

Additionally, the operationalization of the study concepts was not entirely based on existing

research considering the absence of recognized scales. Specifically, to inquire active and dormant tie

practices, some questions were included that deviate from original scales of tie strength. Moreover, it

became salient that the way commitment is interpreted, differs among respondents. A partial explanation

could lie in the fact that interviews were conducted in Dutch, where ‘commitment’ and ‘involvement’

are used intertwined as a translation of commitment. Although the researcher started the interview by

providing a definition to achieve a uniform understanding of commitment, some respondents

experienced difficulties in comprehending how commitment is influenced by the lead organization.

Fifth, building on one of the practical implications on formulating a shared vision to foster

participant commitment, an interesting opportunity for future research is to investigate participants’

commitment in lead organization-governed project networks that explicitly implemented a shared

vision. Matinheikki, Artto, Peltokorpi, and Rajala (2016) found a positive effect of a shared vision on

value creation in project networks. Hence, a shared vision might also foster participant commitment.

Lastly, an interesting avenue for future research is investigating the influence of psychological

contract beliefs among network participants on their commitment to lead organization-governed project

networks. A potential way to study this is the adoption of the critical incident technique (see e.g., Kaulio,

2018) by reflecting on particular incidents in the past of which participants perceive it has influenced

their commitment to the lead organization-governed project network.


6. Conclusion

The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate how network orchestration by the lead organization

can create network participants’ commitment to the lead organization-governed project network in

environments of alternating active and dormant ties. To fulfill this aim, a qualitative cross-sectional

research design was executed with the aid of semi-structured interviews with 18 individual network

participants. The network participants have been selected from two lead organization-governed project

networks in the Dutch management consultancy sector. The conclusion of this study is based on the

qualitative analysis of interview data. The research question central in this study is: ‘How does a lead

organization create participant commitment to a project network in an environment of different tie

strengths between the lead organization and the participant?’

In answering the research question, this qualitative study answers the research call of Provan

and Kenis (2008) to address in greater depth the role of management within networks. The main

contribution of this study to the network literature is that it extends insight into how to foster individual

participants’ commitment to centrally governed project networks, by partly cohering to the network

orchestration framework of Bartelings et al. (2017), and expanding it.

Furthermore, in line with previous studies, trust and social reciprocity appeared as underlying

mechanisms in the relationship between network orchestration practices and network participant

commitment. More specifically, trust was identified as potential mechanism in the relationship between

(1) autonomy-enhancing practices and (affective) commitment, (2) interpersonal practices and affective

commitment, and (3) stabilizing and affective commitment. Networking and organizing network

meetings were identified as orchestration practices by the lead organization that potentially foster

continuance commitment via social reciprocity. Hereby, findings are in line with social exchange theory

(Blau, 1964) by pointing to the possibility that the latter practices signal an investment in network

participants, which might induce exchange relationships and stimulate network participants to do

something in return by giving commitment to the lead organization-governed project network

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). For integration-enhancing practices it was also found to positively

influence perceptions of affective commitment via participants’ fulfilled need for belonging. This latter

finding coheres with prior research on self-determination theory (Gagné & Deci, 2005), which posits

that individuals strive to fulfill a need for relatedness. By the same token, the finding on autonomy-

enhancing practices and the positive relation to commitment via fulfillment of participants’ need for

autonomy coheres to Gagné and Deci (2005).

Finally, this study identified some important practices as specifically effective to be executed

by lead organizations when they are in an active or dormant tie with a participant. For dormant ties,

maintaining personal contact and providing updates on network developments contribute to securing

commitment. For active ties, managerial support, empowerment, and transferring knowledge could

foster participant commitment to project(s) and the lead organization-governed project network.


In conclusion, the qualitative, exploratory nature of this study allowed for developing a network

orchestration framework as aid for lead organizations in fostering participants’ commitment to lead

organization-governed project networks. Foremost, this study extends insight into the potential

mechanisms between network orchestration practices by the lead organization and network participants’

commitment. However, as stated before, no conclusions can be made on the actual effects of network

orchestration on commitment due to the qualitative, cross-sectional design. Figure 13 (p. 53). provides

an overview of the results.

Hopefully this study informed scholars and practitioners in an inspiring way about network

orchestration and commitment to lead organization-governed project networks and encourages future

research to advance this field of study. The researcher concludes with a message to organizations

participating in interorganizational networks: “your network is your net worth” (Gale, 2013, p. 292), so

please commit!


References

Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J.

S. Wholey (Eds), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 492-505). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of

Management Review, 27(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314

Agostini, L., Nosella, A., & Venturini, K. (2019). Toward increasing affective commitment in SME

strategic networks. Business Process Management Journal, 25(7), 1822-1840.

doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2018-0035

Agranoff, R. (2003). Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers Working across

Organizations. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big Questions in Public Network Management Research.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295-326.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504

Ahola, T. (2009). Efficiency in Project Networks: the role of inter-organizational relationships in

project implementation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2009/isbn9789522481160/

Andrésen, E., Lundberg, H., & Roxenhall, T. (2012). Designing for commitment in regional strategic

networks. Management Research Review, 35(6), 531-552. doi: 10.1108/01409171211238280

Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking Stock of Temporary Organizational Forms: A Systematic Review and

Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466-486.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00281.x

Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R. J., Schwab, A., & Sydow, J. (2016). Temporary Organizing: Promises,

Processes, Problems. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1703-1719.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840616655982

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00281.x

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840616655982


Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational Commitment: Antecedents and Outcomes in

Public Organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19(3), 256-277.

doi: 10.2307/3380574

Barlage, M., Van den Born, A., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2019). The needs of freelancers and the

characteristics of ‘gigs’: Creating beneficial relations between freelancers and their hiring

organizations. Emerald Open Research, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.12688

/emeraldopenres.12928.1

Bartelings, J. A., Goedee, J., Raab, J., & Bijl, R. (2017). The nature of orchestrational work. Public

Management Review, 19(3), 342-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1209233

Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193-206.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x

Bleijenbergh, I. (2010). Case selection. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia

of case study research (Vol. 2) (pp. 61-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blois, K. J., & Ivens, B. S. (2006). Measuring relational norms: some methodological issues.

European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 352-365. doi: 10.1108/03090560610648093

Boeije, H. R. (2009). Analysis in Qualitative Research. London, England: Sage.

Braun, T., Müller-Seitz, G., & Sydow, J. (2012). Project Citizenship Behavior? – An explorative

analysis at the project-network-nexus. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28(4), 271-284.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.05.008

Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for Stakeholder Theory: Managing

Stakeholders with Heterogeneous Motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 107-125.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2089

Bruning, P. F., Alge, B. J., & Lin, H.-C. (2018). The embedding forces of network commitment: An

examination of the psychological processes linking advice centrality and susceptibility to

social influence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 54-69.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.07.002

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2010). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Paperback Edition).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/

https://doi.org/10.12688


Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector

Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44-55.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. Retrieved from

https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Fahiz9FWDzMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=burt+

1992+Structural+Holes:+The+Social+Structure+of+competition&ots=vKJ0gt7POO&sig=U4d

nmZeCZbdCMo5YsI0k5ECNDnY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Busquets, J. (2010). Orchestrating Smart Business Network Dynamics for Innovation. European

Journal of Information Systems, 19(4), 481-493. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.19

Cho, J. Y., & Lee. E.-H. (2014). Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative

Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1-20. Retrieved

from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf

Chowdhury, M. F. (2015). Coding, sorting and sifting of qualitative data analysis: debates and

discussion. Quality and Quantity, 49(3), 1135-1143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014

-0039-2

Clarke, N. (2006). The relationships between network commitment, its antecedents and network

performance. Management Decision, 44(9), 1183-1205. doi: 10.1108/00251740610707677

Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17(3), 336-354.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.05.001

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Connolly, P. (1998). ‘Dancing to the wrong tune’: Ethnography generalization and research on racism

in schools. In P. Connolly & B. Troyna (Eds.), Researching racism in education: Politics,

theory, and practice (pp. 122-139). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Fahiz9FWDzMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=burt

https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2010.19

http://www/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014

https://doi/


Crespin-Mazet, F., Goglio-Primard, K., & Grenier, C. (2017). Social Collectives: A Partial Form of

Organizing that Sustains Social Innovation. International Management, 21(3), 35-46.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1052763ar

Cristofoli, D., Trivellato, B., & Verzillo, S. (2019). Network management as a contingent activity. A

configurational analysis of managerial behaviors in different network settings. Public

Management Review, 21(12), 1775-1800. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1577905

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review.

Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206305279602

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations:

The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational

Behavior, 4, 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

DeFillippi, R., & Sydow, J. (2016). Project Networks: Governance Choices and Paradoxical Tensions.

Project Management Journal, 47(5), 1-12.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F875697281604700502

Dhanaraj, C. & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating Innovation Networks. Academy of Management

Review, 31(3), 659-669. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318923

Donati, S., Zappalà, S., & González-Romá, V. (2019). The double-edge sword effect of

interorganizational trust on involvement in interorganizational networks: The mediator role of

affective commitment. European Management Journal, 38(4), 613-622.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.014

Easton, G. (2012). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1),

118-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004

Ebers, M. & Maurer, I. (2016). To Continue or not to Continue? Drivers of Recurrent Partnering in

Temporary Organizations. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1861-1895. https://doi.org

/10.1177%2F0170840616655490

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F875697281604700502

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318923

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.014

http://dx/

https://doi.org/


Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and

Challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.2307

/20159839

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and

Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

Gale, P. (2013). Your network is your net worth: Unlock the hidden power of connections for wealth,

success, and happiness in the digital age. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with Nvivo. Buckingham, England:

Open University Press.

Gjaltema, J., Biesbroek, R., & Termeer, K. (2020). From government to governance…to meta-

governance: a systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 22(12), 1760-1780.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1648697

Goedee, J., & Entken, A. (2013). Ontketen. Samenwerken en Regie. Den Haag, Nederland: Boom.

