Interorganizational collaboration in social service ...

This article was downloaded by: [USC University of Southern California] On: 30 September 2013, At: 14:13 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Children and Poverty Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjcp20

Interorganizational collaboration in social service organizations: A study of the prerequisites to success Susan D. Einbinder , Peter J. Robertson , Armando Garcia , Gojko Vuckovic & Rino J. Patti Published online: 02 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Susan D. Einbinder , Peter J. Robertson , Armando Garcia , Gojko Vuckovic & Rino J. Patti (2000) Interorganizational collaboration in social service organizations: A study of the prerequisites to success, Journal of Children and Poverty, 6:2, 119-140 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713675966

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor

Downloaded by [USC University of Southern California] at 14:13 30 September 2013

& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

Journal of Children & Poverty (2000), 6(2), 119–140


Interorganizational collaboration in social service organizations: A study of the prerequisites to success SUSAN D. EINBINDER, PETER J. ROBERTSON, ARMANDO GARCIA, GOJKO VUCKOVIC and RINO J. PATTI

Organizationa l scholars have identi ed four prerequisite s to effective interorganizationa l collaboration : incentive, willingness , ability, and capacity. This study analyzes data drawn from participant s in eight family services collaborative s in order to assess the relationship s identi ed in the literature . Our ndings support the premise that each of these prerequisite s is positively related to collaborativ e effectiveness. Implications for collaboration leaders are suggested . Introduction The social problems affecting families and children, especially those living in poverty, are increasingly complex. Staff at child welfare agencies encounter families that frequently experience severe and complicated dif culties and are often in need of multiple forms of aid. Unfortunately, the ability of human service agencies to ameliorate or prevent the ill-effects of these problems is increasingly limited , particularly as social service funding becomes more uncertain and dif cult to obtain. As a result, many agencies are experimenting with new administrativ e techniques to help them accomplish their goals. One approach is the use of interorganizationa l collaboration. Interorganizationa l systems are networks of separate organizations that develop relationship s with each other in an effort to improve the quality of the services delivered and, thus, to more effectively meet client needs. In addition to providing better service to clients, interorganizationa l collaboration aims to meet the demands of funding agencies for better service integration (Kahn and Kamerman, 1992). For example, government agencies and private foundations that provid e funding increasingly require some form of collaboration in the implementation of social programs. In the 1980s, a few federal programs encouraged innovation s by the states, which in turn spawned greater use of collaborative s at the local level. State-level legislation has encouraged and, in some cases, funded collaborative efforts among various human service agencies, ISSN 1079-6126 print/ISSN 1469-938 9 online/00/020119-22 Ó

2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd


120

S. D. EINBINDER ET AL.

including school-based collaborations , mental health services, and county child welfare agencies. As a result of this trend, collaboration is taking place among organizations representing multiple sectors (public, nonpro t, and private), different levels of government (e.g., city, county, and state), and different professional orientations (e.g., health care, social work, and education). As we begin this next century, our ability to address the needs of the growing ranks of the poor may well depend on the ability of professionals in multi-sector interorganizationa l systems to collaborative effectively to produce meaningful outcomes. While interorganizationa l collaboration appears to be a promising innovation , enthusiasm about relationship s among human service agencies exceeds our knowledge of how to make them work well. Research and anecdotal information suggest that it can be very dif cult to establish and maintain successful collaborative endeavors. Much has yet to be learned about the organizational and managerial factors needed to harness effective collaboration . It is imperative that we develop a better understandin g of these requirements, so that policy makers, administrators , and community members can work together to create collaborative systems that truly enhance the quality of life of those with the greatest needs. The purpose of this study is to investigate factors which promote effective collaboration among county-level human service departments and related institutions. We begin by reviewing the literature on interorganizationa l relationships , identifying four categories of prerequisites that are likely to in uence collaborative success. The methods used in the study are then described , followed by a summary of the ndings of our analyses. We conclud e with a discussion of the implications of our ndings for the design and management of these systems.

Theoretical background Scholars have studied interorganizationa l relationship s (IORs) for quite some time (e.g., Aldrich, 1976; Levine and White, 1961; Warren, 1967). Powell (1990) labels them “network” organizations and argues that networks are qualitativel y different than either markets or hierarchies, which have been the two dominant modes of collective activity throughout this century. He argues that networks have several key advantages: exchanges occur through reciprocal, preferential, and mutually supportive actions; complementarity and accommodation are the basic cornerstones; and expectations can change as circumstances dictate. In addition, networks are useful when ef cient, reliable information is needed and for the exchange of commodities whose value is not easily measured. Finally, networks enhance the ability to transmit and learn new knowledge and skills. Likewise, Alter and Hage (1993) argue that networks, or interorganizational structures, allow for the greater levels of coordination demanded by new knowledge and technology, and they enable greater exibility, adaptability, and innovation , all of which have replaced ef ciency as the dominant criteria for organizational survival.


INTERORGANIZATIONA L COLLABORATIO N

121

A dominant perspective on human behavior suggests that individuals (and, by extension, organizations ) are inclined to pursue their own self-interests and thus are more prone to compete than to collaborate. It could be easy to conclud e from this that collaboration among organizations is not likely to occur very readily. However, participants’ self-interests and their collective interests are not always clearly distinct (Wood and Gray, 1991), and there are occasions in which the self-interests of participants are not in oppositio n to each other but rather are merely different or even congruent (Lax and Sebenius, 1986). As a result, it is useful to ascertain the conditions under which collaboration is most likely to occur. In addressing this question, it is important to recognize that collaboration is not a dichotomous phenomenon. The choice facing an organization is not simply whether or not to collaborate. Instead, it can choose to collaborate with some organizations but not with others, and/or on some activities but not on others (cf. Chisholm, 1989; Weiss, 1987). Collaboration can also take place at various stages of the problem solving process, e.g., during problem de nition, planning, designing, implementation, or evaluation. The issue of the conditions under which collaboration will occur is related to the question of which factors determine collaborative effectiveness. Unfortunately, research about speci c factors that in uence collaborative successes—or failures—is limited (Meyers, 1993, O’Looney, 1993). Furthermore, while much has been written about service integration in the public administration and social work administratio n literatures, this research has not drawn as extensively as it could from existing organizational literature on IORs. Yet lessons learned from analyses of IORs could greatly bene t policy makers, administrators , and professionals who wish to develop and/or operate in multi-organizationa l service delivery systems. Below, we synthesiz e the IOR literature in order to identify factors that facilitate effective interorganizationa l collaboration . While the focus in this literature is on IORs in general, the ideas covered are relevant to those interested speci cally in service integration efforts in social service organizations. Prerequisites to effective interorganizational collaboration The IOR literature identi es a wide range of factors believed to be important either as direct determinants of collaboration or as conditions that facilitate its emergence and maintenance. These can be organized into four broad categories of prerequisite s to effective collaboration : incentive, willingness, ability, and capacity. Each of these will be discussed in turn. Incentive to collaborat e The best place to start for an analysis of the reasons motivating collaborative efforts is the fact that, in many cases, organizations are mandated to engage in collaborative relationship s (Oliver, 1990). Three sources of mandates can be identi ed, namely, organizational charters, the judicial arena, and extra-local


