The interactions among organizations take many forms. From informal information sharing to formal agreements to collaborate to solve societal problems, the reasons for doing so are myriad. From a governance perspective, many societal problems are deemed “wicked” problems; they are ill defined and are never solvable, but can be continually resolved (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160). Wicked problems have no “clarifying traits” and include many policy-oriented issues such as education, environmental issues, and planning (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160). Collaboration has been proffered as one type of interaction that can be utilized to solve these wicked problems.
Non-profits play a role in these interactions in an effort to solve particular sets of problems within their realm as well. In many instances governments as well as citizen-based organizations work alongside non-profits. It is these interactions among non-profits and other institutions within communities that this research is interested in.
2. Purpose
“Girl Scouting Builds
Girls of Courage,
Confidence, and
Character Who Make
the World a Better
Place.” – Girl Scout
Mission
• What is Collaboration?
• Are the relationships between GSCCC
and Community Partners Collaboration?
• Why Collaborate?
• How Can Non-Profits Improve These
Relationships?
3. Literature
• …two heads are better than one (Gray, 1989, p. 5)
• A continuum of increased interaction (McNamara, 2012, p. 391)
No Interaction Cooperation Coordination Collaboration Integration
4. Approach
Participatory Action Research
Unobtrusive Observation
Interviews
Research as a Change Agent
(Hays and Singh, 2012, p. 63)
6. ResultsElement Cooperation Coordination Collaboration
Design Work within existing
organizational structures
Centralized control
through hierarchical
structures
Shared power
arrangements
Formality of the
Agreement
Informal agreement Formalized agreements Informal and formal
agreements
Organizational Autonomy Fully autonomous; policies
to govern the collective
arrangements are not
developed
Semi-autonomous;
policies to govern the
collective arrangement
may be developed by
higher authorities
Not autonomous; policies
to govern the collective
arrangement are developed
jointly by participants
Key Personnel Implementation of the
partnership occurs at the
lowest levels; leaders are
not involved
Implementation of the
partnership is based on
higher authority; a
boundary spanner may be
used to foster linkages
Implementation of the
partnership is based on the
participants; a convener
may help bring
participants together
Information Sharing Basic information shared
through informal channels
Information is exchanged
through
more formal channels
Open and frequent
communications
through formal and
informal channels
Decision Making Independent decision
making
Centralized decision
making
Participative decision
making
Resolution of Turf Issues Conflicts avoided through
independence
A neutral facilitator may
help resolve conflicts
Participants work together
to resolve conflicts
Resource Allocation Information is exchanged Physical and nonphysical
resources are exchanged to
achieve individual goals
Physical and nonphysical
resources are pooled in
support of collective goals
Systems Thinking System integration does
not occur
System integration may
occur to better achieve
individual goals
System integration does
occur to better achieve
collective goals
Trust Trust relationships are not
required but may develop
Leaders work closely to
create relationship based
on trust
Trust between participants
is needed to sustain
relationships
7. Results
“mmm…When different parties bring different
things to the table and they…can be mutually
beneficial to everyone (001)”
“Equal partnership…people coming together
to make one program successful (002)”
9. Results
Formality of Agreement
when I’m working with the group, with a large scale
event, it takes more of their higher ups to OK the
dates, OK the pricing, things like that (001)
yes I think we are, we are actually considered as a
community partner (when asked about providing
formal agreements) (002)
Yes, (when asked about providing a formal
agreement to work) (001)
10. Results
Key Personnel
once we’re at the contract portion, if they’re
gonna offer an event, it requires a contract and
some more things, then we go to the director
position, um, just make sure they’re all on board
(001)
We work at all levels, depending on who is the
person connecting with them (002)
11. Results
Resource Allocation
yeah, we’ve completely evolved since I started here. When I
first started here we provided everything, they just gave us
the space and a couple of teachers here and there,
instructors. Now, they do almost everything and I sometimes
don’t even go, um, to events (001)
we will provide patches; we provide registration, the roster
(001)
I will provide myself or Donna to do check in (001)
So we’ve um, passed different resources back and forth
between, um…human resources, by people, um, taking
reservations to, um, knowledge, who, who’s passing on the
knowledge to, um, who we’re presenting to (002)
12. Results
Trust
Um…a lot, if I’m not going to be there. Um, I have to
trust that they’re gonna meet ratios (001)
Yeah, trust is a good thing, because you’re relying
on each other to provide your resources that you
need, because, especially like an expertise that
somebody may have that the other one doesn’t.
You’re relying on that person to provide that
knowledge for them, or those resources for them and
if that’s not there, that means that person is not
putting it into their effort that we need to make it
successful (002)
13. Results
they don’t really see where they fit, when you
look at a badge and you have five
requirements, they can say, “I can do this, I
can do number two and number four.” (001)
I think the challenge right now is with the new
badge program that they’re offering there’s
not as many that tie in with our mission at
Nauticus, um, as they used to be (002)
The interactions among organizations take many forms. From informal information sharing to formal agreements to collaborate to solve societal problems, the reasons for doing so are myriad. From a governance perspective, many societal problems are deemed “wicked” problems; they are ill defined and are never solvable, but can be continually resolved (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160). Wicked problems have no “clarifying traits” and include many policy-oriented issues such as education, environmental issues, and planning (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160). Collaboration has been proffered as one type of interaction that can be utilized to solve these wicked problems.