Gomes, E., Barnes, B. R., & Mahmood, T. (2016). A 22 year review of strategic alliance research in

the leading management journals. International Business Review, 25(1, pt. A), 15-27.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.03.005

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological

Review, 25(2), 161-178. doi: 10.2307/2092623

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),

1360-1380. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392

Hammarfjord, M. O., & Roxenhall, T. (2017). The Relationships Between Network Commitment,

Antecedents, and Innovation in Strategic Innovation Networks. International Journal of

Innovation Management, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500372


https://doi/

https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1648697

http://dx/

https://www/

https://doi/


Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and Collaboration: The Role of

Conversations and Collective Identity. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 58-77.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281426

Hinterhuber, A. (2002). Value Chain Orchestration in Action and the Case of the Global

Agrochemical Industry. Long Range Planning, 35(6), 615-635.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(02)00160-7

Human. S. E., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Legitimacy Building in the Evolution of Small-Firm

Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success and Demise. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 45(2), 327-365. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2667074

Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Nätti, S. (2018). Orchestrator types, roles and capabilities – A

framework for innovation networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 74, 65-78.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.020

Kaulio, M. A. (2018). A Psychological Contract Perspective on Project Networks. Project

Management Journal, 49(4), 81-88. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F8756972818781713

Klaster, E., Wilderom, C. P. M., & Muntslag, D. R. (2017). Balancing Relations and Results in

Regional Networks of Public-Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 27(4), 676-691. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux015

Klerkx, L., & Aarts, N. (2013). The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation

networks: Conflicts and complementarities. Technovation, 33(6-7), 193-210.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.03.002

Landsperger, J., & Spieth, P. (2011). Managing Innovation Networks in the Industrial Goods Sector.

International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(6), 1209-1241.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919611003714

Landsperger, J., Spieth, P., & Heidenreich, S. (2012). How Network Managers Contribute to

Innovation Network Performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(6),

1-21. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919612400099

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/

http://dx/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/


Lash, S., & Wittel, A. (2002). Shifting New Media: From Content to Consultancy, from Heterarchy to

Hierarchy. Environment and Planning A, 34(11), 1985-2001.

https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fa34207

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in Exchange Relations: Test of a Theory of Relational

Cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 89-108. doi: 10.2307/2096408

Lemaire, R. H., Mannak, R. S., Ospina, S. M., & Groenleer, M. (2019). Striving for State of the Art with

Paradigm Interplay and Meta-Synthesis: Purpose-oriented Network Research Challenges and

Good Research Practices as a Way Forward. Perspectives on Management and Governance,

2(3), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz010

Levin, D. Z., Walter, J., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Dormant Ties: The Value of Reconnecting.

Organization Science, 22(4), 923-939. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0576

Lim, E. P., Correa, D., Lo, D., Finegold, M., & Zhu, F. (2013). Reviving dormant ties in an online

social network experiment. Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on

Weblogs and Social Media, 361-369. Retrieved from https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/

Li, J., Wang, H., & Chen, C. (2008). Shared Leadership Network: A Cooperative Pattern in

Knowledge-Based Teams. Proceedings of the 38th Decision Sciences Institute Annual

Meeting in Baltimore, 2991-2996. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.527.5202&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging of interfirm relationships as distinctive

organizational capability: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4),

317-338. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199904)20:4%3C317::AID

-SMJ28%3E3.0.CO;2-3

Lundin, R. A., & Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., & Midler, C. (2015). Projectification Trends

and Organizational Archetypes. In R. A. Lundin (Ed.), Managing and Working in Project

Society (pp. 20-79). Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0576

https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/

http://citeseerx/

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199904)20:4%3C317::AID

https://www/


Macneil, I. R. (1980). The New Social Contract. An Inquiry into Modern Contractual Relations. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Malewicki, D. S. (2005). Member Involvement in Entrepreneur Network Organizations: The Role of

Commitment and Trust. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 141-166.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946705000112

Manning, S. (2010). The strategic formation of project networks: A relational perspective. Human

Relations, 63(4), 551-573. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0018726709340954

Manning, S. (2017). The rise of project network organizations: Building core teams and flexible

partner pools for interorganizational projects. Research Policy, 46(8), 1399-1415.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.005

Manning, S., & Sydow, J. (2011). Projects, paths, and practices: sustaining and leveraging project-

based relationships. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1369-1402.

https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr009

Matinheikki, J., Artto, K., Peltokorpi, A., & Rajala, R. (2016). Managing interorganizational networks

for value creation in the front-end of projects. International Journal of Project Management,

34(7), 1226–1241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.06.003

Manser, K., Hillebrand, B., Klein Woolthuis, R., Ziggers, G. W., Driessen, P. H., & Bloemer, J.

(2016). An activities-based approach to network management: An explorative study.

Industrial Marketing Management, 55, 187-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016

/j.indmarman.2015.10.004

Mariotti, F., & Delbridge, R. (2012). Overcoming Network Overload and Redundancy in

Interorganizational Networks: The Roles of Potential and Latent Ties. Organization Science,

23(2), 299-596. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0634

Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring Tie Strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482-501.

https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/63.2.482

Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative Researching (3rd edition). Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/

https://doi/

https://doi/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.005

https://doi/

https://doi/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016


https://doi/

https://us/


Mercurio, Z. A. (2015). Affective Commitment as a Core Essence of Organizational Commitment: An

Integrative Literature Review. Human Resource Development Review, 14(4), 389-414.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1534484315603612

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some

methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372-378.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.372

Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.

https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace. Theory, Research, and

Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Jackson, T. A., McInnis, K. J., Maltin, E. R., & Sheppard, L. (2012).

Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across cultures: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(20), 225-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.005

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative

Networks. In A. Morales & J. Kamensky (Eds.), Networks and partnership series.

Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Moretti, A. (2017). The Network Organization. A Governance Perspective on Structure, Dynamics

and Performance. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52093-3

Moynihan, D. P. (2009). The Network Governance of Crisis Response: Case Studies of Incident

Command Systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 895-915.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun033

Müller-Seitz, G. (2012). Leadership in Interorganizational Networks: A Literature Review and

Suggestions for Future Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4),

428-443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00324.x

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational

advantage. Academy of Management, 23(2), 242-266. https://doi.org/10.5465

/amr.1998.533225

https://doi/

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.372

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/



Nangoli, S., Ahimbisibwe, A., Namagembe, S., & Bashir, H. (2013). Social networks: a strategy for

enhancing project-stakeholder commitment. Social Networks, 6(4), 399-410.

doi: 10.1108/JSMA-02-2013-0012

Narayanan, V. K., & DeFillippi, R. (2012). The influence of Strategic Context on Project Management

Systems: A Senior Management Perspective. In T. M. Williams & K. Samset (Eds.), Project

governance (pp. 3-45). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137274618_2

Nilsen, E., R., & Gausdal, A. H. (2017). The Multifaceted Role of the Network Orchestrator – A

Longitudinal Case Study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(6), 1-23,

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500463

Oliveira, N., & Lumineau, F. (2017). How Coordination Trajectories Influence the Performance of

Interorganizational Project Networks. Organization Science, 28(6), 1029-1060.


Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking Research Questions to Mixed Methods Data

Analysis Procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474-498. Retrieved from

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol11/iss3/3

Perks, H., Kowalkowski, C., Witell, L., & Gustafsson, A. (2017). Network orchestration for value

platform development. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 106-121.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.002

Pongratz. H. J., & Vo, G. G. (2003). From employee to “entreployee”: Towards a “self

-entrepreneurial” work force? Concepts and Transformations, 8(3), 239-254.

https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.8.3.04pon

Popp, J. K., Milward, H. B., MacKean, G., Casebeer, A., & Lindstrom, R. (2014). Inter-Organizational

Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. Retrieved from

http://www.businessofgovernment.org/

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment,

job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology,

59(5), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037335

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://doi/

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol11/iss3/3

https://doi/

https://doi/

http://www/

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0037335


Pratt, M. G., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Rebuilding Trust and Restoring Positive Relationships: A

Commitment-Based View of Trust. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), LEA’s organization

and management series. Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and

research foundation (pp. 117–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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.

doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum015

Provan, K. G., & Lemaire, R. H. (2012). Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public

Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice. Public

Administration Review, 72(5), 638-648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02595.x

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating

Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00045

Raab, J. & Kenis, P. (2009). Heading Toward a Society of Networks Empirical Developments and

Theoretical Challenges. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3), 198-210.

doi: 10.1177/1056492609337493

Rabionet, S. E. (2011). How I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-Structured Interviews: An

Ongoing and Continuous Journey. The Qualitative Report, 16(2), 563-566. Retrieved from

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-2/rabionet.pdf

Rich, T. M. (2013). Partners in Education: The Experiences of Adjunct Faculty Working in Career

Colleges (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://repository.library.northeastern.edu

/files/neu:1100/fulltext.pdf

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational

Relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90-118.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410122009

Ritchie, J., & Ormston, R. (2014). The Applications of Qualitative Methods to Social Research. In J.

Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative research

practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 27-46). London, England:

https://doi/

https://doi/

http://www/

https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410122009


Sage.

Robson, M. J., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Bojkowszky, B. (2012). Resource Deployment Stability and

Performance in International Research-and-Development Alliances: A Self-Determination

Theory Explanation. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 1-18. https://doi.org

/10.1509%2Fjim.11.0072

Roehrich, J. K., Hoejmose, S. U., & Overland, V. (2017). Driving green supply chain management

performance through supplier selection and value internalisation: A self-determination theory

perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production, 37(4), 489-509.

doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-09-2015-0566

Roxenhall, T. (2011). Network Structure and Innovation in Strategic Innovation Networks.

International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1142

/S1363919613500023

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y.

Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students (5th ed.).

Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. Retrieved from http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/

Schummer, S. E., Otto, K., Hünefeld, L., & Kottwitz, M. U. (2019). The role of need satisfaction for

solo self-employed individuals’ vs. Employer entrepreneurs’ affective commitment towards

their own businesses. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(63).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0190-2

Sharma, N., Young, L., & Wilkinson, I. (2006). The Commitment Mix: Dimensions of Commitment

in International Trading Relationships in India. Journal of International Marketing, 14(3),

https://doi.org/


http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0190-2


64-91. https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjimk.14.3.64

Spector, P. E. (2017). The Lost Art of Discovery: The Case for Inductive Methods in Occupational

Health Science and the Broader Organizational Sciences. Occupational Health Science, 1,

11-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-017-0001-5

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Ormston, R., O’Connor, W., & Barnard, M. (2014). Analysis: Principles and

Processes. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative

research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 269-294). London,

England: Sage.