122


administrative and legislative units (Woodard, 1994). Whatever the source, mandates serve as a legal requirement to cooperate (Weiss, 1987), and funding may often be attached to compliance with this requirement. Mandates thus provid e considerable incentive for organizations to collaborate. However, evidence indicates that mandated collaboration is not always very effective (O’Toole and Montjoy, 1984; Weiss, 1987), suggesting that additional reasons might play an important role as well. In addressing these reasons, a resource dependence perspective (Aldrich, 1979; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) can usefully be adopted (e.g., Logsdon, 1991; Meyers, 1993). According to this perspective, since organizations must acquire suf cient resources from their environment to survive, an organization is dependent upon another actor to the extent that the latter controls a resource important to the organization. This dependence creates uncertainty for the organization which it will often attempt to reduce. Organizations thus develop relationship s with other organizations in order to gain access to key resources and reduce uncertainty (Chisholm, 1989; Van de Ven and Walker, 1984). In addition to tangible resources such as funding, technology, and supplies, desired resources could includ e fast access to information (Powell, 1990), legitimacy (Oliver, 1990), and political advantage (Weiss, 1987). The resource dependence perspective focuses on incentives to collaborate that are rooted in an organization’s self-interest. The premise is that organizations will collaborate with others only when there is some perceived advantage to doing so (Wood and Gray, 1991), i.e., when bene ts are anticipated to exceed costs, such as the loss of autonomy and the cost of managing the relationship that is inherent to the collaborative process (Provan, 1984). In addition to access to resources, other potential bene ts can motivate organizations to collaborate. For example, collaboration might increase an organization’s ability to use its own resources ef ciently (Oliver, 1990; Selsky, 1991), to solve its problems more effectively (Weiss, 1987), to address environmental opportunitie s and threats, to engage in activities it couldn’t otherwise do (Staggenborg, 1986), or to enhance its overall reliability or responsivenes s (Powell, 1990). Decisions about entering a collaborative relationship inevitably re ect consideration of these and a wide array of other possible bene ts and costs associated with involvement in the IOR. An organization can adopt a number of different stances vis-a`-vis organizations with whom it interacts, and this also may impact its incentive to enter an IOR. For example, Schmidt and Kochan (1977) and Oliver (1990) distinguis h between asymmetrical and symmetrical, or reciprocal, exchanges. In the former, one organization is more motivated than another to collaborate, but it has enough power to induce the other one to interact. In the latter, organizations perceive mutual bene ts and they interact to maximize joint bene ts. Similarly, O’Toole and Montjoy (1984) differentiate between situations in which the inducement to collaborate is one of common interests, wherein organizations cooperate because they share a common goal, and situations in which the inducement is simply one of exchange, i.e., they cooperate to receive something in return other than goal


123


achievement. To some extent, the level of shared interests between organizations is related to the amount and type of interdependence between them. As potential IOR participants come to recognize the extent of their interdependence , they also tend to perceive more positive bene ts from collaboration (Gray, 1985). Ultimately, then, both interdependence and common interests serve as important precursors to interorganizationa l collaboration (Gricar, 1981; Logsdon, 1991). Willingness to collaborat e While an organization may have a variety of reasons to collaborate, this does not guarantee that the organization will be willing to do so. From a rational decision theory perspective, this situation is one in which the organization perceives more costs than bene ts. A more complex perspective from the IOR literature suggests that the willingness to collaborate is based on the level of trust that exists among participants—both interpersonally and interorganizationall y (Dodgson, 1993)— and their commitment to making the collaboration work. Willingness rooted in mutual trust thus serves as another important antecedent to collaboration . As Chisholm (1989, p. 90) notes, “A willingness to engage in coordination processes complements an objective need for coordination.” A number of scholars have considered factors that facilitate the development of trust among organizations . One such factor is the existence of shared values and norms among the organizations participating in the IOR system. For example, Alter and Hage (1993) suggest that coordination requires a willingness to work together which is generated from shared values. Mandell (1984) explains that the stability of a network and the overall functioning of the system is improved if participants share values and have relationships based on trust and respect for each other’s abilities. Shared values help overcome the limitations of a mandate to collaborate and the formal relationship s existing among the organizations in the IOR system. The presence of shared values and norms is facilitated by homogeneity among the participants, whether it be professional, ideological, ethnic, or geographical (Powell, 1990). For example, organizations studied by Galaskiewicz and Shatin (1981) tended to cooperate more when their leaders had similar racial and educational backgrounds. Likewise, Coe (1988) found IORs were more successful when fewer and more homogeneous stakeholders were involved , as this facilitated the existence of mutual trust among the participants. Thus, one strategy of network management is to identify areas of agreement regarding the interorganizationa l system and to work to develop value congruence among members based on trust and respect (Mandell, 1990). Trust, respect, and shared values both support and are supported by an orientation towards reciprocity in the relationship s between IOR members (Chisholm, 1989). In exchange relationships , the norm of reciprocity re ects the basic belief that people should help, and refrain from hurting, those who have helped them (Gouldner, 1960). The result is that the costs and bene ts of the relationship tend to be equitable over the long run (Cohen and Bradford, 1989). Additionally , as each party views the other ful lling its commitments, the


