Impairing and re-establishing public value in the Dutch social housing sector

In a search for the crucial differences between public value creation and destruction by policy networks we will explore a case in which both modes have been recognizable. The case presented is a community of chief executives in Dutch social housing. The unit of analyses will be the community of practice (Koliba & Gajda, 2009). The community is embedded in a professional institutional field (Zietsma, Groenewegen, Logue, & Flinings, 2017). Representatives of Dutch government, two national agencies, sector organizations and other pressure groups, housing scientists, consultants, conference agents are also constituents of this institutional field. The field is composed of a fluid myriad of both inter-organizational and personal networks.

Keywords: public value creation, destructive leadership, dark-side networks, institutional fields, community of practice

IntroductionIn a period of twenty years starting from the early nineties, the community has followed a course of action that has impaired public values: irresponsible risk-taking in acquisition and investment projects, financial speculation, integrity violations, sometimes combined with criminal activities. During the same period the social housing corporations have made endeavors in improving living conditions in deprived neighborhoods and enhancing the quality of their housing stock. In this period both the destructive and the creative mode seem to have been active. In 2012 after the discovery of a system-threatening scheme of derivatives, the Dutch parliament decided to investigate the social housing sector, its executives, and non-executive boards. The question was why a course of action is chosen that has been detrimental to four public values, namely efficiency, effectiveness, legitimacy and legality, and who has to be held responsible (Esmeijer, 2013). The inquiry has been conducted a.o. by interrogations in the presence of public media. The inquiry committee has put the blame of the course of action primarily on a part of the executives and the boards of housing corporations (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2014).

Research questionsThe case presents an opportunity to explore why communities of practices can both create and destroy public value. The community of practice consists of a population of professional peers who are embedded in an institutional field (Zietsma, Groenewegen, Logue, & Flinings, 2017).

The main question is which factors or circumstances in an institutional community of practice cause a switch from public value creation and vice versa? In order to answer this question we raise the next sub questions:

What are the characteristics of the collection of networks in the institutional field and how are they related to each other?

What subjects are transferred in the community of practice and which aspects of the transfer are relevant?

How do members of the community judge the actions of their peers? What are the main properties that contribute to the attribution of success to the peers? In

other words, how does the community valuate their members?

The questions will be elaborated both theoretically and empirically. We expect that the community and the constituent networks evolve accross time (Kenis & Provan, 2009). In the case of the Dutch social housing sector we expect a cesure around 2010, when most fiascos have received large media attention. An additional question is whether the cesure is recognizable, and if so, what the differences are?

The research is conducted by means of semi-structured interviews arranged with 16 members of the community.

Theoretical concepts and research variablesThe main question is the distinction between creation and destruction of public value. Public value creation is coined by Moore (1995). We follow the more profound definition proposed by Meynhardt (2009, p. 212):

“Value for the public is a result of evaluations about how basic needs of individu- als, groups and the society as a whole are influenced in relationships involving the public. Public value then is also value from the public, i.e., “drawn” from the experience of the public. The public is an indispensable operational fiction of society. …Public value creation is situated in relationships between the individual and society, founded in individuals, constituted by subjective evaluations against basic needs, activated by and realized in emotional-motivational states, and produced and reproduced in experience-intense practices."

Destruction of value is subject in literature on toxic or destructive leadership. A generic definition from this body of literature reads (Einarsen, Schanke Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007, p. 208):

“The systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation's goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates.”

The scope of this definition seems to be restricted to the organizational level. However, as the interest of the organizations in this paper is the provision of a public service, the course of action by the leader will imply destruction of public value. Also the well-being of clients will be at stake, for instance for instance due to cuts in service provision and raise of the prices.

We chose an operationalization with two opposing triangle. The first is an elaboration of the strategic triangle of Moore. The model is criticized by Rhodes and Wanna (2007) for a lack of conceptual clarity. In order to avoid reifications we suggest to replace Public Value by Creator or creative team. A toxic triangle is proposed by Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser (2007). This triangle contains per circle segment sub-variables, for instance lack of check-and-balances. We will check of these variabele emerge from the data.