Steen, J., DeFillippi, R., Sydow, J., Pryke, S., & Michelfelder, I. (2018). Projects and Networks:

Understanding Resource Flows and Governance of Temporary Organizations with

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods. Project Management Journal, 49(2), 3-17.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F875697281804900201

Stewart, J. (2012). Multiple-case Study Methods in Governance-related Research. Public Management

Review, 14(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.589618

Straits, B. C., & Singleton, R. (2011). Social Research. Approaches and Fundamentals (International

5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sydow, J. & Braun, T. (2018). Projects as temporary organizations: An agenda for further theorizing

the interorganizational dimension. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 4-11.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.012

Sydow, J. & Windeler, A. (1994). Über Netzwerke, virtuelle Integration und

Interorganisationsbeziehungen. In J. Sydow & A. Windeler (Eds.), Management

interorganisationaler beziehungen — Vertrauen, kontrolle und informationstechnik

(pp. 1–21). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag und Gabler.

Thomas, D. R. (2003, August). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Paper

presented at School of Population Health, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved

from https://frankumstein.com/PDF/Psychology/Inductive%20Content%20Analysis.pdf


Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Spieth, P. (2013). Leadership in Temporary Organizations: A Review of

Leadership Theories and a Research Agenda. Project Management Journal, 44(6), 52-67.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21380

Vangen, S., Hayes, J. P., & Cornforth, C. (2015). Governing Cross-Sector, Inter-organizational

Collaborations. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1237-1260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080

/14719037.2014.903658

Von Danwitz, S. (2018). Managing inter-firm projects: A systematic review and directions for future

research. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3), 525-541. https://doi.org

/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.11.004

Walter, J., Levin, D. Z., & Murnighan, J. K. (2015). Reconnection Choices: Selecting the Most

Valuable (vs. Most Preferred) Dormant Ties. Organization Science, 26(5), 1263-1551.


Wright, S., O’Brien, B. C., Nimmon, L., Law, M., & Mylopoulos, M. (2016). Research Design

Considerations. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 8(1), 97-98. https://doi.org/10.4300

/JGME-D-15-00566.1

Wu, G., Li, H., Wu, C., & Hu, Z. (2020). How different strengths of ties impact project performance

in megaprojects: the mediating role of trust. International Journal of Managing Projects in

Business, 13(4), 889-912. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2019-0220

Wu, G., Zheng, J., Zhao, X., & Zuo, J. (2020). How does strength of ties influence project

performance in Chinese megaprojects? A conflict-based perspective. International Journal of

Conflict Management, 31(5), 753-780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2019-0150

Zahid, Y., & Abdul, M. (2018). Organizational network and strategic business performance: does

organizational flexibility and entrepreneurial orientation really matter? Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 31(2), 268-285. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2018-0035

Zen, A. C., Lopes, F. D., Wegner, D., & Belussi, F. (2020). Orchestrating Networks: three studies in

different contexts and development stages (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/handle/10183/210808/001115598.pdf?sequence=1

http://dx.doi.org/

https://doi.org/


https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2019-0220

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2019-0150


Appendices

Appendix 1: Introduction e-mail of the partner organization to introduce the researcher

Beste [naam],

<naam lead organisatie> werkt nauw samen met organisaties en zelfstandigen. Zo werken wij

samen op projectbasis rondom thema’s als trainen en opleiden, advies, interim-management

en projectleiding. Door de samenwerkingen met organisaties en zelfstandigen in ons netwerk

kan effectief ingespeeld worden op de klantvraag. Verschillende expertises kunnen

(gebundeld) ingezet worden om waarde te creëren voor onze klanten.

Wij zijn erg benieuwd hoe de samenwerking in netwerken zo goed mogelijk vormgegeven

kunnen worden. Daarom hebben wij een Master studente Organization Studies van de

Universiteit van Tilburg (Sophie van den Dungen) gevraagd om hier onderzoek naar te doen.

De dynamiek die ontstaat in dergelijke netwerken boeit Sophie ten zeerste. Hoe kan de

samenwerking in een netwerk zo goed mogelijk vormgegeven worden? Hoe houd je de

netwerkpartners betrokken? Welke taken zijn daarbij weggelegd voor de netwerkmanager?

Bij deze wil ik je laten weten dat Sophie het netwerk van <naam lead organisatie> zal gaan

onderzoeken. Zij zal individuele interviews af gaan nemen in de maanden juli en augustus.

Vind jij het ook leuk om je ervaringen te delen met haar in een interview (in principe face-to-

face, eventueel online, maximaal 1 uur)?

Ik hoop natuurlijk dat je hier tijd voor vrij zou willen maken. De onderzoeksresultaten worden

naderhand ook met jou gedeeld.

We hebben afgesproken dat Sophie zelf met jullie contact op kan nemen, maar dan weet je

alvast dat dit eraan komt.

Alvast hartelijk dank!

Met vriendelijke groeten,

<naam lead organisatie>


Appendix 2: Information letter preceding participation in the study and informed consent form

Information letter

Research title: “Dear participant, how to foster your commitment to the project network? An

explorative study on how lead organization-governed network management and tie strength relate to

participants’ commitment to the project network”, which is part of the research project “How do

managerial actions of network members influence the functioning of interorganizational networks?”

Beste heer, mevrouw,

Introductie van de onderzoeker

Mijn naam is Sophie van den Dungen. Dit jaar zal ik afstuderen van mijn Master Organization Studies

aan Tilburg University. Voor mijn afstuderen doe ik dit jaar onderzoek binnen de consultancy sector,

waarbij ik me focus op projectmatige netwerkorganisaties.

Aanleiding voor het onderzoek

Voor veel organisaties is het van belang om in te spelen op veranderingen in de dynamische wereld

waarin we ons begeven. Zo is het door de jaren heen voor veel organisaties steeds belangrijker geworden

om door middel van samenwerking in interorganisatorische netwerken, producten en diensten te leveren

voor klanten.

Daar waar voorheen traditionele organisaties alle benodigde expertises onder één dak hadden, zijn

vandaag de dag de benodigde expertises verspreid over meerdere organisaties. Deze moderne

organisaties zoeken, afhankelijk van de klantvraag, de samenwerking op met organisaties en individuen

(zo ook ZZP’ers), om zodoende gezamenlijk waarde te kunnen creëren.

De (tijdelijke) projectmatige samenwerkingen tussen organisaties zijn vaak ingebed in een meer

permanent interorganisatorisch netwerk, dat min of meer geleid wordt door een centrale organisatie.

Binnen de dynamiek van een project netwerk is een belangrijke rol weggelegd voor het management

van de centrale organisatie. Immers, hoe kan de balans tussen flexibiliteit en stabiliteit van het netwerk

gewaarborgd worden?

Deze studie maakt onderdeel uit van het onderzoeksproject “Functioning of interorganizational

networks”. Het doel van dit project is te onderzoeken hoe management acties van netwerk participanten

invloed heeft op het functioneren van interorganisatorische netwerken. Het onderzoeksproject beoogt

een wetenschappelijke bijdrage te leveren door het onderzoeken van onderliggende mechanismen voor

de relatie tussen netwerk management en het functioneren van netwerken. Dit project streeft naar het

verkrijgen van inzichten in welke en op welke manier management acties bijdragen aan het succes van

een netwerk. Daarnaast is dit onderzoek gericht op het verkrijgen van specifieke inzichten met

betrekking tot netwerk management acties, de sterkte van de relatie tussen netwerk actoren, de

betrokkenheid van actoren, de samenwerking, netwerk functionering en netwerk effectiviteit.

Het onderzoek

In deze exploratieve studie ga ik specifiek in op wat de relatie is tussen management praktijken vanuit

de centrale organisatie en het commitment van participanten in het netwerk, gegeven de relatie tussen

hen en de centrale organisatie. De volgende onderzoeksvraag staat daarbij centraal: Hoe zorgt een

centrale organisatie voor betrokkenheid (commitment) van participanten in een project netwerk, in een

omgeving met een verschillende intensiteit van relaties tussen de centrale organisatie en de deelnemer?7

Graag zou ik daarover ook met u in gesprek willen gaan aan de hand van een interview (duur: 1-1,5

uur).

7 De officiële onderzoeksvraag luidt als volgt: How does a lead organization create participant commitment to a

project network in an environment of different tie strengths between the lead organization and the participant?


Vertrouwelijkheid van gegevens

Wanneer u besluit om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek, zal uw data enkel gebruikt worden voor dit

onderzoek. Er zal alles aan worden gedaan om uw privacy zo goed mogelijk te beschermen. Op geen

enkele wijze wordt vertrouwelijke informatie of persoonsgegevens van u naar buiten gebracht, waardoor

iemand u zou kunnen herkennen. In een eventuele publicatie zullen anonieme gegevens of

pseudoniemen worden gebruikt. De audio-opnamen, formulieren en andere documenten die in het kader

van het onderzoek worden gemaakt of verzameld, worden opgeslagen op een beveiligde locatie bij

Tilburg University en op de beveiligde (versleutelde) gegevensdragers van de onderzoekers. Indien

nodig worden de onderzoeksgegevens enkel in anonieme vorm ter beschikking gesteld aan personen

buiten de onderzoeksgroep (bijvoorbeeld voor een controle op wetenschappelijke integriteit). Dit

onderzoek is beoordeeld en goedgekeurd door de Ethische Toetsingscommissie Social and Behavioral

Sciences van Tilburg University.

Vrijwilligheid

Deelname aan dit onderzoek is geheel vrijwillig. U heeft het recht om te weigeren om deel te nemen aan

dit onderzoek en u terug te trekken zodra de deelname begonnen is, zonder enige opgaaf van redenen.