124


relationship is deemed worthwhile, equitable, productive, and satisfying (Van de Ven and Walker, 1984). Since most interorganizationa l relationship s have at least some element of competitiveness to them, a natural tendency is to engage in more competitive, self-interested behavior. According to game theory research (Axelrod, 1984), however, cooperative strategies are more effective over the long run if there are recurrent interactions among the actors involved . By adopting a long-term perspective and acknowledging that interactions will be on-going, collaborating parties can more readily agree to forego the pursuit of their own interests at the expense of others. Instead, they can engage instead in reciprocal, preferential, mutually supportive actions (Powell, 1990). A focus on equivalence over time of the bene ts and burdens resulting from collaboration thus makes it more feasible for any party to take the initial risk of providing bene ts to others (Chisholm, 1989). Furthermore, collaborators can rely on the security and stability of the relationships “to encourage the search for new ways of accomplishing tasks, promote learning and the exchange of information, and engender trust” (Powell, 1990). Ultimately, IORs formed on the basis of reciprocity are more readily characterized by such qualities as balance, harmony, equity, and mutual support (Oliver, 1990). Trust is also engendered by open communication among participants. Since exchange of important and useful information is necessary for trust to develop, IORs can bene t from the use of what Lawless and Moore (1989) call broad access information systems. These authors nd that access to information helps to shape perceptions of goal congruity among system members, and they argue that broad participation in information systems enables members to achieve a high level of trust more quickly. Frequent communication also enables participants to learn about the extent of their shared problems, identify resources available for resolving them, and build consensus regarding the terms of their relationship (Van de Ven and Walker, 1984). In organizational cultures receptive to external inputs, knowledge shared among participants of the purpose and status of the collaboration facilitates the emergence of interorganizationa l trust (Dodgson, 1993). Open communication is therefore a cornerstone of Coe’s (1988) “open-focus model,” a template for interorganizationa l collaboration which she proposes as a framework for effectively managing such systems. This kind of involvement is self-reinforcing, since participation in coordination activities helps to develop a positive attitude about coordination (Aldrich, 1976; Chisholm, 1989) and frequent communication among participants helps to generate commitment to joint problem solving (Van de Ven, 1976). Commitment to problem solving is a primary basis for collaboration (Cummings, 1984), and gaining commitment from the actors involved is a better approach than forcing their compliance (Mandell, 1984). While research has identi ed a variety of organizational characteristics that shape individuals ’ commitment to their organization (e.g., Angle and Perry, 1983; Balfour and Wechsler, 1994), this problem becomes more complex in the context of interorganizational systems. In IORs, effective collaboration requires participants’ commitment to act in the best interests of the system as a whole, rather than



125

focusing exclusively on either their own or their organization’s interests. This type of behavior is likely to require some degree of psychologica l attachment to or identi cation with the IOR system on the part of participants. Also necessary is a credible commitment (Williamson, 1985) among members that each will act in the best interests of the system rather than pursuing their own self-interests (cf. Robertson and Tang, 1995). Since commitment is in part a function of the design and management of the organizations and of the system as a whole, a critical role of leadership is to generate attachments to the IOR system and to implement mechanisms for creating mutually reliant and self-enforcing agreements. Ultimately, this kind of commitment reinforces the trust, respect, and shared values that serve as a critical ingredient in participants’ willingness to engage in interorganizationa l collaboration. Ability to collaborat e A third key antecedent to effective interorganizationa l collaboration is the participants’ ability to collaborate. This factor has not received as much attention in the IOR literature as the other three antecedents discussed here. In fact, the relative inattention to ability parallels the more general organizational behavior literature which focuses considerably more on motivational determinants of performance than on the role of ability. Exceptions includ e the social learning theory perspective (e.g., Bandura, 1986) which attends to the role of felt ef cacy as an in uence on behavior, and Lawler’s (1986) emphasis on knowledge and skills as a requirement for meaningful employee involvement. However, just as ability is an important but relatively ignored determinant of behavior within organizations, so it is a key prerequisite to collaborative activity between organizations. Regarding participants’ ability to collaborate, a few scholars have noted the role of participants’ knowledge and skills as an important issue. For example, Alter and Hage (1993) identify the need for expertise as a necessary prerequisite to interorganizationa l collaboration , and their de nition of coordination includes “the ability to work together on a common task” (p. 86). Given that most employees have to engage in collaborative activities on top of their own organization’s work requirements, staff must have suf cient expertise and authority to do the additiona l work of service collaboration (Meyers, 1993). They may need to be educated about the issues on which they are expected to work (Waddock, 1989). Signi cant attention is also given to participants’ ability by Cummings (1984), who included it as one of four primary determinants to interorganizationa l collaboration . In particular, he addresses the level and utilization of participating organizations ’ knowledge, skills, and resources that are applied to the shared task or problem. An adequate level of each of these is seen primarily as a function of the composition of the IOR system. If a comprehensive set of stakeholders with high levels of task-relevant knowledge and skills are included, the IOR system is more likely to have the ability to collaborate effectively to accomplish its task.


126


To the extent that appropriate knowledge and skills are required, training and development activities that facilitate the acquisition of these abilities are also important. Organizations participating in IORs need to insure that their members—individuall y or collectively—have the opportunit y to acquire the needed knowledge and skills. Adding responsibilitie s for collaborative efforts without providing adequate preparation or training can result in frustration and undesirable coping strategies (Meyers, 1993). Under conditions of limited resources, however, funding to support the required training is not always readily available. Thus, intermediaries (i.e., formal organizations supported by state and local initiative ) or higher levels of government might need to provide support for leadership development or for resource people who can help participants improve the effectiveness of the IOR (Bruner, 1991).

Capacity to collaborat e Effective collaboration requires arrangements that enable participants to coordinate their activities (Chisholm, 1989). The capacity to collaborate is facilitated by the existence of a variety of different mechanisms. Generally speaking, the more avenues used, the more likely the collaboration will be successful. Collectively, the coordinating mechanisms available dictate the extent to which participants have the means or the opportunit y to engage in collaborative behavior. A wide array of potential coordinating arrangements have been identi ed in the IOR literature. One such mechanism is some type of supra-organizationa l forum in which participants from the collaborating organizations can discuss the requirements for effective collaboration and make decisions regarding necessary actions. In some cases, this can be a separate organization designed for this purpose, such as a consortium or federation management organization (Fleisher, 1991; Provan, 1984). Alternatively, this can be some sort of interorganizationa l group (Schopler, 1987), such as a task force, advisory committee, or coordinating council, the members of which are representative s from the collaborating organizations (Lawless and Moore, 1989). Coe (1988) argues that a collaborative effort is more likely to be successful when stakeholders are provided with the opportunit y to participate in decision making processes. Activities like conferences or other regular meetings can provid e formal arenas in which coordination can take place, and they can also give rise to the informal relationship s among participants that help to strengthen coordinative capacity (Chisholm, 1989). Another mechanism receiving attention in the literature is a person or organization that serves as a broker or strategy maker. The role of the broker can incorporate a variety of functions. Brokers can coordinate activities by assuming a central position in the ow of resources among organizations (Lawless and Moore, 1989) and can help to develop the IOR by garnering the participation of network leaders (Selsky, 1991). They can aid in achieving overall system objectives by acting as an intermediary to manage interdependent relationships ,