Figure 1 Creation of public value (Moore 1995) opposed to destruction of public value (Padilla et all., 2007)

PV creator or creative

team

Authorizing environ-

ment

Organiza-tional

capabilties

Destructive leader

Susceptible followers

Condusiveenviron-

ment

The opposition of organizational capacity to susceptible followers seems to be queer. However, in Weber’s Politics as a vocation (1918) political officials are said to strive for the maintenance of the power of their superior. This kind of officials is opposed to the bureaucratic officials who have a dedication to professional ability. In the right triangle charisma is one the indicators for destructive leaders. An illustration of the shift from the left to the right triangle is a leader who gradually replace capable employees and middle management by loyal ones.

Second, we want to describe the properties of the networks in the community. A recent overview of the network literature is given by Christofoli, Meneguzzo, & Riccucci (2017). Being aware that many processes covered by the network literature are informal, we are not inclined to have a prepossessed positive opinion on networks. Informal organization can be functional and prolific (Barnard, 1938), but can also bring us in the world of vanity fair, trickery, and deceit (Willamson, 1990). As Sørensen & Torfing (2007, p. 96) state:

“… the problem is that network governance relies on precarious social and political processes and takes place in an uncontrollable political and economic context.”

Although their definition suggests a restriction to inter-organizational networks, we make use of the analytical framework of Provan and Kenis (Provan & Kenis, 2007; Kenis & Provan, 2009). Network governance has 3 organizing principle:

Shared governance; Lead organization; Network administrative organization (NAO).

The next properties concern the functioning of the network:

Goal consensus Trust, being “he willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations about

intentions or behaviors of another’’ (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Viability, also denoted as the (evolutionary) stage of development (Provan & Kenis, 2007) of

the network.

We diverge to some extent from the authors by proposing the next variables:

Access to the network: mandated by the organization, voluntary, or on invitation (assignment, free association or co-optation);

Conformity the extent to which cohesiveness (Whyte, 1998) or consensus (Koppenjan, 2007) is pursuit by the members of the network.

Independency of members to each other. This property is the opposite of conformity (Asch, 1956; West, Barron, Dowsett, & Newton, 1999). Due to foreseable measurement problems we replace independency with a proxy, diversity.

Competiveness or rivalry among members of the network. Provan and Kenis mention this aspect as subject of governance and control in business and non-profit networks (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 15)

Core, inner circle or clique of the network. Diverging from Provan & Kenis (2007, p. 7) we do not assume a symmetrical distribution of power among the members of the network.

In connection with the core, the role of outsiders.

We agree with the authors to take into account the effectiveness of the network (Kenis & Provan, 2009). As they assert any criterion will be applicable providing that there is a plausible argument to use it. The line of argument is as follows. The occupational group delivers as collective a public service without being in direct command and control of the state. The non-profit status requires an abstinence from abuse of an inherent power distance to clients (James & Rose-Ackerman, 2014). Depending clients and public authorities have to rely on the profession. Therefore the network is effective if the member are credible in the deliverance of the public service. Credibility of the profession is depending on:

Benevolence of the profession, the care for the well-being of the clients and a concern for expectations of public authorities and other stakeholders (Provan & Kenis, 2007, p. 15).

Competence of the profession, for instance excluding moonlighting members. Integrity of the profession for instance by enforcing norms on opportunistic and self-

interested member.

The third question reads what subjects are transferred in the community of practice (CoP) and which aspects of the transfer are relevant? Community of practice is promoted by Wenger with a general definition (Koliba & Gajda, 2009, p. 101):

“Communities of practice are ‘groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.’ They operate as ‘social learning systems’ where practitioners connect to solve problems, share ideas, set standards, build tools, and develop relationships with peer and stakeholders.”

A CoP in this definition is an exquisite example of Barnard’s informal organization. There are two ways learning is performed:

Peer to peer; Collective, simultaneously.

In CoP literature the consequences of the stage of development are questioned. Well-established communities tend to be resistant to diverging information from outsiders, get ‘blinkered by their own world view’, and ‘do and can build up a set of assumptions that, if they remain tacit, can have detrimental effects’ (Koliba & Gajda, 2009, pp. 107-108). In that case, the CoP possesses a defensive learning attitude. Learning attitude is therefore added to the set of variables.