Als u tijdens het onderzoek besluit om uw deelname te staken, zullen de gegevens die u reeds hebt

verstrekt tot het moment van intrekking van de toestemming in het onderzoek gebruikt worden. Tot slot

heeft u het recht tot een verzoek tot inzage, wijziging, verwijdering of aanpassing van uw gegevens te

doen bij Sophie van den Dungen.

Vragen en opmerkingen

Indien u vragen of opmerkingen heeft, kunt u contact opnemen met ondergetekende. Mocht u

opmerkingen of klachten hebben over dit onderzoek, dan kunt u ook contact opnemen met de “Ethics

Review Board” (die dit onderzoek heeft goedgekeurd) van Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral

Sciences via [email protected].

Met vriendelijke groet,

Sophie van den Dungen BSc


Informed consent form (English version)

I agree to participate in the following research study: “Dear Participant, how to foster your

Commitment to the Project Network? An Explorative Study on how Lead organization-governed

Network Management and Tie Strength Relate to Participants’ Commitment to the Project Network”

I have read the participant information letter. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions.

Questions that I did have, have been sufficiently answered. I have had sufficient time to decide to

participate.

I realize that participation is voluntary. I know that I can decide to quit participation at any time. I do

not have to provide a reason for quitting.

I agree to the use of my data for the purpose described in the information letter. I agree that my data is

stored for 10 years after completion of the study.

I want to participate in this research study.

Name participant: ..........................................................................

Signature: Date : ____ / ____ / ____

I declare that I have fully informed the study participant on the study described in the information

letter.

Name researcher: ...........................................................................

Signature: Date: ____ / ____ / ____


Informed consent form (Dutch version)

Geïnformeerde toestemming

Respondent:

Naam:

Geboortedatum:

Woonplaats:

De geïnterviewde verklaart als volgt:

1. De geïnterviewde verleent aan Tilburg University het recht om het op ____-____-2020

door Sophie van den Dungen in het kader van het onderzoek “Dear participant, how to foster

your commitment to the project network? An explorative study on how lead organization-

governed network management and tie strength relate to participants’ commitment to the

project network”

het gesprek op te nemen en te bewaren in haar archieven voor 10 jaar nadat het onderzoek is

afgerond. Tilburg University zal dit interview uitsluitend ter beschikking stellen in het kader

van wetenschappelijk onderzoek en daarbij als voorwaarde stellen dat er alleen in

geanonimiseerde vorm over gepubliceerd mag worden. Na het onderzoek zal de

geanonimiseerde data uit dit onderzoek opvraagbaar blijven voor (eventuele) inspectie.

2. De geïnterviewde heeft het (separaat) informatieblad over het onderzoek begrepen en

mogelijkheid gekregen om vragen te stellen. Daarnaast bevestigt de geïnterviewde dat hij/zij

vrijwillig deelneemt aan dit onderzoek en het interview op elk moment kan beëindigen

(zonder opgaaf van reden).

Naam geïnterviewde: ..........................................................................

Handtekening: Datum : ____ / ____ / ____

Verklaring van de onderzoeker

Ik verklaar dat ik de participant voldoende heb geïnformeerd en voldoe aan de Ethics Code of the

Ethics Review Board of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences of Tilburg University.

Naam onderzoeker: ...........................................................................

Handtekening: Datum: ____ / ____ / ____


Appendix 3: Semi-structured interview guidelines

Topic guide Interview with managing partner of the lead organization

Deel 1: Introductie

- ‘Smalltalk’;

- Welkom heten en bedanken voor de tijd en medewerking van de respondent.

- Introductie van mijzelf en het onderzoeksthema:

Praktisch:

- Om toestemming vragen het interview op te nemen in het belang van correcte uitwerking;

- Anonimiteit en vertrouwelijkheid van het interview benadrukken;

- Refereren naar de informatiebrief en het ondertekenen van formulier ‘informed consent’; als u

het goed vindt, start ik nu met opnemen. Ik wil daarbij benadrukken dat deelname aan het

onderzoek geheel vrijwillig is en u te allen tijde mag weigeren of de deelname mag

onderbreken.

- Het interview zal ongeveer een uur duren.

- Heeft u nog vragen vooraf?

- Introductie van het onderzoeksthema:

Mijn afstudeeronderzoek gaat over netwerksamenwerkingen. Daarbij onderzoek ik de totstandkoming

van het commitment van organisaties en individuen die verbonden zijn aan netwerken die min of meer

geleid worden door een centrale organisatie. Hierbij kan commitment worden beschouwd als de

neiging tot betrokkenheid, verbondenheid en identificatie met het netwerk.

Omdat u als vertegenwoordiger van organisatie X samenwerkt in het netwerk van <lead organisatie>,

wil ik u graag interviewen. Daarbij zullen de vragen gaan over wat maakt dat uw organisatie

betrokken is bij het netwerk, hoe jullie samenwerken binnen het netwerk, hoe u en andere

netwerkpartners ervoor zorgen dat jullie als netwerk projectmatige doelen behalen (network

management), en wat voor invloed de intensiteit van de relatie (tie strength) tussen u en de centrale

organisatie heeft in dit proces. Het doel van het onderzoek is kijken hoe centrale organisaties in deze

netwerkcontext kunnen zorgen voor betrokken netwerkpartners en daarmee een adequate balans tussen

flexibiliteit en stabiliteit in de netwerksamenwerkingen. Ik zou u bij het beantwoorden van de vragen

willen uitnodigen om verhalen en anekdotes te gebruiken om antwoorden toe te lichten.

Inhoudelijk (start opname):

Zou u zich alstublieft kunnen introduceren?

- Respondent informatie doornemen: naam, leeftijd, woonplaats, huidige functie en organisatie,

opleidingsachtergrond, expertise, tijd verbonden aan het lead-organization governed project

netwerk;

- Doorlopen van de onderdelen van het interview


Deel 2: Interview

Opsplitsen:

- ZZP vs. Organisatievertegenwoordigers

- Actieve relaties t.o.v. ‘slapende’ relaties

Achtergrond

1. Hoe is <lead organisatie-netwerk> ontstaan?

2. Wie coördineert het netwerk van <lead organisatie>?

3. Wat is het doel van het netwerk?

Onderscheid: Sociaal maatschappelijk – Organisatorisch – Individueel niveau?

4. Wat is de visie, missie, strategie?

5. Wanneer wordt dit bereikt? (succesfactoren)

6. In welke mate zijn doelstellingen van het netwerk geformuleerd?

7. Hoe wordt er samengewerkt binnen het netwerk van <lead organisatie>? a. Hoeveel samenwerkingspartners zijn er (ongeveer)?

b. Welke afspraken zijn formeel vastgelegd? Hoe wordt dat vastgelegd?

c. Welke informele afspraken zijn er?

d. In welke mate zijn er informele verwachtingen van <lead organisatie> richting de

participanten in het netwerk? En andersom?

8. Hoe draagt deze manier van netwerksamenwerking bij aan het realiseren van het

(netwerk)doel / doelen van <lead organisatie>?

9. Wat valt jou als managing partner/eigenaar op in de samenwerking tussen participanten in het

netwerk van <lead organisatie>?

10. Hoe draagt deze manier van netwerksamenwerking bij aan het realiseren van de doelen van de

participerende organisaties?

Network management by the lead organization

1. Wat is jouw rol in het netwerk?

2. Hoe motiveer je de participanten om samen te werken in het netwerk?

3. Hoe motiveer je de participanten om betrokken te zijn bij het netwerk? En onderling?

4. Hoe motiveer je de participanten om projecten uit naam van <lead organisatie> te willen

uitvoeren?

5. Hoe zorg je ervoor dat de participanten zich inzetten voor het netwerk?

6. In welke mate worden bijdragen aan het netwerk beloond?

7. Hoe zorg je ervoor dat jullie als netwerk samen (project)doelen behalen?

8. Welke / Wat voor management acties of activiteiten pas je toe in het coördineren van het

project netwerk?

a. In het heden (voorbeeld situatie vragen)

b. In het verleden (voorbeeld situatie vragen)

9. Hoe wordt er gecommuniceerd binnen het netwerk? Hoe vaak?

10. Hoe is de hiërarchie in het netwerk verdeeld? 11. Hoe verloopt de selectie: Hoe trek je (nieuwe) organisaties/individuen aan om (projectmatig of

anderszins) mee samen te werken in het netwerk? Hoe verloopt dit proces?

a. Hebben andere organisaties in het netwerk daar invloed op?

12. Hoe worden verantwoordelijkheden, routines, rollen en relaties gecoördineerd?

13. Is het duidelijk wie waar verantwoordelijk voor is?

14. Zijn de doelen helder geformuleerd en gecommuniceerd?

15. Hoe wordt daarover gecommuniceerd vanuit <lead organisatie>?

16. Welke regels/afspraken/procedures zijn vastgelegd in het netwerk vanuit <lead organisatie>?

a. Formeel

b. Informeel

17. Hoe verloopt de planning & controle van en in het netwerk?

18. Hoe wordt informatie gedeeld onderling? (bijv. visuele project management tool)


Het bevragen van de relaties

Acties door de lead organisatie (X) Participant commitment naar het Project Netwerk (Y)

1. Waarom is commitment van de participanten belangrijk? Wat levert dit op?

Welk “probleem” wordt daarmee opgelost? (probing: flexibiliteit – stabiliteit)

2. Hoe kan, naar jouw idee, <lead organisatie> de participanten betrokken houden bij het

netwerk?

a. Wat versta je daarbij onder betrokkenheid (lees: commitment) van participanten?

i. Projecten/opdrachten uit naam van <lead organisatie> uit willen voeren?

ii. Investeren in de samenwerking? (tijd, moeite, geld)

iii. Relaties aangaan met mensen/organisaties in netwerk van <lead organisatie>?