127

developing or negotiating shared interests, and performing many managerial functions for the collaborative (Mandell, 1984). While a broker can facilitate communication among IOR members, other mechanisms for sharing information and insuring effective communication also enhance the capacity to collaborate. As mentioned earlier, Lawless and Moore (1989) discuss the advantages of broad access information systems, which includ e providing participants with the data they need to make effective decisions in the face of uncertainty. In addition to a formal information system, less formal channels of communication that enable multiple lateral information ows which permeate organizationa l boundaries at several levels also facilitates collaboration (Weiner, 1990). Communication channels can be generated in a number of ways, for example, through the use of interlocking boards of directors (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978), involvement of staff from one organization in meetings with their counterparts in other organizations , and naturally occurring movement by people (i.e., through job changes) among the organizations involved in the network (Chisholm, 1989). While both formal and informal channels of communication can be useful, the types of channels most valuable may depend on the characteristics of the IOR (Cummings, 1984). Capacity to collaborate is further enhanced by rules and regulations instituted to govern the various activities comprising the collaborative effort (Mandell, 1990). These would include any contracts that are developed to bind participants to pre-speci ed obligation s (Lawless and Moore, 1989; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994), as well as any additional negotiated agreements made within and between organizations, e.g., by front-line professionals who make the necessary interorganizational contacts (Meyers, 1993). This would also includ e the rules, policies, and standard procedures that formalize exchanges among organizations (Van de Ven, 1976) and become part of the structural arrangements of the IOR (Cummings, 1984). Coordinating “rules” could also be embedded in informal conventions and norms (Chisholm, 1989), for example, performance norms guiding the task and problem-solving behaviors of participants (Cummings, 1984). Focus of the study The primary focus of this study is to explore the relationships between the four prerequisites discussed above and the effectiveness of interorganizationa l collaborations. The basic premise is that a collaborative effort will be more successful to the extent that more of these factors exist for both the organizations and the speci c individuals involved in the collaboration . Operationally, the hypothese s we examine are that each of the prerequisites will demonstrate a positive relationship with collaboration effectiveness. Methods Sample and data collection To test our hypotheses, we conducted an intensive case study of one collabor-


128


tive in each of eight California counties. In an earlier phase of this project, we had solicited from each county in California information regarding the number and characteristics of collaborative relationship s in existence for at least three years. To qualify for consideration , collaboratives must have involved the county agency mandated to respond to abuse and neglect allegations along with other public, private, and nonpro t institutions . Thirty-three of 58 county-level agencies responded to this survey. From these 33 counties, a purposive sampling technique was used to select ten counties for inclusion in this part of the study. Demographic, socioeconomic, and other information about each county was obtained and compared in order to ensure that the 10 counties we selected varied on a number of relevant characteristics: the proportion of children in the county; the county’s median family income; the distributio n of race/ethnicity in the county; a variety of statistic s describing foster care stays; teen pregnancy rates; and high school dropout rates. The county-level professional who had completed the survey in the prior phase was contacted to inquire about the possibility of conducting a case study on one of that county’s collaborations. Each of them agreed to participate in this second level of inquiry, at which point they were asked to identify a number of collaborative s that, in their opinion, were among the most successful of those with which their agency was involved . After the parameters and logistic s of the case study were described, each county informant recommended one interorganizational relationship for us to study. Each of these collaboratives included a range of government agencies, businesses, and nonpro t organizations . A contact person or persons at the organization(s ) serving as lead agency for the collaboration was also identi ed. This person was called to make arrangements to carry out the data collection activities. For various logistical reasons, site visits to two of the collaboration s could not be conducted during the time period available for the study. Thus, the nal sample included eight collaborations . A multifaceted methodologica l approach was used to collect data. First, we attended and videotaped a regularly-scheduled meeting of collaboration partner representatives. Second, these representatives were asked to complete a survey about the characteristics of the collaboration, their organization, and themselves. This information was used to assess collaboration effectiveness and the four prerequisites. Third, we conducted a focus group with the collaboration representatives, during which they were asked to de ne collaboration success and to describe speci c factors comprising each of the four categories of prerequisites. (One agency’s collaboration relationship did not hold regular meetings. In this case, the partners agreed to meet, ll out the survey, and take part in the focus group.) The analysis for this paper focuses on the data provided by the survey. In most cases, collaboration representatives completed the survey at the meeting and returned them immediately to the researchers. On occasion, however, representatives left the meeting and took a copy of the survey with them, with the agreement that they would complete it and return it by mail. A total of 64


129

Table 1. Correlations among independent and dependent variables


Willingness Ability Capacity Effectiveness

Incentive

Willingness

Ability

Capacity

0.598 0.343 0.470 0.730

0.545 0.446 0.707

0.500 0.602

0.638

surveys were completed and returned, with the number from a given collaboration ranging from four to twelve. Unfortunately, three of the surveys returned by mail could not be identi ed in terms of the collaboration from which they came. Thus, while these surveys were included in the individual-leve l correlation and regression analyses described below, they were not included in the calculation of mean scores at the collaborative level of analysis. Measures The survey contained 35 substantiv e questions which addressed issues associated with the four categories of prerequisites and with collaboration effectiveness. In addition, seven questions focusing on demographic information about the respondent and his or her organization were asked. (Of the 35 substantiv e questions, two were open-ended questions that were not utilized in this analysis. Two additional questions, as well as two subparts of a third question, were not utilized because of a high missing response rate.) The remaining 31 questions were categorized according to the variable they were intended to measure, to serve as a starting point for creating scales with which to measure these variables. Reliability analysis indicated that the alpha coef cients for two of these scales were adequate (Incentive: eight questions, alpha 5 0.70; Effectiveness: ve questions, alpha 5 0.75). However, the initial coef cients for the remaining three scales were unsatisfactory , so an attempt was made to improve the scales by deleting questions. After removing one question from the Ability scale, the reliability of this scale reached an acceptable level (two questions, alpha 5 0.70). The omitted question (which focused on training received by collaborative members) was in turn added to the Capacity scale, while four other questions were deleted from this scale. As a result, the reliability level for this scale achieved a marginally acceptable level ( ve questions, alpha 5 0.61). Finally, the maximum reliability level for the Willingness scale remained relatively low ( ve questions, alpha 5 0.51) even after removing two questions. Scale scores were computed for each respondent as the sum of the scores on the individual questions. Sums, rather than means, were utilized since the scoring format varied across the individual questions. Table 1 provides the correlation matrix for these ve variables.