Verification of ideas, strategies, tools etc in transfer is not always possible. Sometimes peers chose to anticipate suggested and expected success of an innovation, path-breaking investment. Also, the information given by the frontier organization might be tacit, or selective and biased. Therefore the observability of the practice is relevant. In case of CEO performance full insight into the organization and its effectiveness should be required. This is not realistic. When peers adopt mergers and major investments without complete information a wave of copying might occur. Three driving forces are discerned: information cascade, reputation-drive, and compensation-drive (Bikhchandani & Sharma, 2000). In first case the assumption of success appears to be right and rational. In this option the transfer is improvement driven. We join reputation and compensation drive, because these motivations can be interchangeable and contingent. The joined variable is called reputation-driven.The subjects of transfer will be categorized in free codes.

The fourth question concern the mutual judgment of actions in the CoP. For the analysis we make use of the framework of a socio-cybernetic approach of failure in governance networks (Koolma, 2013). CoP members might try changes. As a result the respective action will break with tranditional ways of performing. Peers who want to evaluate the actions have 4 kind of references:

The purpose of the profession; The intentions of actor; The consequences of the action; Professional norms and standard and state regulation.

We do not take for granted that judgments are based on an integration of the references. The community of peers is regarded as a crucial component of the governance of a professional sector. Timely correction of errors and misbehavior is needed to safeguard the credibility of the profession. The governance cycle has three components:

Positive or confirmative feedback; Negative feedback; Interruption of erroneous action.

Out of turn positive feedback can induce escalation in courses of action. Positive feedback is associated with strong goal-orientation, while negative feedback can enhance learning (Janssen & Prins, 2007). Often there is a lack of effective negative feedback in professional environments. It requires willingness and power to decide to and to enforce an interruption. For this paper we add a variable ‘neutralizing opponents’. When a single or some peers object to an action of a colleague or superior a myriad of responses by the actor and eventual followers are available.

The fifth question address the evaluation or ranking of members in the community. Performance evaluation within a community are performed by means of social comparison processes (Festinger, 1954, p. hyp I II V). Groups share abilities and opinions. By absence of non-social means for

performance evaluation, abilities and opinion in the group tend to be unstable. ‘Non-social constraints make in difficult or even impossible to change ones abilities. Non-social constraints are largely absent for opinions’. We regard the feasibility of projects and the improvement of the working processes in the organizations as non-social constraints. Insofar social constraints occur when trying to break through organization’s inertia, the constraints are exogenous to the group of peers. The implication of Festinger’s hypotheses is that when change is at stake change of opinion will substitute change of abilities. Performance evaluation turns into the judgment of stories about organizational performance and success attribution to projects. The appearance of the storyteller will be part of the evaluation. Marris (1964) applies the theory in business economics. He asserts that in absence of proper CEO evaluation, the size and growth of the companies serve as proxy for success. Besides free coding, we propose four codes for the evaluation of peers:

Storytelling; Personal attribution; Achievements; Size of organization.

We expect an unequal distribution of status in the community of the research. Members in a settled groups with an unequal status distribution feel more secure and are more sure about their opinions even if they are erroneous (Zucker, 1991).

Data and methods

The research is performed by qualitative methods. 15 semi-structured interviews have been conducted using a questionnaire with four main research questions construed to the talk of the practice. As regards their entry as CEO, the interviewees are scattered across the timeline of the research, spanning from 1990 to present. Most interviewees have a longer track record in the sector, for instance as consultant or lobbyist. Some are retired as CEO and are still active in the sector as non-executive board member.Some interviewees have extended the research timeline back to the eighties of previous century. The interviews had a duration from 1 to more than 2 hours. The interviewees toke the main part of the speaking time. Interrupting questions were raised in order to proceed or to ask clarification of a statement made before. The interviewees were very willing to participate and showed a frank attitude during in the conversation. The story was surprisingly unison, but the point of views and valuations differed. For the record, the interviewees and interviewers did know each other already for a short or a longer time as (former) colleague or business contact. As far as the knowledge of the interviewers reaches, no conflicts of interest are at stake. The interviews have been memo recorded and transcribed literally. The transcripts have been coded into the variable. For some subject free coding is applied. During the coding process additional codes have been made for emerging subjects. Some quotes are translated into English and include in the paper. The criterion for selection is that the respective quotes touch the heart of the matter in some way or another.