3. Wat is mogelijk de aanleiding/motivatie voor organisaties en ZZP’ers om zich als

samenwerkingspartner aan te sluiten/te verbinden bij het netwerk van <lead organisatie>?

a. Welke factoren hebben voor hen mogelijk invloed op het aangaan van de

samenwerking?

i. Zit dit in bepaalde (aantrekkelijke) acties vanuit jou als netwerkmanager?

ii. Is dit te danken aan bepaalde voorwaarden die <lead organisatie> heeft

opgesteld?

iii. Zit dit in de relationele geschiedenis met jou, <lead organisatie> of een andere

organisatie in het netwerk? Enzovoorts.

4. Kun je me – per management actie – vertellen hoe dit in het verleden/heden de betrokkenheid

van de participanten heeft beïnvloed naar jouw ervaring? Positief/negatief/neutraal?

5. Hoe uit zich de betrokkenheid van participanten in het netwerk?

a. Betrokken richting <lead organisatie’s> project netwerk (ook participanten

onderling?)

b. Wat beoog jij daarin?

6. Vanuit welke gedachte pas je de acties toe? Achterliggende doel en/of aanleiding?

7. Wat voor soort acties vanuit jouw als manager – of breder getrokken vanuit <lead organisatie>

– denk jij dat bijdragen aan het bevorderen van het commitment (betrokkenheid) van

participanten in het project netwerk?

8. Op wat voor manier (hoe) denk je deze acties bijdragen aan de betrokkenheid van hen? Wat is

het effect?

9. Welke andere management acties/taken zijn naar jouw idee ook belangrijk hiervoor?

10. Welke acties/activiteiten/interventies denk je dat juist niet bevorderlijk zijn voor de

betrokkenheid van hen? Wat werkt averechts? (vragen naar voorbeeld uit verleden/heden)

Tie strength (de relatie tussen de netwerk participant en de centrale organisatie)

● Hoe frequent heb je contact met de organisaties in het netwerk? (amount of time) o Dagelijks

o Wekelijks

o Maandelijks

o Jaarlijks

● Wat voor contact heb je met de participanten in het netwerk?

o Formeel, informeel (of beide) – hoe vaak?

● Hoe zou je de relatie met de participanten in het netwerk omschrijven? o Is het een win-win relatie?

o …een transactionele relatie?

o …een tijdelijke relatie?

o …een langdurige relatie?

o …een terugkerende relatie?

o …een sociale relatie?

o …een projectmatige relatie?


o Is de relatie ontstaan in formele sfeer (uit werk), of in informele sfeer (privésferen)?

o Hoe zou je de historie van jullie relatie omschrijven?

▪ Sinds wanneer?

▪ Hoe verhoudt de relatie zich over tijd? (frequentie van contact, soort relatie,

emotionele intensiteit van de relatie)

o In hoeverre zijn jullie onderling afhankelijk van elkaar?

o In hoeverre vindt er uitwisseling van middelen tussen jullie plaats?

▪ Middelen: fysieke en non-fysieke middelen (financiën, mensen, expliciete

kennis, impliciete kennis, documenten, etc.)

o In hoeverre worden middelen van jou en de centrale organisatie gecombineerd

ingezet? Zo ja, op wat voor manier? (combination of resources in the relationship)

Network management contingent on tie strength Participant commitment (Y)

De volgende vragen gaan over factoren die mogelijk van invloed zijn op de totstandkoming van de

verbonden- en betrokkenheid (commitment) bij het project netwerk van <lead organisatie>. Factoren

die mogelijk van invloed zijn op de relatie tussen de management acties/activiteiten en de mate waarin participanten zich verbonden voelen aan het project netwerk van <lead organisatie>.

1. Wat voor management acties vanuit <lead organisatie> zijn van belang als de relatie tussen

organisatie X en <lead organisatie> in intensiteit toeneemt (lees: versterkt of intensiveert)?

Wat betekent het voor jouw acties/taken als netwerkmanager?

o bijv. als je samen in een project zit

2. Wat voor management acties vanuit <lead organisatie> zijn van belang als de relatie tussen

organisatie X en <lead organisatie> in intensiteit afneemt (ofwel; verzwakt)? – ‘slapende’

relatie

a. Pas je jouw management acties aan op dat moment ten behoeve van de betrokkenheid

van deze participant?

b. Welke acties krijgen dan meer aandacht? En juist minder?

Kun je daar voorbeelden van noemen?

2. Maak je in het uitvoeren van je management acties onderscheid op basis van het type relatie

wat je hebt met de verschillende participanten? Kun je dit toelichten?

Overig

- Bespreken van toekomst scenario ter voorbereiding op interviews

- Ruimte voor het stellen van vragen, of bespreken van relevante onderwerpen die gaandeweg

ter sprake zijn gekomen.

Deel 3: Afsluiting

- Respondent bedanken

- Ruimte voor het stellen van vragen - Toelichting op het verdere verloop van het onderzoek


Topic guide Interviews with network participants

Deel 1: Introductie - Welkom heten en bedanken voor de tijd en medewerking van de respondent.

- Introductie van mijzelf en het onderzoeksthema:

Praktisch:

- Om toestemming vragen het interview op te nemen in het belang van correcte uitwerking;

- Anonimiteit en vertrouwelijkheid van het interview benadrukken;

- Refereren naar de informatiebrief en het ondertekenen van formulier ‘informed consent’; als u

het goed vindt, start ik nu met opnemen. Ik wil daarbij benadrukken dat deelname aan het

onderzoek geheel vrijwillig is en u te allen tijde mag weigeren of de deelname mag

onderbreken.

- Het interview zal ongeveer een uur duren.

- Heeft u nog vragen vooraf?

- Introductie van het onderzoeksthema:

Mijn afstudeeronderzoek gaat over netwerksamenwerkingen. Daarbij onderzoek ik de totstandkoming

van het commitment van organisaties en individuen die verbonden zijn aan netwerken die min of meer

geleid worden door een centrale organisatie. Hierbij kan commitment worden beschouwd als de

neiging tot betrokkenheid, verbondenheid en identificatie met het netwerk.

Omdat u als vertegenwoordiger van organisatie X samenwerkt in het netwerk van <lead organisatie>,

wil ik u graag interviewen. Daarbij zullen de vragen gaan over wat maakt dat uw organisatie

betrokken is bij het netwerk, hoe jullie samenwerken binnen het netwerk, hoe u en andere

netwerkpartners ervoor zorgen dat jullie als netwerk projectmatige doelen behalen (network

management), en wat voor invloed de intensiteit van de relatie (tie strength) tussen u en de centrale

organisatie heeft in dit proces. Het doel van het onderzoek is kijken hoe centrale organisaties in in

deze netwerkcontext kunnen zorgen voor betrokken netwerkpartners en daarmee een adequate balans

tussen flexibiliteit en stabiliteit in de netwerksamenwerkingen. Ik zou u bij het beantwoorden van de

vragen willen uitnodigen om verhalen en anekdotes te gebruiken om antwoorden toe te lichten.

Introductie van de respondent:

Zou u zich alstublieft kunnen introduceren?

- Respondent informatie doornemen: naam, geografische locatie, organisatie en huidige functie,

expertise, rol in het netwerk, tijd verbonden aan het <lead organisatie netwerk>.


Deel 2: Interview Algemeen

1. Kunt u wat meer vertellen over de totstandkoming van de samenwerking tussen uw

organisatie en <lead organisatie>?

2. Wat is het doel van de samenwerking? Wat is het doel van het netwerk?

3. Hoe werkt u samen in het netwerk?

4. Hoe is de hiërarchie in het netwerk verdeeld?

Commitment: Affectief (emotionele verbondenheid), normatief (morele verplichting), continuance

(kosten-baten analyse).

5. Waarom is, naar uw idee, commitment van participanten in het netwerk belangrijk?

6. Wat levert commitment op?

7. En wat levert commitment op voor <lead organisatie> in het bijzonder?

8. Waarom bent u betrokken bij projecten binnen het netwerk van <lead organisatie>?

9. Wat is uw toegevoegde waarde voor het netwerk van <lead organisatie> (lees: welke kennis en skills heeft u in huis die voor de centrale actor <lead organisatie> van toegevoegde waarde

zijn)?

10. Wat is uw toegevoegde waarde voor andere organisaties en individuen in het project netwerk?

11. Wat is er volgens u nodig in de samenwerking met <lead organisatie> om te zorgen dat uw

(gezamenlijke) doelen bereikt worden? (denk aan de doelen van verschillende projecten)

Network orchestration by the lead organization

12. Kunt u wat meer vertellen over hoe het netwerk gecoördineerd wordt?

13. Welk effect heeft de manier van coördineren van het netwerk door <lead organisatie> op u?

14. Kunt u wat meer vertellen over de management acties die door <lead organisatie> worden

uitgevoerd? Voorbeelden? (situaties uit het heden en verleden)

Selectie

15. Hoe verloopt de selectie van organisaties en individuen voor bepaalde projecten in het

netwerk van <lead organisatie>? Hoe verloopt dit selectieproces, en wie heeft daar invloed

op?

16. Hoe worden verantwoordelijkheden en rollen in projecten gecoördineerd?

17. Hoe worden relaties in projectmatige samenwerkingen gecoördineerd?

18. Hoe worden de doelen voor een project geformuleerd en gecommuniceerd vanuit <lead

organisatie>?

19. Is het duidelijk wie waar verantwoordelijk voor is?

20. Welke regels, afspraken, procedures zijn vastgelegd in het netwerk?

(formeel, informeel)

21. Hoe wordt teruggekeken op gemaakte afspraken?

22. Hoe verloopt de planning en controle van en in het netwerk?

23. Hoe wordt informatie gedeeld (onderling)? (bijv. visuele project management tool)

Het bevragen van de relatie: Network management Commitment to the project network

24. In hoeverre denkt u dat management acties uw commitment richting projecten binnen het

netwerk beïnvloeden?

25. Welke management acties specifiek zouden…

a. …uw commitment kunnen vergroten?

b. …u motiveren om verbonden te willen blijven aan het netwerk? Waarom?

c. …u stimuleren tot participatie in projecten uit naam van <lead organisatie>?

d. …u stimuleren tot participatie in activiteiten binnen het netwerk van <lead

organisatie> (bijv. kennisdeling)?