130



Table 2. The effect of prerequisites on collaboration success (regression using scales as independent variables) Independent variable

B

SE B

Beta

T value

Signi cance

Incentive Willingness Ability Capacity Constant

0.349 0.377 0.430 0.246 5.081

0.086 0.161 0.193 0.100 2.134

0.400 0.248 0.214 0.232

4.064 2.344 2.231 2.473 2.381

0.000 0.024 0.031 0.017 0.022

2

2

Multiple R 5 0.863. R2 5 0.744. Adjusted R2 5 0.721. F 5 32.700 (p , 0.0001).

Analysis Regression analysis was used to examine the relationship s between the prerequisites (incentive, willingness, ability, and capacity) and collaboration effectiveness. Since the number of collaboration s included in this study was small (n 5 8), regressions were performed using individua l level data. While this is not ideal, it does provide useful information about how the members of these collaborative s view the conditions supporting collaborative success. Two types of regressions were utilized . The rst is based on the scale scores, with Effectiveness as the dependent variables and the four prerequisite scales as the independent variables. Given that the reliabilities for two of the prerequisite scales were less than fully satisfactory, we also ran four regressions using the Effectiveness scale as the dependent variable and the sets of individual questions comprising each of the four prerequisite scales as the independent variables. The results from these ve regressions are presented below. Due to missing data, the number of cases included in the rst regression was 50, and the number included in the other four regressions ranged from 55 to 58. Results Results from the rst regression, using the ve scale scores, are presented in Table 2. The regression was highly signi cant (p , 0.0001), with the four prerequisites explaining 74% of the variance in respondents’ assessment of their collaboration ’s effectiveness. All four prerequisite scales were also signi cant predictors of effectiveness, providing support for the basic hypotheses of the study. Additional support is provided by the results for the four regressions which used as independent variables the individual questions comprising the four prerequisite scales (each of which addressed a different facet of that particular variable). These results are provided in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. All four of these regressions are highly signi cant (p , 0.0001), explaining between 35 and 61%


131


Table 3. The effect of incentives on collaboration success (regressions using individual questions as independent variables)

Q5 Q10 Q15 Q20 Q25 Q30 Q34 Q35 Constant 2

B

SE B

Beta

0.014 0.643 0.540 1.290 0.640 0.740 0.792 0.464 2.538

0.576 0.536 0.466 0.403 0.444 0.779 0.380 0.955 2.216

0.002 0.123 0.139 0.348 0.192 0.110 0.307 0.056 2

T value 0.024 1.201 1.161 3.201 1.440 0.950 2.084 2 0.486 1.146

Signi cance 0.981 0.236 0.252 0.003 0.157 0.347 0.043 0.629 0.258


of the variance in collaboration effectiveness, and in each case two or more speci c factors demonstrated signi cant relationship s with effectiveness. Regarding Incentive, two of the eight questions comprising this scale demonstrated signi cant relationship s with effectiveness, and both of these pertain to the relationship between organizational and interorganizationa l goals and objectives. In particular, respondents are more likely to perceive their collaboration as successful when their organization is able to in uence the collaboration ’s goals and when the collaboration is important for the achievement of their organization’s objectives. Coef cients for four of the ve questions relevant to the Willingness prerequisite were signi cant, indicating that collaboration success is seen by respondents as related to a number of conditions that support their willingness to be involved in these interorganizationa l systems. Collaboration effectiveness is rated more highly when the organizations involved get a fair Table 4. The effect of willingness on collaboration success (regressions using individual questions as independent variables)

Q4 Q14 Q16 Q24 Q29 Constant 2

B

SE B

Beta

T value

Signi cance

3.208 1.232 0.995 0.719 1.073 6.916

1.035 0.451 0.379 0.369 0.302 2.940

0.292 0.257 0.252 0.195 0.337

3.100 2.733 2.621 1.951 3.558 2.353

0.003 0.009 0.012 0.056 0.001 0.022


2

132


Table 5. The effect of ability on collaboration success (regressions using individual questions as independent variables)


Q13 Q18 Constant

B

SE B

Beta

T value

Signi cance

0.983 1.486 6.270

0.482 0.460 1.845

0.260 0.411

2.038 3.230 3.398

0.046 0.002 0.001


share of the bene ts of the collaboration , when there is greater similarity in the values and norms of the participating organizations , when collaboration is viewed as the best method for addressing the target population ’s needs, and when the individual organizations are more fully involved in the collaboration . The coef cient for the fth question, although not quite signi cant (p 5 0.06), suggests that trust among members of the collaboration may also contribute to its success. Only two questions addressed the Ability prerequisite , but both of these yielded signi cant coef cients. Respondents indicate that the effectiveness of their collaborations is related to the extent to which the members of the collaboration collectively have the knowledge and skills needed to accomplish its objectives and the extent to which they have the authority needed to carry out required responsibilities . Coef cients for two of the ve speci c factors comprising the Capacity scale demonstrated signi cant relationship s with effectiveness. One question focused on the extent to which organizationa l representative s received training to support their involvement in the collaboration. Such training

Table 6. The effect of capacity on collaboration success (regressions using individual questions as independent variables) B Q3 Q7 Q17 Q23 Q32 Constant

0.885 0.013 1.731 2 0.235 0.078 7.095


SE B

Beta

T value

Signi cance

0.296 0.505 0.393 0.297 0.685 1.523

0.313 0.003 0.593 0.090 0.013

2.987 0.026 4.410 0.794 0.113 4.658

0.004 0.979 0.000 0.431 0.910 0.000

2

2


133

Table 7. Mean scores and ranks for the eight collaboratives


Collaborative A B C D E F G H

Effectiveness 17.71 17.67 16.91 16.40 15.00 14.40 14.22 14.00

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Incentive 22.57 22.17 21.55 22.00 21.20 19.17 20.44 20.67

(1) (2) (4) (3) (5) (8) (7) (6)

Willingness 20.00 18.50 18.92 18.20 17.00 18.00 18.00 17.50

(1) (3) (2) (4) (8) (5) (5) (7)

Ability

Capacity

8.43 8.00 8.55 8.40 7.09 6.86 7.44 7.50

15.50 15.50 15.22 14.20 12.56 11.40 11.78 13.00

(2) (4) (1) (3) (7) (8) (6) (5)

(1) (1) (3) (4) (6) (8) (7) (5)

Note: The number in parentheses after each score re ects the ranking of that collaborative’s score on that variable.

