The WTN network coordinator is responsible for brokering and implementing the outcomes of the knowledge creation activities, “which means that colleagues from the
marketing department need to do the legwork and send it to the coordinator” (JO1),
and for enabling the knowledge to be shared at the operational level. Brokering the creation and sharing of knowledge requires consideration of the equality among the members, which was the reason for gravitating together, as NV1 suggested: “all four partners have equal rights”. From the coordinator’s perspective—with the lack of decision-making rights stated above—the coordination of four voices is challenging
Inner circle: First-order WTN network members Outer circle: Second-order business network Separate circle: WTN network coordinator
158
when members’ decisions or opinions must be weighted equally. Consequently, the network coordinator has the function of coordinating networking activities until a majority is gained. This means creating joint knowledge until the outcome satisfies the majority of the members: “HG1 suggests something to us and then all partners vote and the majority rule applies. It can definitely happen [that we have disagreements] , and we have already had one case like this, where one partner didn’t like an advertisement and all the others actually did like it, and then the majority rule applies” (NV1). However, the majority rule will not satisfy all network members, in particular if the coordinator’s perceived role is one of service provider, as US1 highlighted:
“If I approach the network manager and tell him, you know, I don’t like the
advertisement because it gives the wrong message and he answers that he likes it, then this means that he has misunderstood his job. Rather, he has to say,
‘okay, I will send another circular mail and ask the other actors’. Well, [the
coordinator] is a service provider, yes, and then it will work. But if [the coordinator] is, in some way, if the network creativity is solely the creativity of this person, in that case I don’t need a network”.
Consequently, the marketing activities had to be refocused according to the core message of the network as US1 explained:
„At the moment we have the case that our marketing people forget to
remember our core message, so, what our take home message for this network actually is, and they of course forget about this, because they are stuck in details”
159
This suggests that the joint knowledge creation in the network is influenced by the cognitive social capital of the networkers at the operational level. As stated previously, the network is embedded in the personal relationships among the top management, who originally strengthened their business network ties and had a vision for the network. Subsequently, the accountability for boundary spanning, networking activities and the implementation of network content was transferred to the respective marketing representatives of the organisations. The cognitive and relational social capital bonds among the partners at the operational level developed from shared language derived from a shared educational and professional culture, a common marketing-driven understanding, in addition to perceived like-mindedness: “These are
people who are on the same wavelength” (SS1). While shared language and
experience facilitated understanding and thus cooperation in the network, there seems to develop a perceived cognitive distance to the strategic network level (US1) and subsequent misinterpretation of the network’s vision.
The cognitive distance across the operational and strategic level of the network— between the marketing level and strategic edutainment vision—seems to have caused distinct interpretations of the network’s content, as this account demonstrates: “well, the people [accountable for the network operation] don’t have experience in nature protection, but are either from the communication sector or accounting or marketing,
and this can be quite risky” (US1). The cognitive social capital developed at the
operational level appears to be insufficient for interpreting the network’s philosophy beyond the network goals and professional objectives. As stated above, there was a unity between the common goals and self-interests of the network members at the outset, as these were overlapping. However, a different unity-diversity tension, as proposed by Saz-Carranza and Ospina (2011), has occurred between the strategic and
160
operational network levels. In the WTN network, diversity has emerged in the joint knowledge creation activities of the network, caused by the differing accountability of the strategic and operational network levels. This has triggered a unity-diversity tension between the planning and implementation stages. Consequently, it may be suggested that network activities carried out at different levels cause unity-diversity tension, in addition to the tensions that occur at different stages of the middle-aged network, as theorised by Saz-Carranza and Ospina (2011).
This finding further provides evidence that the coordinator in this network is not carrying out a decision maker’s role. Nonetheless, “you need to have someone you trust, who has a kind of veto function and who is not really involved in the process,
and usually that’s me” (US1). Participant US1, accountable for the network’s strategy
and vision, seems to have emerged as the informal leader of this network: “Well, somebody has to regulate [things…] In other words, I always look from the meta level and check that everything is running in the right direction, but certainly I take potluck and let them work relatively independently” (US1). In this vein, US1 has developed a capability for visioning and has strengthened the members’ commitment at the operational level, as such achieving the “strengthening of social capital and brand identity across the tourism business network” (Lemmetyinen and Go, 2009, p.39).
This emerging informal leader’s strength is his/her environmental background that enables them to have a perceived stronger identification with the network’s philosophy. Having graduated as an engineer in forestry, US1 had developed edutainment concepts and training for several years and had published a handbook
161
about edutainment for practitioners12. On the other hand, TK1 and JW1 from the
strategic level, as well as JO1, SS1, NV1 and HG1 from the operational level, have a managerial background. As evidenced in Section 4.3.1.1, US1 is eager to exploit the opportunity for edutainment awareness within the destination MWP. From this observation, it can be assumed that US1 predominantly values edutainment awareness, whereas TK1, JW1 and the operational network level primarily seemed to be aiming for competitive advantage. Although these interests are overlapping, the priorities do differ slightly, and this is affecting the absorptive capability of the network.
A lack of awareness of the cognitive distance between the operational and strategic levels is impeding the brokering of the knowledge creation activities and the majority rule in this network. The coordinator therefore has to be sensitive, not only to the needs of the network members at the operational level, but also at the strategic level, or else risk dissatisfaction among the members, or worse, dissention. The latter would result in orchestration failure and network instability (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006). Further, there is a risk of a break down in the social capital among the members, which would result in less knowledge and resource sharing (Hughes et al., 2007; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). This further supports the necessity of the coordinator’s ability to carry out an informational role to identify members’ needs, and his/her ability to develop envisioning capabilities (Lemmetyinen and Go, 2009; Mintzberg, 1973). In addition, this suggests that the development of orchestration capability depends on the networker or coordinator having personality traits that enable him/her to best support the network. Thus, he/she requires the ability “to mix and overlap the ‘hard’ business and ‘softer’ social interests of participants” and “to harness all
12 Steiner, U., & Geissler, K. (2003). Umweltbildung 11mal anders: ein Handbuch f r die Praxis.
M nchen, kom-Verl. (engl: Edutainment 11times different: A handbook for practice. Munich, Ökom-
162
interests and attitudes in a format and environment that can generate valid interaction and exchange” (Huggins, 2000, p.132).
This investigation supports the idea that networks are complex and require coordination. Important questions emerge about the assigned coordinator’s roles, selection and capabilities (cf. Lemmetyinen and Go, 2009; Ritter et al., 2004 for a review), required to enable social capital building, knowledge transfer and network- based learning. Technical and professional knowledge seem beneficial for the execution of certain coordinating and networking activities, in particular project management. However, soft skills and the soft component of synchronising and coordinating relationships seem to have greater value for the coordinator, who acts on behalf of the network in this case, rather than leading or brokering the organisations towards cooperation. This is in accord with Beesley’s (2005) investigation. She argues that emotions influence knowledge transfer processes and makes the appeal that “any investigation that seeks to understand how knowledge is acquired and utilised must consider social and affective influences; any attempt to manage knowledge and maximise the level of learning and subsequent utilisation of it must take emotions and underlying values into account” (p.273). The findings suggest, as a result, that the coordinator’s personality plays a crucial role in supporting the network. In addition to the importance of the coordinator’s role in managing network operations, a variety of relationship-specific interactions emerged here, such as facilitating the manageability of the spatially distant network, as will be explored next.