Results

Characteristics of the networks

In total 48 networks are mentioned in the interviews. Some score a higher in the record both counted per text segment and interviewee. First is the sector organization since 1998, Aedes, being a NAO for several vocational and thematic networks, among which one for CEOs. Corporations are member of Aedes by free association. Aedes has a board and procedures for representativeness. In the period before 2010 some corporation quitted out of dissatisfaction with the lobby policy. At the crisis there has been a leadership change. This chairman has been subject of expressions of hatred: ‘I still hesitate to shake hands’. After the crisis most returned. As regards the rate of membership Aedes is successful. The diversity of members is indicated as problem. Goal consensus is exceptional. Recently Aedes promotes the emerge of communities of practice.Ex aequo scores De Vernieuwde Stad (DVS), a network of CEOs of big corporation in the urban region of the Netherlands. The governance is formally shared. Access is evolved to more or less open for peer similars. It started in 2002 and is still alive. Most interviewees judge negatively on this network in first 10 years of its existence. It has been a competitive meeting place for boasting and bragging. Some jest it as a ‘pissing game’ and ‘ape rock rivalry’. It was not a place in which members felt secure to be vulnerable. The network had an explicit core of ‘untouchables’, with uncontested power and influence, for instance direct access to the minister. Some members were outsiders, whose contributions in meetings were disapproved or negated. After the crisis and a leadership change DVS has been changed. There is still a division between a core and outsiders, but trust is built by means of multi-day gatherings with occasion for exchange of personal concerns. Some still hesitate to share personal concerns such as ‘board troubles’. In the new period members with boasting stories are listened to with ‘abstraction to the cell phones’. The network is said to be evolved to a learning community. In the former period DVS is said to drive on mergers and risk-taking in real estate projects.All CEOs participate in regional networks. Access is mandated. The network perform shared organization task. It supports meetings which officials of the municipalities and province. The appreciation differs. On network in Amsterdam has also been a place of boasting and bragging. Change of most members has cleared the sphere. The regional network are moderate in trust and learning.Half of the interviewees mention the Woonnetwerk (Wn). Wn started in reaction to DVS, by being a creative meeting place for people who share a high engagement with society. Access was on invitation, and it is said to have been a secure place for exchange of problems and ideas. The governance switched from NAO to lead organization. Some years ago the network stopped. People felt very similar, ‘having the same DNA’. The conformity is also experience as risk. In the beginning fruitful, but later on ‘detrimental’. If the ‘drive of the network is renewal, every new initiative will be welcomed’. Others say that the network was not able to control the ‘rash ambition’ of its members. There are also private networks, the so-called management follow up group (MFU). MFUs find their origin in management development groups of one of the two former sector organizations, the NWR. Access is by co-optation and membership is kept private. Governance is shared but there is a core of members who deal with the co-optation. Persons are invited on base of similarity and shared opinions. Members say to feel free to share personal concerns and discuss dilemmas and other

leadership issues. Some members have become friends for live. There is a non-disclosure obligation. Another safeguard is the avoidance of having members in the same region. There have been 20 MFUs. Some still exist and are able to attract new members, especially more women. The masculinity of the community is said to have been a major and general problem of the sector. A growing number of women contributes to a more open less pushy culture. Some networks are mentioned as wrong ones. The NWR had a leadership based on dominance. intimidation and greasing. Meeting of board members were ‘suffocated in alcohol’ an concluded with brothel visits. It is said that some elements of the culture were replicated when the CEOs got autonomy. The aversion to the NWR is related to merger drive, and an ‘urge to being your own boss’. There indications that the culture had been persistent, just like feelings of hatred regarding the new sector organization Aedes.There has been a secret network of some CEOs, department official and parliament members. This network did not have a name. Members of this network had the power to select ususpecting lower status colleagues to join meetings with the minister. The network ‘made after working time drawings of the sector in pubs’ and behaved like architects of the future. It started around 2000 and disappeared when the fiascos appeared in 2009. Contacts with the politics and the public administration were used by some CEOs to get consent for a sideline projects and primacy in acquisition of failing corporations. CEOs falling under a criminal prosecution for alleged bribery, fraud etc. are said to have participated in wrong real estate networks. They combined it with a very praised and privileged role in local networks with connection to municipalities and care providers. They were called ‘local heros’. The interviewees did not give more information on both types of networks.Special attention have to be paid to the finding of competition between networks. Especially DVS competed with Aedes. Leading members of DVS en Wn had personal access to the minister, and passed Aedes repeatedly. There was redundancy between the networks, were the same persons were in lead. ‘They did not like each other’, but they ‘shared the idea of being the boss of the sector’. Another relevant finding is the succession of networks. Not mentioned yet is that members of the SEV, an experiment agency of the ministry, founded the Wn. DVS refrained recently from active lobby, but members are nowadays present in the board of Aedes.Effectiveness of the sector networks will be discussed in last section.