was originally viewed as an important factor shaping members’ ability to contribute to the collaboration (and it was originally included in the Ability scale), but it can readily be interpreted as a capacity-building mechanism as well. In any case, respondents indicated that it is signi cantly related to collaboration effectiveness. The signi cant coef cient for the second question suggests that collaboration success is also enhanced by the presence of an effective capacitybuilding mechanism through which administratio n of the collaboration takes place. The above analyses were conducted at the individual level of analysis since the number of collaborative s included in the study was too small to subject to quantitativ e analysis. However, to examine the relationship s among the four prerequisites and effectiveness at the collaboration level of analysis, mean scale scores (i.e., across respondents in each collaborative) were calculated for all ve variables. These data are arrayed in Table 7, which ranks the collaboration s from high to low in terms of the average rating of Effectiveness. Mean scores for the four prerequisites, along with the collaboration ’s rank (i.e., from rst to eighth) on these variables, are also indicated . While statistical analysis of these data are not feasible, a clear-cut pattern of association is obvious. The four collaboration s that rank highest in terms of effectiveness are also ranked in the top four on each of the four prerequisites. The four collaboration s scoring lowest on effectiveness also score in the bottom half of each of the four prerequisites. This pattern at the aggregate level provides additional evidence that Incentive, Willingness, Ability, and Capacity are all positively related to the effectiveness of interorganizationa l collaboration. Discussion Our analyses of the prerequisites of collaboration effectiveness provide reasonable support for the premise that all four prerequisites—incentive, willingness, ability, and capacity—are relevant to the success of the interorganizationa l collaboration s studied . While not all of the speci c factors investigated demon-


134


strated signi cant relationships , enough signi cant ndings were obtained to support the results from the regression using scale scores, i.e., that all four of the prerequisites contribute to the success of these collaborative endeavors, at least as perceived by the members of these partnerships. In this section, we will highlight the primary ndings and discuss their implications for those interested in designing, managing, and working together in interorganizationa l systems to enhance service delivery. In the rst regression, using the four scales as predictors, the prerequisite demonstrating the strongest relationship with effectiveness was Incentive. This is not surprising, as it is obvious that an organization is unlikely to even consider participating in a collaboration unless it perceives suf cient reason to do so. In the collaboration s we studied , incentive to participate appears to result most directly from a congruence between organizational and interorganizationa l goals. When they can in uence the goals of the system as a whole and the system helps their organization accomplish its goals, their motivation to be involved enhances the collaboration ’s success. While goal congruence serves as a key incentive for participation in these collaborations , it is notable that collaboration effectiveness was not related to the existence of a legal mandate to collaborate or to funding that is contingent upon involvement in the collaboration . On one hand, this conclusion is interesting since it runs counter to ndings from the previous phase of this research (Einbinder et al., 1999), in which both of these variables appeared to support the success of collaborative ventures. On the other hand, however, a broader range of evidence indicates that the ef cacy of such mandates for generating meaningful collaboration is often times limited (O’Toole and Montjoy, 1984; Weiss, 1987). A number of implications emerge from these ndings. First, collaboration leaders should be proactive in their efforts to develop awareness and understanding among member organizations of their mutual interests and interdependence, or even to develop greater goal congruence if it does not already exist. For example, leaders can help clarify a common vision regarding the critical issues facing the community being served and the way these should be addressed (Waddock, 1989). Organizational leaders should help generate a culture that supports a commitment to joint problem solving, with a focus on improving system-level outcomes (i.e., improvements in the lives of the target populations ) rather than on maintaining ef cient processes within the separate organizations . Policy makers trying to induce organizations to collaborate should also avoid the standard practice of relying primarily on the use of mandates and contingent funding to get organizations to collaborate. They, too, need to nd ways to generate a greater focus on common concerns and objectives rather than the more traditional orientation towards interorganizationa l competition and turfprotection. The regression results indicate that Willingness also has a strong impact on collaboration effectiveness. While Incentive re ects practical or rational reasons why an organization would participate in a collaboration , Willingness appears to



135

be based on a variety of more normative concerns. Issues of equity, value congruence, trust, and a basic belief in the value of collaboration for meeting the target population ’s needs serve as key factors supporting an organization’s involvement in the collaborative system and in turn enhancing the system’s success. Clearly, these concerns are related to each other. Trust is likely to be higher when members share values and an ideologica l belief in the importance of collaboration and when they believe that their collaboration partners do not intend to take advantage of them by “free-riding” on their efforts. A shared primary emphasis on meeting client needs is likely to reduce the level of self-serving behavior that could get in the way of maintaining equitable relationships among partners. All in all, these ndings suggest that as members perceive a reduction in the potential costs of collaboration , their willingness to make a meaningful contributio n towards its success increases. To maintain or increase organizations’ willingness to participate effectively in a collaboration , collaboration leaders should take steps to develop shared values and trust among the members. For example, since trust is more likely to occur as collaboration partners interact with each other, administrators should initiate forums such as community or regional conferences or workshops for the speci c purpose of networking, sharing information, and building support for the system and its goals. The creation of formal information systems that permit ready availability of relevant data—thus establishin g a climate of openness—would also be valuable. Policy makers need to insure that funding to support these activities is available to the collaboration . There are two complexitie s associated with collaboration s that can impede the emergence of trust, shared values, and norms of reciprocity. The rst is the potential for uneven or inequitable participation by members, i.e., the “freerider” problem. Such inequitie s may be more likely to arise when participation in the collaboration is mandated and when organizations are required to be involved against their will. Thus, it may be useful simply to allow participation to be voluntary and allow for different levels of participation among members (Staggenborg, 1986). Also, by providing assurances that the autonomy of the participating organizations will not be unduly threatened , reciprocal relationship s are more likely to emerge (Schmidt and Kochan, 1977). Second, the dif culty of generating shared values, norms, and trust increases as the membership of the collaboration becomes more heterogeneous (Coe, 1988; Galaskiewicz and Shatin, 1981), i.e., re ecting a broader range of professional and demographic backgrounds. Service delivery networks frequently involve a myriad of public, nonpro t, and private organizations . These different types of organizations focus on or represent communities that are comprised of many different racial, ethnic, and/or religious groups. In these contexts it would be useful for leaders to pay explicit attention to the issues of value congruence and trust by insuring that these issues are a topic for open discussion and deliberation. Training activities provided to participants could be designed as a forum to facilitate the emergence of shared orientations and perspectives.