26. Welke management acties vanuit <lead organisatie> zijn voor u belangrijk om…

a. …verbonden te willen blijven met het project netwerk?

b. …u in te willen zetten voor het project netwerk?


c. …u in te willen zetten voor projecten/opdrachten uit naam van het netwerk?

27. In hoeverre hebben management acties vanuit <lead organisatie> in het verleden bijgedragen

aan uw commitment tot projecten binnen het netwerk van <lead organisatie>? Kunt u hier

voorbeelden van geven?

28. Hoe kan <lead organisatie> ervoor zorgen dat u zich commit tot projecten binnen het

netwerk?

Tie strength (de relatie tussen de netwerk participant en de centrale organisatie)

29. Hoe frequent heeft u contact met de centrale netwerkorganisatie? (amount of time)

a. Dagelijks, Wekelijks, Maandelijks, Jaarlijks

30. Wat voor contact heeft u met de centrale netwerkorganisatie?

a. Formeel, informeel, of beide? Hoe vaak formeel/informeel? (amount of time) 31. Hoe zou u de historie van uw relatie met <lead organisatie> omschrijven?

a. Sinds wanneer? (prior ties, intimacy)

b. Sinds wanneer staat u in contact met het project netwerk van <lead organisatie>?

c. Wat was de aanleiding van dit contact? Van uw participatie in het project netwerk?

(reciprocal services which characterize the tie)

d. Hoe verhoudt de relatie zich over tijd? (frequentie contact, soort relatie, emotionele

intensiteit van de relatie)

32. Hoe zou u de relatie met de centrale netwerkorganisatie omschrijven?

Win-win relatie; transactionele relatie, tijdelijke (terugkerende) relatie, langdurige relatie,

sociale relatie, projectmatige relatie, formele/informele relatie.

33. In hoeverre zijn jullie onderling afhankelijk van elkaar?

34. In hoeverre vindt er uitwisseling van middelen tussen jullie plaats?

a. Fysieke en non-fysieke middelen (financiën, mensen, expliciete kennis, impliciete

kennis, documenten, etc.)

b. In hoeverre worden middelen gecombineerd ingezet? Zo ja, op wat voor manier?

(combination of resources in the relationship)

Het bevragen van de relatie: Network management contingent on Tie strength Commitment

De volgende vragen gaan over factoren die mogelijk van invloed zijn op de totstandkoming van uw

commitment bij het project netwerk van <lead organisatie>.

35. Gegeven uw huidige relatie met <lead organisatie>…

a. Welke management acties vanuit <lead organisatie> zullen uw neiging om

gecommitteerd te zijn aan projecten in het netwerk doen toenemen?

b. Wat is in uw ogen belangrijk voor het realiseren van commitment richting projecten

binnen het netwerk?

c. Hoe kan <lead organisatie> als centrale netwerkorganisatie daar aan bijdragen voor u? M.a.w.: Wat voor acties, activiteiten, afspraken, en manier van samenwerken maken

dat u zich betrokken voelt bij het project netwerk?

Effect van een verandering in Tie strength

36. Wat voor acties vanuit <lead organisatie> zijn voor u van belang als de relatie tussen uw

organisatie (lees: u als vertegenwoordiger) en <lead organisatie> in intensiteit toeneemt? Bijv.

bij actieve samenwerking binnen een project.

a. Kunt u daar een voorbeeldsituatie van noemen?

37. Wat voor acties zijn voor u van belang als de relatie tussen uw organisatie en <lead

organisatie> in intensiteit afneemt (ofwel; verzwakt)? richting ‘slaapstand’

a. Kunt u daar een voorbeeldsituatie van noemen?

38. Wat voor acties zou <lead organisatie> uit kunnen voeren om ervoor te zorgen dat netwerk

participanten waarvan de relatie in een ‘slaapstand’ staat, toch gecommitteerd willen blijven

aan het project netwerk?


Overig

- Ruimte voor het stellen van vragen of bespreken van relevante onderwerpen die gaandeweg

ter sprake zijn gekomen.

Deel 3: Afsluiting - Respondent bedanken.

- Toelichting op de verdere procedures.


Appendix 4: Illustration of the fictional future scenario discussed in the interviews

Instructies

Zo meteen wordt u gevraagd om als individu een fictieve situatie binnen het project netwerk te

beoordelen en een indicatie te geven van het verwachte effect op uw commitment bij het netwerk.

Omschrijving van het project

U bent sinds een jaar verbonden aan het project netwerk van <lead organisatie>. <lead organisatie>

heeft u gevraagd om te participeren in een nieuw of bestaand project voor een klant dat uw speciale

vaardigheden en expertise vereist. De situatie vereist dat u snel handelt en dat u op korte termijn deze

opdracht gaat invullen. Het moment waarop het project van start zal gaan is uitgerekend precies de dag

waarop u een andere opdracht voor uw eigen organisatie afrondt, waardoor ruimte vrijkomt voor een

nieuwe invulling!

Om u te motiveren te participeren in het project netwerk, voert <lead organisatie> een aantal acties uit.

Hoe werkt het zo meteen?

Zo meteen zal u worden gevraagd om toe te lichten welke overwegingen en gedachtes bij u spelen na

het lezen van een hypothetische situatie. Zodoende dient deze casus ter stimulering van de reflectie op

wat en hoe acties/activiteiten en handelingen van de <lead organisatie> mogelijk een effect hebben op

uw overwegingen als individu. Alles wordt natuurlijk vertrouwelijk behandeld.

Maak a.u.b. een keuze die het beste bij u past, gebaseerd op de informatie die wordt gegeven, en onder

de assumptie dat alle overige parameters van het project en de projectomgeving constant zijn over de

fictieve scenario’s. Neem daarbij aan dat u actief bent in de economische context van Nederland en dat

de omvang en reikwijdte van de projecten vergelijkbaar zijn met de typen projecten waar u in uw

organisatie momenteel bij betrokken bent of bent geweest.

Voorbeeld situatie 1:

Dit project kan, als het succesvol blijkt, uitgroeien tot een nieuwe erkende business unit (propositie)

binnen het netwerk van <lead organisatie>, waarbij uw kansen om in de toekomst meer uren te maken

op deze projectmatige basis, uit naam van het project netwerk, met zekerheid toenemen. U neemt deel

aan projecten en opdrachten binnen het project netwerk uit naam van <lead organisatie>.

Wat zou u doen?

Wat zou u doen als u buiten deelname aan de projecten binnen het netwerk van <lead organisatie>, uw

ook bij projecten buiten dit project netwerk betrokken kunt blijven?

Voorbeeld situatie 2:

Voor aanvang van dit project heeft u één jaar lang niet deelgenomen aan projecten/opdrachten binnen

het netwerk van <lead organisatie>. De relatie tussen uw organisatie (of u als individu) en de

managing partner van <lead organisatie> heeft daardoor een tijdje op een ‘slaapstand’ gestaan.

Wat zou u doen?


Figure 4.1 Presentation of findings in expert interviews (made by the researcher)

Appendix 5: Interview guideline and presentation for expert interviews

Deel 1: Introductie

- ‘Smalltalk’;

- Bedanken voor de tijd en medewerking.

- Aanleiding interview

- Toestemming

Deel 2: Inhoudelijk

- Onderzoeksvraag en toelichting van onderwerp

- Toelichten resultaten aan de hand van model (zie Figure 13, p. 53)

- Uitnodigen om te reageren

o Autonomy vs. Integration:

- Herkenbaar? Zo ja, hoe uit zich dit?

- Hoe kan effectief op ingespeeld worden ter bevordering van commitment?

o Bespreken van de gevonden praktijken (practices) en mechanismen in relatie tot

commitment

- Herkenbaar? Mist er nog iets?

- Zijn er resultaten die verrassend zijn?

- Voorbeelden?

o Bespreken van de rol van ‘active’ en ‘dormant ties’

- Herkenbaar? Voorbeelden?

- Zijn er bepaalde practices die hierbij nog missen?

o ‘You are the expert’; ruimte voor aanbevelingen

- Suggesties voor praktische implicaties

o Ruimte voor vragen

o Bedanken voor de tijd en medewerking.

Ter illustratie de slides van de presentatie die de onderzoeker gebruikt heeft tijdens de interviews.



Stabilizing Perceived stability

Making agreements Social reciprocity

Network

participant


Trust

Autonomy-enhancing

practices


practices

Need for belonging


Acquisition

Selection

Allocation

Network meetings

Bridging

Flexibility

Non-Exclusivity

Openness

Transparency

Honesty

Affective

commitment

Continuance

commitment


Social reciprocity

Need for autonomy

Normative

commitment

Lead organizationNetwork participant

Operational support

Feedback

Recognition

Managerial support

EmpowermentCustomized approach

Providing updatesTransferring knowledge


LegitimacyMaintaining personal contact


Integration-enhancingIntegration-enhancing

Quality

Trust

Autonomy-enhancing

Active tie Dormant tieGeneric tie Active tie Dormant tieGeneric tie Active tie Dormant tieGeneric tie

Figure 13. Results integrated


Appendix 6: Example of thematic framework

To ensure anonymity of the respondents, the example of the thematic framework is not available for all readers. The framework can be made available in

consultation with the researcher.