Community of practice and its transfers

Learning is frequently done in peer-to-peer situations. Corporations let their employees visit a corporation with an innovative practice etc. Some networks are or have been the place for collective learning, especially the SEV, MFUs, the Wn and a network of middle and small size housing corporations, the NKW. The by Aedes supported network is seen as a fruitful community of practice. As regards the learning attitude most interviewees stress a positive change after the crisis. Before, the learning attitude was depending on the asserted self-esteem of the CEO. The more important the less willing to learn from others. Some interviewees think that managers the rank below the CEO are more curious, inventive and willing to learn. One interviewee assert that smaller housing corporations are more innovative in the core of their business. Larger urban housing corporation have been innovative in the social domain, addressing living conditions besides housing.

Some interviewees stress the importance of the organization in their job and network activities. They believe to be exceptions. They give names of colleagues with whom they share their organization drive. Observability of the practice of colleagues is appreciated in the period after the crisis. It is not mentioned as problem in the networks in the period before. Roughly, as the transfer is concerned, reputation drive is two and a half more times indicated than the improvement drive. However, recent mergers are no longer recognized as reputation driven. The most scoring subjects of transfer are presented in next table.

Table 1 subject of transfer in community of practice

subject of transfer number of text fragmentsmergers and acquisitions 31review system 21real estate projects 13derivatives 12decision-taking 9land acquisition 8benchmarking 7leadership 7publicity 6sideline projects 6management skills 5

The review system is invented in the Wn. Nowadays it has a sector-wide coverage. Decision taking is mentioned as learning from the fiascos, so it is a subject of the period after the crisis. Bench marking (relative performance evaluation) is invented in one of the Aedes networks and operational since 2013.

Judging actions of peers

As aforementioned, we use a socio-cybernetic approach for understanding failure in governance networks. Interviewees cover all element, as shown in next table.

Table 2 Judging actions in a governance model

integrity action with number of text fragments

governance number of text fragments

purpose 21 neutralizing opposition 34norms 9 interruption 25intentions 8 positive feedback 21consequences 6 negative feedback 24

We note that most references are made to purpose. In hindsight interviewees use the word substance opposite to the position play that was going on before the crisis. There are a lot more segments regarding means of influence on the actions (see columns governance). Negative feedback has been given in all fiasco cases, but the failing course of action has not been interrupted. Negative feedback has been a peer-to-peer affair. In network meetings negative feedback induced deprecatory reactions of the members towards the criticaster: negation, sneering, non-verbal disapproval, and derogation. The DVS and Wn provided the podium for positive feedback: ‘praise’, ‘admiration and envy’. The interviews show examples of how neutralizing of opponents is processed. ‘My critique did not matter. I had no position towards him’ and ‘So it goes in the world of the big boys, and I am one of them’.

Valuating and ranking peers

The attribution of success among network members is influencing the actions that are chosen and the ideas that are transferred. Before the crisis ranking peers got much attention. Non-executive boards hired deliberately distinct CEOs for reputation purpose. Large urban corporations participated in a reputation contest set up by a real estate glossy. ‘Do anything to get us a higher ranking’ … ‘So we ordered billboards that were too large for the head façades of our apartment blocks. But 2 years later we won the contest’. Next table shows what has contributed to the valuation of peers:

Table 3 Elements contributing to the evaluation of peers

evaluating peers Number ot text fragmentsstorytelling 19personal attributions 18entrepreneurial spirit 12lobby 12endeavouring projects 10size of organization 10scope of engagement 7showing vision 7urban vs rural 7stewardship 4organizaation drive 4roots 3achievements 3willingness to be vulnarable 2connecting people 2accoutability 1client intimacy 1

The table shows support for the social comparison proposition, the shift from ability to opinions. Meanwhile the scene, ‘a bad B-movie’, has faded. All high profilers are gone after the cesure, for different reasons. In recent years there are no explicit toppers. It has to be someone who shows vulnerability, who has moral sense and who is engaged with his or her organization.