Non-profits play a role in these interactions in an effort to solve particular sets of problems within their realm as well. In many instances governments as well as citizen-based organizations work alongside non-profits. It is these interactions among non-profits and other institutions within communities that this research is interested in.
In this research, I took an exploratory approach to determining exactly what kinds of interactions exist between the Girl Scout Council of Colonial Coast and other organizations in the community that it interacts with in some way, otherwise known as community partners.
One of the goals of this research is to define what collaboration is based on the literature as well as data collection activities.
A second goal is to determine some potential avenues for improving these relationships in order to better carry out the mission of the Girl Scout Council.
Collaboration as an area of research is a relatively young field. Barbara Gray established the seminal work in the field in 1989.
There is significant work in the field now, however the focus on non-profits and their community partners yields significantly less results.
This makes research into this subfield viable for exploration.
I base my exploratory work on Madeleine McNamara’s 2012 framework, which is represented here graphically
Public, private, non-profit, citizen-centric, no matter the entity, interaction tends to occur along this continuum. It is not considered linear however, despite the depiction here.
I chose to approach this exploratory research from the PAR tradition.
According to Hays and Singh, this approach relies upon the power of research as a change agent. Participants and I as the researcher share power and we work together in planning the research and implementing findings.
Ultimately, I wish to work collaboratively with my co-workers and their counterparts in the community to improve the interactions we have together. In a time of reduced resources due to economic conditions, reaching the goals of the Council increasingly require the pooling of resources with organizations that have similar missions to ours. It really comes down to improving the lives of young women in our community by providing them a safe environment, educational and leadership opportunities and life skills to aid in managing social issues such as relational aggression.
This research utilized two forms of data collection – unobtrusive observation and interviews.
The initial research includes two interviews and one unobtrusive observation.
The first interviewee is a manager at the Girl Scout Council of Colonial Coast who has been with the Council for about 12 years. She works directly with Community Partners on a daily basis. This makes her knowledge and expertise valuable to the research.
The second interviewee is a manager at the Nauticus, one of the community partners that works directly with the Council on programs and events. She too has been an employee with her organization for a very long time, 16 years. Since her hiring, she has worked directly with the Council, again making her knowledge of interactions with the Council very valuable.
The unobtrusive observation took place at NSU and was a planning session for an event that both organizations were working on together.
I apologize for this slide but in order to understand the significance of the results, we must understand the differentiation that McNamara uses in her typology.
I won’t go through each one but you can get a sense of the delineation between the types of interactions. Generally cooperation is less interactive, more autonomous and informal, where as collaboration is more integrated, formal, more of a partnership of equals.
- I asked the question, what does the word collaboration mean to you, actually near the end of the interviews and the responses I got were interesting. The first interviewee came closest to the research literature on what collaboration means. The second interviewee spoke in terms of single events, which is contrary to collaboration, according to the literature. Generally collaboration is an ongoing, iterative process, long-term in nature. Based on McNamara, I would consider the second response to be more coordination or even cooperation.
Of the 10 elements of interaction described by McNamara, the interviewees both touched on 6.
Out of those 6 elements 4 showed agreement between the two interviewees.
Finally, 3 of the 4 elements were bolstered by data collected in the unobtrusive observation.
- In each instance, there is a formal agreement between our council and the community partner. It is an actual document or contract to work together. Both interviewees were aware that these agreements existed between them.
While there was agreement on collaboration for key personnel, there was substantial additional information that each interviewee provided which lends more to cooperation or coordination.
Critically, much of the work between the Council and the community partner occurs at lower levels within the organization – typically manager level. McNamara would consider this to be coordination at best.
The area of resource allocation really begins to show the collaborative nature of the arrangement. Resources - from time, knowledge, people and money are shared among both groups to make an event or program successful.
Both interviewees were in agreement with resource sharing in relation to collaboration.
Trust was another strongly correlated element for collaboration. Both interviewees provided a lot of information regarding trust.
Interviewee 1 provided vivid examples of when the trust relationship broke down and the consequences of the loss of trust. The organizations stopped interacting for a time until that trust rift was repaired.
This to me was the strongest element regarding collaboration based on the data collected. Trust builds social capital, which is a critical ingredient to successful collaboration.
- One more thing not in the matrix but in the literature that impact the collaborative relationship came out in the interviews as well.
- That was mission misalignment. If the organizations are not working toward common goals or outcomes, there is generally a breakdown in the collaborative.
So what’s the takeaway here? There are clearly some aspects of collaboration occurring. However, there is a significant lack of critical components such as organizational design that would more fully integrate all of these partners. They still work structurally within their own organizations for much of this work. This research highlights some areas that we as a council could work on to improve these relationships and really collaborate.
But even the literature still is not in full agreement on what collaboration is or, more importantly what the critical mass is on the elements that must be in place to call something “collaboration” – McNamara provides 10, but are 3 or 4 of those sufficient? Do some elements get more weight than others? These are great research questions for future study.