Appendix 7: Coding scheme

Table 7.1

Coding scheme

Open coding Axial coding Selective coding

Flexibility Autonomy-enhancing

Flexibility

Empowerment

Giving trust

Customized approach

Autonomy in relation to commitment

Causal conditions

Autonomy in relation to trust

Mechanism: trust

Mechanism: need for autonomy

Customization empowerment

Freedom

Independence

Autonomy

Influence

Involvement

Non-exclusivity

Market approach

Customization

Administrative support Managerial support

Operational support

Feedback

Recognition

Support in relation to commitment

Causal conditions

Need for integration in relation to

commitment

Logistic support

Planning and control

Recognition

Appreciation

Providing feedback

Advice

Sparring partner

Mentor

Experienced support

Maintaining contact Networking

Perceived stability

Networking in relation to commitment

Causal conditions

Need for integration in relation to

commitment

Mechanism: perceived stability

Signaling new opportunities

Acquisition

Selection

Market approach

Exposure

Broker of knowledge Integration-enhancing

Network meetings

Bridging

Transferring knowledge

Providing updates

Integration in relation to commitment

Causal conditions

Mechanism: need for belonging

Mechanism: need for integration

Mechanism: quality

Mechanism: social reciprocity

Linking pin

Facilitating connection

Organizing network meetings

Regular meetings

Facilitating knowledge exchange

Facilitating information exchange

Division of tasks Stabilizing

Allocation

Meet agreements

Stabilizing in relation to commitment

Causal conditions

Mechanism: perceived stability

Mechanism: trust

Making agreements

Regulation

Trust


Affection Meaning of commitment Affective commitment

Likeability factor

Intrinsic motivation

Feeling part of the family

Promoting the lead organization

Sense of belonging

Loyalty Meaning of commitment

Sense of obligation

Normative commitment

Moral obligation

Perceived responsibility

What is in it for me? Meaning of commitment

Instrumentality

Continuance commitment

Cost-benefit consideration

Instrumental reason to commit

Openness Interpersonal

Giving trust

Openness

Transparency

Honesty

Interpersonal practices in relation to

commitment

Causal conditions

Openness in relation to commitment

Transparency in relation to commitment

Honesty in relation to commitment

Mechanism: trust

Mechanism: social reciprocity

Transparency

Honesty

Sharing resources

Equivalence

Networking depends on the

person

Personal transactions

Economic transactions

Mutual trust

Tie strength in relation to commitment

Tie strength: Emotional intensity

Emotional intensity in relation to

commitment

Personal contact

Personal relationship

Reciprocal services

Origin of relationship

Trust

Frequency of contact

Active relationship Active tie

Dormant tie

Active tie management

Dormant tie management Dormant relationship


Group Code Description

Causal condition

(CD)

Autonomy (Aut) Respondent describes the extent to which autonomy-enhancing practices

by the lead organization influence his or her commitment.

Maintaining contact (Mai) Respondent describes the extent to which the lead organization maintains

contact influences his or her commitment.

Allocation (All) Respondent describes the extent to which allocation actions by the lead

organization influence his or her commitment.

Securing network

continuity (Sec)

Respondent describes the extent to which the lead organization executes

practices in the sphere of securing network continuity, and how these

practices influence his or her commitment.

Fostering collective entity

(Fos) / Integration

Respondent describes the extent to which attempts of the lead organization

to foster a collective entity influences his or her commitment.

Bridging (Bridg)

/ Facilitating connection

(Fac Conn)

Respondent describes the extent to which bridging practices by the lead

organization influence his or her commitment.

Experience support

(Supp)

Respondent describes the extent to which he or she experiences supportive

practices by the lead organization to influence his or her commitment.

Active participation (Act.

Part)

Respondent describes the extent to which the lead organization actively

participates in projects to influence his or her commitment.

Facilitating information

exchange (Fac. Info.

Exch.)

Respondent describes the extent to which the lead organization facilitates

information exchange between project network participants to influence on

his or her commitment.

Providing feedback (Prov.

Fee)

Respondent describes the extent to which the lead organization provides

feedback to influence on his or her commitment.

Openness (Ope) Respondent describes the extent to which openness of the network manager

influences the realization/execution of lead organization-governed network

management practices.

Transparency (Transp) Respondent describes the extent to which transparency of the network

manager influences his or her commitment.

Honesty (Hon) Respondent describes the extent to which honesty of the network manager

influences the execution of lead organization-governed network

management practices.

Critical attitude (Crit Att) Respondent describes the extent to which the critical attitude of the

network manager influences his or her commitment.

Personal relationship

(Per)

Respondent describes the extent to which the personal relationship with the

lead organization influences his or her commitment.

Non-exclusivity (Non-

Excl)

Respondent describes the extent to which the non-exclusive way of

collaborating with the lead organization influences his or her commitment.

Selection (Sel) Respondent describes the extent to which selection influences his or her

commitment.

Mutual appreciation

(Mut)

Respondent describes the extent to which mutual appreciation between him

or her and the contact person of the lead organization influences

commitment.

Broker of knowledge

(Bro)

Respondent describes the extent to which he or she perceives the lead

organization as a broker of his or her knowledge in relation to his or her

commitment.

Acquisition (Acq) Respondent describes the extent to which acquisition by the lead

organization influences his or her commitment.

Shared vision (Sh), goal Respondent describes the extent to which a shared vision influences his or

her commitment.

Taking responsibility

(Tak. Resp.)

Respondent describes the extent to which the responsibility taken by the

lead organization influences his or her commitment.

Meet agreements (Meet

Agr.)

Respondent describes the extent to which the lead organization meets

agreements influences his or her commitment.

Market approach (Mark.

App)

Respondent describes the extent to which the market approach of the lead

organization influences his or her commitment.

Legitimacy (Leg) Respondent describes the extent to which legitimacy of the lead

organization(-governed project network) influences his or her commitment.

Phenomenon

(P)

Commitment (Comm) Respondent describes specific points on which he or she bases the

perception of commitment to the network collaboration.

Loyalty (Loy) Respondent describes specific points on which he or she bases the

perception of loyalty to the network collaboration/lead organization.

Experienced tension (Exp. Respondent describes specific points on which he or she bases the

Table 7.2.

Description of codes made by the researcher to facilitate the coding process


Ten) perception of a tension in the network collaboration.

Mechanism (MC) Trust (Tru) Respondent describes situations in which trust plays a role in the

securement of his or her commitment.

Social reciprocity (Soc) Respondent describes situations in which social reciprocity plays a role in

the securement of his or her commitment.

Size of network (Size) Respondent describes situations in which the size of the network plays a

role in the securement of his or her commitment.

Contextual

condition

(CC)

Market situation (Mark) Respondent describes situations in which the market situation plays a role

in the execution of practices and its influence on commitment.

Future scenario (Fut) Respondent describes how he or she would feel like in a potential future

scenario.

Need for capacity (Need

for cap)

Respondent describes situations in which the lead organization is in need

for capacity and therefore approaches network participants.

Dormant relationship

(Dor)

Respondent describes network management in relation to a dormant

relationship with the lead organization.

Active relationship (Act) Respondent describes network management in relation to an active

relationship with the lead organization.

Frequency (Freq) Respondent describes how often he or she is in contact with the lead

organization (i.e. managing partner).

Origin relationship (Orig) Respondent describes origin of the relationship with the lead organization

(i.e. managing partner).

Reciprocal services

(Recipr)

Respondent describes the reciprocal services which characterize the

relationship with him or her and the lead organization.

Mutual trust (Mut Tr) Respondent describes the extent to which he or she experiences mutual

trust between him or her and the lead organization.

Emotional intensity

relationship (Em Int)

Respondent describes the emotional intensity of the relationship between

him or her and the lead organization (i.e. managing partner).

Informal regulation (Inf) Respondent describes the extent to which project and working

arrangements are formulated in an informal way.

Third party in

collaboration (Third)

Respondent describes situations in which a third party is involved in the

collaboration with the lead organization.

Dependency (Dep) Respondent describes the extent to which dependency between him or her

and the lead organization plays a role in the collaboration commitment.

Strategies

(S)

Response to tension

(Resp)

Respondent describes how he or she deals with the autonomy and

integration tension (specific actions, e.g. calling the lead organization).

Securing commitment

(Sec)

Respondent describes how he or she secures one’s commitment to the lead


Consequences

(CO)

Consequences of

commitment (Conseq)

Respondent describes consequences of commitment to the lead


Quality (Qua) Respondent describes quality outcomes of commitment.

Emotions (Emo) Respondent describes emotions he or she experiences in relation to

commitment.

Possible solutions (Poss

solu)

Respondent describes potential solutions for commitment.


Figure 7.1 Steps applied in the data collection and analysis process


Appendix 8: Translation of quotes in the interviews

For anonymity reasons, these translations can be made available in consultation with the researcher.


Appendix 9: Additional results on Tie strength dimensions

With regard to tie strength, despite the study’s main focus is on the distinction between generic, active,

and dormant tie management, the additional results section elaborates on the findings in light of the

theoretical dimensions of tie strength (Granovetter, 1973) that were identified in the data. Throughout

the development of the study, it appeared that the descriptive nature of tie strength was actually indicated

by the respondents to have a direct influence on commitment. All respondents acknowledged that their

relationship with the lead organization is of crucial importance in the development of their commitment.

All of them indicated that a good relationship is a determining factor for the effectiveness of network

collaborations: “The relationship is so important in networks. You must have such a good relationship

with each other. And that is give-and-take, on all sides”. More specifically, several tie strength

dimensions were identified to be constitutive of the creation of commitment, namely: emotional

intensity of the relationship, reciprocal services, and developed mutual trust (i.e., origin of the

relationship, prior ties) between the network participant and the lead organization. These themes are

regarded as additional results, since the conceptualization of tie strength in the following paragraphs

deviates from the central study’s notion (active versus dormant tie management). Thus, the relationship

between the network participant and the lead organization is central in this section, while outlining the

findings of certain tie strength dimensions in relation to commitment.

9.1 Emotional intensity of the relationship

The emotional intensity of the relationship between the lead organization and the network participant

became apparent from the interviews. Based on the findings, a distinction can be made between (a)

personal relationships, and (b) economic relationships. Both types of relationships have been identified

to play a role in the process of creating network participant commitment, although in different ways.

The role of a personal relationship in creating commitment

First, the personal aspect of the relationship with the lead organization was considered as an important

factor in the creation of commitment: “It is really the personal bond that I come back for”, which is

endorsed by the majority of respondents. According to the respondents, a personal relationship in the

context of project networks refers to a relationship that goes beyond merely business transactions.

Rather, it also involves emotional attachment between the network participant and the lead manager.