136


Whereas adequate incentive and willingness may be suf cient to get organizations involved in collaborative efforts, the two remaining prerequisites are more important for insuring that their participation adds value and that necessary activities can actually be accomplished collaboratively . First, Ability was found to be positively related to collaboration effectiveness. The speci c factors pertaining to this prerequisite are the collective knowledge and skills of the members and the extent to which they have the needed authority to carry out their responsibilities . Collective knowledge and skills, at least to some extent, is a function of the composition of the collaboration , i.e., whether or not the appropriate set of organizations and their representatives are actively involved in collaboration decision making and operations. In this regard, heterogeneity of membership is a valuable characteristic, as the greater range of backgrounds and perspectives will help to insure that needed knowledge and skills are available for the bene t of the system as a whole. Because heterogeneity can also impede the development of trust and shared norms, collaboration leaders need to carefully select the types and range of partners required to maximize the collaboration ’s capability to accomplish its objectives without jeopardizing willingness to participate. Requisite authority to carry out responsibilitie s enhances collaboration effectiveness presumably by providing participants with a greater ability to get tasks accomplished ef ciently, effectively, and/or on a timely basis. Thus, collaboration representatives should be individuals with the authority to make decisions for their organizations and commit their organizations to action without having to wait for permission from someone else (Waddock, 1989). Such authority is oftentimes limited in the context of bureaucratic organizations , as decision makers are hampered by the need to follow constraining rules and procedures and/or by having to gain approval for relevant actions from someone at a higher level of the hierarchy. Patterns of authority become more complex in the context of an interorganizationa l system, and the question of “who has authority to do what” is likely to be more ambiguous than in an individual organization that operates under a single governance structure. Thus, it is important for designers and leaders of IORs to establish a balance between overly rigid and underspeci ed systems of control. For the system as a whole, this will mean clarifying who, i.e., which individual and/or organizationa l participant(s), has the right and the responsibility to make particular decisions and to carry out speci c activities. Evidence suggests that some autonomy for participating organizations is needed in order for the collaborative to ful ll its demands (Alter and Hage, 1993). Within partner organizations, it may be useful to strive towards greater use of “high involvement management” (Lawler, 1986). This approach to management emphasizes decentralization and participation in decision making, which is needed to insure that individuals throughout the system have suf cient discretion to engage in collaborative activities in actual service delivery tasks. There is growing recognition of the value of this approach, especially in terms of facilitating exibility, responsiveness , and the ability to engage in ongoing organizational improve-



137

ment. It may even be useful to involve clients in the process of making decisions regarding the operational aspects of the collaborative ’s service delivery activities (Robertson, 1995). This issue of the administratio n of the collaboration is also relevant to the Capacity prerequisite , since effectiveness of the administrativ e mechanism was one of the speci c items related to collaboration success. Generally speaking, administrative mechanisms should be oriented toward facilitating coordination among the various organizations and individuals involved in the collaborative effort. At the system level, evidence suggests that administrativ e integration, i.e., the consolidation of authority over service delivery, can result in negative consequences that detract from service effectiveness (Redburn, 1977). Thus, some type of “supra-organizationa l mechanism” may be more useful for guiding and coordinating the activities of the participating organizations. In addition to some type of interorganizationa l group or council comprised of representative s from the participating organizations (the form adopted by the collaborative s in the present study), viable options for such a mechanism include an existing organization that initiates the collaboration and/or has formal authority to administer it or a new organization formed by the participating partners to administer the collaborative. A key function of the organization or group serving in this capacity is to focus on the strategic management of the collaboration by designing and implementing a system-level strategy that can guide the decisions and actions of the participating organizations as well as the collaboration as an entity. The separate organizations involved in the collaboration also need to develop their coordinative capacity through the use of formal and informal mechanisms at both the managerial and operational levels of the organization. The focus of the former, in which managers make joint decisions and rely on mutual adjustment and feedback (Alter, 1990), are the parameters for collaboration that are generated in response to policies demanding service integration (Agranoff, 1991). The latter emphasizes task integration, or the extent to which staff members work together interdependently across organizationa l boundaries (Alter, 1990), and focuses on the activities at the service delivery level that create the means through which clients’ needs are met (Agranoff, 1991). It is important for collaboration leaders to pay explicit attention to developing capacity at both of these levels, since they are relatively independent of each other (Redburn, 1977). In other words, effective collaboration at one level does not guarantee that activities at the other level are well-coordinated (Meyers, 1993). The other aspect of Capacity found to be related to effectiveness was the existence of training to support the representatives’ involvement in the collaboration. An important question raised by this nding focuses on the types of training needed to adequately support involvement in collaborations . A variety of skills are likely to be valuable, including such decision making skills as problem nding, consensus building, joint decision making, and using interorganizational information systems. In addition, participants could undoubtedl y bene t from training in interpersonal skills that will enable them to work with


138


others with diverse demographic and professional backgrounds. Cultural awareness training that helps participants overcome existing stereotypes and interdisciplinary training that enables them to understand a broader range of professiona l perspectives are two examples of the types of training that could prove fruitful. Since professional knowledge, roles, and experiences can serve as a signi cant constraint to interorganizationa l collaboration (Bruner, 1991), a rede nition of roles that results in a greater appreciation for others’ contribution s may also be needed. Ultimately, this might require a move a way from highly specialized roles (Weiner, 1990) toward greater use of generalists who can address a broader range of client needs. In conclusion, each of the four prerequisites should be taken into account by those who design and lead interorganizationa l collaborations . However, it is also important to keep in mind that effective collaboration is likely to be a function of all of them combined , i.e., that collaborative systems will be more successful to the extent that conditions exist which generate incentive, willingness, ability, and capacity to collaborate effectively. Furthermore, none of these prerequisite s should be taken as a “given.” Instead, policy makers, administrators , and professionals must carefully consider how their interorganizationa l systems should be structured and managed to support the activities required for the system to accomplish its purposes. Wise (1990) argues that a primary design criterion for public organizations should be the capability to be effective in an interorganizationa l world. As the boundaries between the sectors continue to blur, this is likely to be true for many private and nonpro t organizations as well. The recommendations noted above serve as a reasonable starting point for considering how this might be accomplished , but much more needs to be learned about the steps needed to facilitate effective interorganizationa l collaboration . Interorganizationa l relationship s are not a panacea for responding to the problems of poverty. Some collaboration s may be more successful than other methods of administration . Many collaborative relationships do not work well or last long. However, since collaboration s continue to emerge with increasing frequency in an effort to respond to contemporary social needs, research on these systems should keep pace to develop a thorough understanding of the conditions required for their success, as well as the factors which seem to encourage failure. A more comprehensive understandin g of these systems will better enable us to establish guidelines for new policies, programs, and administrativ e structures that shape the quality of these collaborative efforts. Ultimately, a more informed awareness of alternative pathways for service delivery enhances our ability to bring about more meaningful outcomes for clients and the individual s who attend to their needs.

Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge funding assistance from the California Social Work Education Center (CALSWEC).


139


References Agranoff, R. 1991. Human services integration: Past and present challenges in public administration. Public Administration Review 51, pp. 533–542. Aldrich, H. 1976. Resource dependence and interorganizationa l relations: Local employment service of ces and social services sector organizations . Administration & Society 7, pp. 419–453. Aldrich, H. 1979. Organizations and environment s. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Alter, C. 1990. An exploratory study of con ict and coordination in interorganizationa l service delivery systems. Academy of Management Journal 33, pp. 478–502. Alter, C. and J. Hage. 1993. Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Angle, H. L.and J. L. Perry. 1983. Organizational commitment: Individual and organizationa l in uences. Work and Occupations 10, pp. 123–146. Axelrod, R. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books. Balfour, D. L. and B. Wechsler. 1994. A theory of public sector commitment: Towards a reciprocal model of person and organization. In Research in public administration, Vol. 3, ed. by J. L. Perry. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bruner, C. 1991. Thinking collaboratively : Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s services. New York: National Center for Service Integration. Chisholm, C. 1989. Coordination without hierarchy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Coe, B. A. 1988. Open focus: Implementing projects in multi-organizationa l settings. International Journal of Public Administration 11, pp. 523–526. Cummings, T. G. 1984. Transorganizationa l development . In Research in organizationa l behavior, Vol. 6, ed. by B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Dodgson, M. 1993. Learning, trust, and technologica l collaboration. Human Relations 46, pp. 77–95. Einbinder, S. D., P. J. Robertson, and R. J. Patti. 1999. Factors associated with collaborative relationships in child welfare agencies. Under review by Child Welfare. Fleisher, C. S. 1991. Using an agency-based approach to analyze collaborative federated interorganizationa l relationships. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27, pp. 116–130. Galaskiewicz, J. and D. Shatin. 1981. Leadership and networking among neighborhoo d human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 26, pp. 434–448. Gouldner, A. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociology Review 25, pp. 161–178. Gray, B. 1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizationa l collaboration. Human Relations 38, pp. 911–936. Gricar, B. 1981. Fostering collaboration among organizations. In Making organization s humane and productive, ed. by H. Meltzer and W. Nord. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kahn, A. J. and S. B. Kamerman. 1992. Integrating service integration: An overview of initiatives, issues, and possibilities. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University. Lawler, E. E., III. 1986. High-involvemen t management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawless, M. W. and R. A. Moore. 1989. Interorganizationa l systems in public service delivery: A new application of the dynamic network framework. Human Relations 42, pp. 1167–1184. Lax, D. A. and J. K. Sebenius. 1986. The manager as negotiator. New York: Free Press. Levine, S. and P. White. 1961. Exchange as a conceptua l framework for the study of interorganizationa l relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly 5, pp. 583–601. Logsdon, J. M. 1991. Interests and interdependenc e in the formation of social problem-solvin g collaborations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27, pp. 23–37. Mandell, M. P. 1984. Application of network analysis to the implementation of a complex project. Human Relations 37, pp. 659–679. Mandell, M. P. 1990. Network management : Strategic behavior in the public sector. In Strategies for managing intergovernmenta l policies and networks, ed. by R. W. Gage and M. P. Mandell. New York: Praeger. Meyers, M. K. 1993. Organizational factors in the integration of services for children. Social Service Review 67, pp. 547–575. Oliver, C. 1990. Determinants of interorganizationa l relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review 15, pp. 241–265. O’Looney, J. 1993. Beyond privatization and service integration: Organizational models for service delivery. Social Service Review 67, pp. 501–534. O’Toole, L. J., Jr. and R. S. Montjoy. 1984. Interorganizational policy implementation: A theoretical perspective. Public Administration Review 44, pp. 491–503.


140


Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations : A resource dependenc e perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Powell, W. W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In Research in organizationa l behavior, Vol. 12, ed. B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Provan, K. G. 1984. Interorganizational cooperation and decision making autonomy in a consortium multi-hospital system. Academy of Management Review 9, pp. 494–504. Redburn, F. S. 1977. On “human services integration.” Public Administration Review 37, pp. 264–269. Ring, P. S. and A. H. Van de Ven. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizationa l relationships. Academy of Management Review 19, pp. 90–118. Robertson, P. J. 1995. Bringing the public in: Client-citizen participation in public organization governance. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver . Robertson, P. J. and S. Y. Tang. 1995. The role of commitment in collective action: Comparing the organizationa l behavior and rational choice perspectives. Public Administration Review 55, pp. 67–80. Schmidt, S. M. and T. A. Kochan. 1977. Interorganizationa l relationships: Patterns and motivations. Administrative Science Quarterly 22, pp. 220–234. Schopler, J. H. 1987. Interorganizational groups: Origins, structure and outcomes. Academy of Management Review 12, pp. 702–713. Selsky, J. W. 1991. Lessons in community development : An activist approach to stimulating interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27, pp. 91–115. Staggenborg, S. 1986. Coalition work in the pro-choice movement: Organizational and environmenta l opportunities and obstacles. Social Problems 33, pp. 374–390. Van de Ven, A. H. 1976. On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations . Academy of Management Review 1, pp. 24–36. Van de Ven, A. H. and G. Walker. 1984. The dynamics of interorganizational coordination . Administrative Science Quarterly 29, pp. 598–621. Waddock, S. A. 1989. Understandin g social partnerships: An evolutionary model of partnership organizations . Administration & Society 21, pp. 78–100. Warren, R. 1967. The interorganizational eld as a focus of investigation. Administrative Science Quarterly 12, pp. 396–419. Weiner, M. 1990. Human services managemen t. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Weiss, J. A. 1987. Pathways to cooperation among public agencies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7, pp. 94–117. Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press. Wise, C. R. 1990. Public service con gurations and public organizations : Public organization design in the post-privatization era. Public Administration Review 50, pp. 141–155. Wood, D. J. and B. Gray. 1991. Toward a comprehensiv e theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27, pp. 139–162. Woodard , K. L. 1994. Packaging effective community service delivery: The utility of mandates and contracts in obtaining administrative cooperation . Administration in Social Work 18, pp. 17–43.