Creating and destructing public value

We have proposed two opposite triangles, one representing public value creation and the other destructing public value. Relevant segments in the transcripts indicating elements of the triangle have been counted. The result is shown in next figure.

Figure 2 Creation and destruction of public value with number of text fragments

3 24 8 88

11 33

PV creator or creative

team

Authorizing environ-

ment

Organiza-tional

capabilties

Destructive leader

Susceptible followers

Condusiveenviron-

ment

Striking are the high scores in the destructive triangle, just like the minimal score for organizational capacity. In accordance with the destructive leadership literature the condusive environment has a higher weight than the destructive leaders. Destructiveness of leaders has been repetitive with consequences as waste of resources, criminalizing the profession, destroying job satisfaction and depriving clients. In a condusive environment destructive leaders are slid forwards and enhanced in their destructing behavior and failing courses of action. In the sector of the research a ‘rotten’ root culture, cash windfalls, failing institutions, ‘lack of checks-and-balances’ have been toxic ingredients. Several notifications of abuse and failure have burked in the authorizing environment. Most of all, a huge political pressure was exerted on CEOs and, in their slip stream, the non-executive boards to spend the cash windfalls and to show guts. Ministers and departmental top officials encouraged municipalities to join this game. Networks have amplified this pressure by inflating ambitions of CEOs.

The public credibility of the profession of housing corporation CEO dramatically collapsed to a level comparable to bankers. The benevolence towards politics ended in debates full of blame and derision about the fiascos. However, the competence of the profession is debunked by the leading CEOs themselves. In some interviews we have got new details about moonlighting. The integrity violations have got a follow up of lawsuits, every time refreshing the public memory.

Finally the question of whether networks are capable of both creation and value destruction. We have observed a creative start at the second half of the nineties. However, no interviewee has mentioned serious integrity violations and fiascos during the same period (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2014) . From the start of this century the destructive mode is prevalent. After a period of regret and remorse (Aedes, 2012) followed a period of self-reflection and rethink. That’s why officials in the sector were very willing to co-operate in this research. According to the interviewees, the sector shows a clarified culture and is hard an sincerely working towards fruitful communities of practice.

Discussion

In this paper we have proposed and found properties of networks, CoP and institutional feilds worthwhile to add to the research agenda:

Conformity-independence nexus, familiar with the conformity-conflict nexus (Koppenjan,2007), as conflict can also be the consequence of completion and power strive.

Viability and succession of networks. Competition between seemingly redundant networks, leaded by member of the same

inner circle. Use of seminal publications about informal processes (Festinger, 1954; Asch, 1956)

shedding light on the function of storytelling for status acquisition and on the role of outsiders.

The relation between reputation building, impression management. and the effects on legitimacy. We think that the work of Elsbach and Sutton (1992) needs an extension to the network literature.

We have made a theoretical connection between public value creation and destruction. In recent work Moore shows awareness of dark sides of PV processes (Moore, 2013), but he has no coherent framework to address these dark sides.

We agree to the importance of power relations in CoP-situations (Contu & Willmott, 2003), but ask attention for escalating consequences which occur when learners are rewarded for their reputation instead of for their achievements.

The findings have supporting evidence from other sector research. In a larger sample survey Heemskerk (2013) found a weak relation between network and intra-organizational tasks of CEOs. Self-assessment of performance had no correlation with objective measure for organizational performance. Efficiency in the entire population is not improved from 2001 to 2009 (Veenstra, Koolma, & Allers, 2017). In a survey CEOs score high on Hofstede’s measure for masculinity, while non-executive board members show an extreme high uncertainty avoidance.

References

Aedes. (2012). Toezicht met bite. Hilversum: Aedes vereniging van woningcorporaties.

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of Independece and Conformiy: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority. Psychological Monographs, Vol. 70 (9) , 1-70.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive (1956 ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bikhchandani, S., & Sharma, S. (2000). Herd Behavior in Financial Markets: A Review (IMF Working Paper). New York: IMF Institute.

Christofoli, D., Meneguzzo, M., & Riccucci, N. (2017). Collaborative administration: the management of successful networks. Public Management Review, Vol. 19(3# , 275-283.

Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-Embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learning Theory. Organization Science Vol. 14(3) , 286-296.

Einarsen, S., Schanke Aasland, M., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly 18 , 207-216.

Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring Organizational Legitimacy Through Illegitimate Actions: a Marriage of Institutional and Impression Management Theories. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35(4) , 699-738.

Esmeijer, M. E. (2013). Parlementaire enquête Woningcorporaties - Plan van Aanpak. Den Haag: Tijdelijke commissie woningcorporaties van de Tweede Kamer.

Festinger, L. (1954). Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, Vol. 7 , 114 - 140.

Heemskerk, M. M. (2013). Bestuurdersgeheimen: over samenhang tussen leiderschapsrollen van bestuurders, strategische profielen en prestaties van woningcorporaties. Delft: Eburon.

James, E., & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2014). The nonprofit enterprise in market economics. Routledge.

Janssen, O., & Prins, J. (2007). Goal orientation and the seeking of different types of feedback information. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80 , 235-249.

Kenis, P., & Provan, K. G. (2009). Towards an exogenous theory of public network performance. Public Administration, Vol. 87(3) , 440-456.

Koliba, C., & Gajda, R. (2009). “Communities of Practice” as an Analytical Construct: Implications for Theory and Practice. International Journal of Public Administration Vol. 32(2) , 97-135.

Koolma, H. M. (2013). A Complex Adaptive System Approach to the Assessment of Failure of Public Governance Networks. International Review for Public Administration Vol. 18(2) , 66-84.

Koppenjan, J. F. (2007). Consensus and Conflict in Policy Network: Too Much or Too Little? In E. Sørensen, & J. Torfing, Theories of Democratic Network Governance (pp. 133-152). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Marris, R. (1964). The Economic Theory of 'Managerial' Capitalism. London: Macmillan.

Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public Value Inside: What is Public Value Creation. International Journal of Public Administration Vol. 32(3-4) , 192-219.

Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value - Strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Moore, M. H. (2013). Recognizing Public Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mulvey, P. W., & Padilla, A. (2010). The Environment of Destructive Leadership. In B. Schyns, & T. Hansbrough, When Leadership Goes Wrong - Destructive Leadership, Mistakes and Ethical Failures (pp. 49-72). Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and condusive environments. The Leadership Quarterly Vol. 18 , 176-194.

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration and Theory , 1-21.

Rhodes, R. A., & Wanna, J. (2007). The Limits to Public Value, or Rescuing Responsible Government from the Platonic Guardians. The Australian Journal of Public Administration Vol. 66(4) , 406-421.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23(3) , 393-404.

Scharfstein, D. S., & Stein, J. C. (1990). Herd behavior and Investment. American Economic Review Vol. 80 (3) , 465 - 479.

Sinke, J. (2015). The effectiveness of CEOs of Dutch Housing Associations. Salford UK: Salford University.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theoretical A[[rpaches to Governance Network Failure. In E. Sørensen, & J. Torfing, Theories of Democratic Network Governance (pp. 95-110). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2014). Parlementaire Enquête Woningcorporaties - Hoofdrapport. 's-Gravenhage: SDU.

Veenstra, J., Koolma, H. M., & Allers, M. A. (2017). Scale, mergers and efficiency: the case of Dutch housing corporations. Journal for Housing an the Built Environment Vol. 32(2) , 313-337.

Weber, M. (1918). Politics as a vocation. Opgeroepen op August 14, 2018, van Panarchy: https://www.panarchy.org/weber/politics.html

West, E., Barron, D. N., Dowsett, J., & Newton, J. N. (1999). Hierarchies and cliques in the social networks of health care professionals: implications for the design of dissemination strategies. Social Science & Medicine Vol. 48 , 633-646.

Whyte, G. R. (1998). Recasting Janis' groupthink model - The key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascos. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol. 54 , 185 - 209.

Willamson, O. (1990). Chester Barnard and the Incipient Science of Organization. In Williamson, Organization Theory – From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond (pp. 172 -206). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M., & Flinings, C. R. (2017). Field of Fields? Building the Scaffolding for Cumulation of Research on Institutional Fields. Academy of Management Annals Vol 11(1) , 391-450.

Zucker, L. G. (1991). The Role of Instutionalization in Cultural Persistence. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 83 - 107). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.