The decision whether or not to continue in committing oneself to the collaboration in a lead

organization-governed project network, was frequently attributed to the perceived personal relationship

with the lead organization’s manager: “There are some other clubs like that. Yeah, then you have a

choice. And I think that working for [lead organization A] is a personal choice: I want to work for [lead

manager A]. I really do”. Hereby, the origin of the relationship, the corresponding duration (i.e.,

relationship length), and the collaboration history appeared to play a major role in both the creation and

securement process of participant commitment: “Our collaboration just works very well. We do not need


a lot of words. I often understand what [lead manager A] means. (…) Once you have been working for

3,5 years, you know someone pretty well”. It seems that the factor of how long the participant and lead

manager have known each other, plays a role in managing commitment. Moreover, the relationship

length seems to influence participants in such a way that strategies are adopted to secure commitment

to the network: “If I have doubts about something, or if I start asking myself questions in relation to

[lead organization A]. Yeah, then I ask those as well. And I can. I also know that I can”. “Time

determines how often you interact with each other, how well you get to know each other. Well, and I

think I have gotten to know [lead manager A] well over the past five years”.

Further, it was indicated by the majority that personal transactions form an important aspect of

the collaboration with the lead organization: “That is also an important aspect of the collaboration. That

you can also just chat about private of course”. In addition, personal contact was shown to form an

important indicator in the tie strength-commitment relationship: “It is just the personal contact I have

with [lead manager A] that makes it feel so familiar and trusted. Then you may start running a bit faster,

and vice versa as well”. As demonstrated by this quote, trust potentially functions as an intervening

mechanism between tie strength and affective commitment.

Furthermore, it was argued that in case participants are approached by multiple lead

organizations at the same time to participate in a project, the choice to commit to one of them is

facilitated if the participant has a personal relationship with one of them: “Sometimes, these sessions are

held at the same time or almost in the same period. And then I say to [lead organization X]: ‘Sorry, I

am going to train for [lead organization A].’ Because the collaboration with [lead organization A] is

much more personal and optimal than the collaboration with [X]”. In addition, it was indicated by the

majority that the personal relationship with the lead organization potentially influences participants’

normative commitment to the lead organization: “I am loyal, especially to [lead manager A], so to speak.

To [lead organization X] maybe a little less, to be honest, because that is a very big organization. I do

not really have any faces, names, or whatsoever. And I do at [lead manager A]”.

The role of a personal relationship with the lead manager returned multiple times as topic of

conversation in the interviews and was frequently mentioned in conjunction with the topic concerning

the size of the lead organization, as demonstrated by the previous quote. The lead organization’s size

seems a potential enabler of personal transactions in such a way that the smaller the lead organization,

the more personal transactions the network participant can have with the lead manager. As participants

are personally in touch with the lead manager, they are provided ‘a seat at the table’ of the lead

organization’s management, thereby having the opportunity to exert influence on the design of the

project at hand by communicating their needs, wants, and ideas to the lead manager directly. This is

very much appreciated by these autonomous, independent network participants: “People from the field

are actually involved. That is very positive. I think it will benefit the programs”. Thus, it was indicated

that a personal relationship with the lead organization may foster participants’ commitment via enabled

autonomy in the collaborative projects.


9.2 Reciprocal services

The role of economic transactions in creating commitment

Nevertheless, a personal relationship between the participant and the lead organization was not found

to be a necessary precondition for commitment. The majority indicated that their relationship with the

lead organization is based on reciprocal services, i.e., economic transactions, and constitutes a major

reason for their attachment to a lead organization-governed project network. In the context of this study,

an economic transaction refers to a relationship between a lead organization and participant that is

characterized by having a clear function. Correspondingly, many respondents referred to a functional

relationship between them and the lead organization to indicate the reason of their commitment. An

exchange relationship characterized by exposure and acquisition efforts by the lead organization in

exchange for participants’ expertise, was most frequently mentioned as the type of relationship that

creates participants’ commitment. Thus, this type of economic transaction reflects the potential reason

for participants to commit oneself to lead organization-governed project networks: “[Lead manager B]

is in the business for a long time. As such [the lead manager] has a large network. Therefore, [the lead

manager] can provide leads and that is the line that is very relevant to me right now“.

9.3 The role of developed trust in relation to commitment

Next to the aforementioned intervening role of trust, as being influenced by a personal relationship with

the lead organization, trust was also regarded as an important facilitator of participant commitment to

the collaboration with the lead organization, directly: “In my opinion, it is the only basis on which we

collaborate well together, and why with others often a bit less easy. We have a very simple agreement:

we assume trust.”. It was recognized that trust develops over time, as the strength of the relationship

(i.e., tie strength) increases. Hereby, prior ties seem to contribute to perceived trust by participants,

which seems to have a positive influence on participants’ affective commitment. A respondent

demonstrates accordingly: “The respect. Mutual respect – I think – is the most important word, and

some sort of affection. The fact that we arrived there together at the same time. For both of us, it has

been a very important workplace. The fact that we started there at the same time, of course, also creates

a bond”. Collaborative agreements are mostly of an informal nature and based on mutual trust between

the lead organization and network participants: “We just make agreements, and we are going to trust

everyone to keep them”. In this respect, relationship length seems to play a role in the development of

mutual trust: “We have not documented anything at all. We have been doing it like this for a very long

time already. That feels very good, because I trust [lead manager A] and – I suppose – [he/she] trusts

me too. But let me speak for myself”. Moreover, the respondents agreed upon the potential detrimental

influence of formal, contractual agreements on network collaboration effectiveness: “When it comes to

collaborating, I could write down a lot, though, the more you regulate, the less effective your network

becomes”.


In conclusion, emotional intensity of the relationship between the participant and the lead

organization, reciprocal services, and mutual trust, are perceived as potential determining factors of

network participants’ commitment. Although both personal and economic transactions seem to play a

role in the creation of commitment, it was recognized that investing in personal transactions on top of

economic transactions, might be effective for ensuring commitment: “If the interpersonal relationship

is strong – the network ties. If those are personal, and somehow professional commitment with

professional distance. (…) If you invest well in that, it does not really need much more. Then it does not

need presents or incentives”.

Figure 9.1. Additional results on Tie strength

Commitment

Network participant


Autonomy-enhancing

management Emotional intensity

Personal transactions

Size of lead

organization

Enabling

Enabling

Trust

Reciprocal services

Economic

transactions


Appendix 10: Summary of expert interviews To gain a deeper understanding on the results, two expert interviews. First, with an experienced business

coach in project networks of the management consultancy sector. Second, with a PhD student from

Tilburg University, who is an expert professional in the field of solo self-employment.

In order to make the experts familiar with the context of the study, the interviews started off by

describing the research context and research question. In line with the introduction of the results section,

the researcher introduced the tension between autonomy and integration that appeared to play an

important contextual role in how lead organization might foster participant commitment. Expert 1 and

2 recognized the tension and the corresponding balancing act it requires from network participants and

lead organizations. Expert 1 was able to reflect on his own experience as an experienced network

participant in practice, whereas Expert 2 was able to reflect on her experience from the research field.

First, Expert 1 illustrated the autonomy-integration tension is something very inherent in

collaborating with network partners, yet it can be partially alleviated by making clear agreements with

the lead organization and being transparent to each other. Expert 1 agreed on the important role played

by stabilizing practices (i.e., making agreements), and interpersonal practices (i.e., openness,

transparency, honesty). While reflecting on the relation to commitment, the Expert 1 acknowledged that

considerations of both continuance and normative commitment are crossing one’s mind when preparing

a response on the perceived autonomy-integration tension, yet the responses are easier when having

made clear agreements with the lead organization.

Expert 2 related a potential imbalance heading towards the integration side to the occurrence of

false self-employment in practice. Although project collaborations between lead organizations and

individual network participants might be of temporary nature, in practice, false self-employment could

already occur when a self-employed person is hired by the lead organization on a regular basis (e.g.,

fixed number of hours per week), or when the lead organization starts determining what and how

projects are executed, whereby the solo self-employed person loses his or her autonomy. Thus, Expert

2 agreed on the importance of autonomy-enhancing practices to secure participant commitment.

Furthermore, in the presentation of findings (Figure 13, p. 53), Expert 2 acknowledged the

importance of acquisition and selection practices in relation to the perceived stability for network

participants, and its influence on commitment. In this matter, it can be compared with an exchange

relationship between the lead organization and an individual participant (Expert 2). Nevertheless, the

expert questioned the usefulness of this typical exchange relationship for both network participants and

lead organizations. When this exchange relationship is created and maintained, it makes it more difficult

for participants to commit to other lead organizations as it is e.g., not possible to give two training

sessions on one and the same day.


Next to the exchange relationship and perceived stability that are regarded important factors

influencing commitment of participants in project networks, Expert 2 elaborated on the heterogeneity

and homogeneity of a lead organization’s project network pool and the implications of it for fostering

commitment. The managerial challenge for the lead organization lies in the fact that the manager strives

towards creating participant commitment on the one hand and managing participants’ expectations on

how frequent the exchange relationship takes place on the other hand. According to Expert 2, seeking a

proper balance in the expertise that are selected for the network pool, i.e., sufficiently heterogeneous,

might make this question a bit less challenging. Moreover, Expert 1 and 2 consider it very wise for

individual network participants to give commitment to multiple lead organization-governed project

networks instead of only one. This not only concerns a strategic implication for individual network

participants, but also for how the lead organization can influence their commitment. Namely, by making

sure collaborations start off with conscious expectation management, the mutual dependency in the

collaboration with a participant can be minimized and in turn the tension between autonomy and

dependency can be dealt with.

Additionally, Expert 2 regarded the network meetings as a best practice in addressing

participants’ commitment and the associated perceived tension by network participants. Hereby, Expert

2 regarded the network meeting practice as legitimacy-enhancing, which in turn may increase the

willingness of participants to participate in projects (i.e., commitment) of the lead organization-governed

project network. Furthermore, the same expert argued that organizing network meetings signals an

investment in the employability and sustainability of individual participants (and in particular

freelancers) and is expected to support them in their personal development. Moreover, the expert shared

her thoughts out loud by comparing the network meeting with giving Christmas presents. It was stated

that these two initiatives might provoke different types of commitment. Expert 1 confirmed the

importance of network meetings in securing his commitment.

To conclude, in both interviews, the experts (Expert 1 and 2) indicated the results are

recognizable and that they would like to stay informed by the researcher on any further developments

on the research.

master thesis organization studies (2019-2020) extended

Documents