Advertisement

Multiparty Alliances and Systemic Change: The Role of Beneficiaries and Their Capacity for Collective Action

Original Paper

Abstract

The intensification of cross-sector collaboration phenomena has occurred in multiple fields of action. Organizations in the private, public, and social sectors are working together to tackle society’s most wicked problems. Some success has resulted in a generalized belief that cross-sector collaborations represent the new paradigm to manage complex problems. Yet, important knowledge gaps remain about how cross-sector alliances generate value for society, particularly to its beneficiaries. This paper answers the question: How cross-sector collaborations lead to systemic change? It uses a qualitative embedded case study design. I use two general cases of alliance-based interventions in the developing country Colombia. Embedded cases within each general case identify evidence of collective action capacity of the beneficiaries. Findings identify and explain alliances’ contributions to beneficiaries’ capacity building: brokering trust and creating spaces where beneficiaries develop an emergent collective action capacity. Alliances also enable beneficiaries to enact that capacity by building bridges, circulating capitals, and buffering relationships to protect people’s initiatives. Alliances and empowered collectives of beneficiaries produce systemic change using five mechanisms: brokering trust, creating spaces, building bridges, circulating capitals, and buffering relationships. Beneficiaries increased capacity for collective action is an outcome that becomes an alliance input, leading overtime to further benefits involving systemic change.

Keywords

Cross-sector collaboration Collective action capacity Beneficiaries Value creation Systemic change 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Research Committee of the Universidad de los Andes School of Management.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Author Diana Trujillo declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Abers, R. N. (2007). Organizing for governance: Building collaboration in Brazilian river basins. World Development, 35(8), 1450–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R., & Niessen, T. (2006). Considering diversity: Multivoicedness in international academic collaboration. Culture and Psychology, 12, 461–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2009). Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings. International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amenta, E., & Caren, N. (2004). The legislative, organizational, and beneficiary consequences of state-oriented challengers. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 461–488). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin, J. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and business succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco, CS: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Austin, J., Reficco, E., Berger, G., Fischer, R., Gutierrez, R., Koliajtic, M., et al. (2004). Social partnering in Latin America: Lessons drawn from collaborations of businesses and civil society organizations. Cambridge: The David Rockefeller Center Series on Latin American Studies, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Austin, J., Reficco, E., Berger, G., Fischer, R., Gutierrez, R., Koliajtic, M., et al. (2006). Effective management of social enterprises. Cambridge: The David Rockefeller Center Series on Latin American Studies, Harvard University Press, Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  9. Austin, J., & Seitanidi, M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 726–758. Part II. Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 929–968.Google Scholar
  10. Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2014). Creating value in nonprofit-business collaborations: New thinking and practice. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Beckman, C. M., Schoonhoven, C. B., Rottner, R. M., & Kim, S. J. (2014). Relational pluralism in de novo organizations: Boards of directors as bridges or barriers to diverse alliance portfolios? Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 460–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Cultural theory: An anthology (pp. 81–93). Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  13. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 44–55. (part supp).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Butcher, D., & Atkinson, S. (2001). Stealth, secrecy and subversion: The language of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14, 554–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Castañeda, D. (2014). The European approach to peacebuilding: Civilian tools for peace in Colombia and beyond. Springer.Google Scholar
  19. CEPAL. (2012). Los paises de renta media: Un enfoque basado en brechas estructurales. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas. Retrieved from: http://www19.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2012/10649es.pdf on March 7, 2017.
  20. Cheney, D. (2014). Diocese of Barrancabermeja. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from http://www.catholichierarchy.org/diocese/dbrnc.html.
  21. Chetkovich, C. A., & Kunreuther, F. (2006). From the ground up: Grassroots organizations making social change. Ithaca: ILR Press/Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Connick, S., & Innes, J. (2003). Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: Applying complexity thinking to evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cornelius, N., & Wallace, J. (2010). Cross-sector partnerships: City regeneration and social justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Croteau, D., & Hicks, L. (2003). Coalition framing and the challenge of a consonant frame pyramid: The case of a collaborative response to homelessness. Social Problems, 50(2), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. D’Aunno, T., Alexander, J., & Jiang, L. (2017). Creating value for participants in multistakeholder alliances: The shifting importance of leadership and collaborative decision-making over time. Health Care Management Review, 42(2), 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dahl, A., & Soss, J. (2014). Neoliberalism for the common good? Public value governance and the downsizing of democracy. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Departamento Nacional de Planeacion DNP, GPD-DJSG. (2011). Insumo de conocimiento posterior al encuentro de tierras, territorios y territorialidades. Estudios de caso. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  28. Dodge, J. (2011). Deliberative citizenship: Social change organizations and critical discourse in and beyond the forum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Ecopetrol (2012). Lo que hacemos. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/contenido.aspx?conID=37994&catID=30.
  30. Eggers, W. D., & Macmillan, P. (2013). The solution revolution: How business, government, and social enterprises are teaming up to solve society’s toughest problems. Brighton: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  31. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  32. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620–627.Google Scholar
  33. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Esteva, G. (1992). Development. In W. Sachs (Ed.), Development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (pp. 1–23). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  37. Esteva, G., & Prakash, M. S. (1998). Beyond development, What? Development in Practice, 8(3), 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Evans, P. (1996). Government actions, social capital, and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development, 24(6), 1119–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 27–37).Google Scholar
  40. Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2002). When hot and cold collide in radical change processes: Lessons from community development. Organization Science, 13(5), 532–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Foldy, E. G., Goldman, L., & Ospina, S. (2008). Sensegiving and the role of cognitive shifts in the work of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Funnell, S. (1997). Program logic: An adaptable tool for designing and evaluating programs. Evaluation News and Comment, 6(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  43. Gamson, W. A. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  44. Gibbert, M., & Nair, L. B. (2013). Towards rigorous case study research: How replication logic enhances internal and external validity. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 15672).Google Scholar
  45. Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Gray, B. (2000). Assessing inter-organizational collaboration: multiple conceptions and multiple methods. In D. Faulkner & M. De Rond (Eds.), Cooperative strategy: Economic, business, and organizational issues (pp. 243–260).Google Scholar
  47. Gray, A., Jenkins, B., Leeuw, F., & Mayne, J. (2003). The challenge for evaluation: Collaboration in public services. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30, 180–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Helliwell, J., Layart, R., Sachs, J. (2016). World happiness report 2016: Volume 1. Retrieved from: http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf on March 7th, 2017.
  50. Himmelman, A. T. (2002). Collaboration for a change: Definitions, decision-making models, roles, and collaboration process guide. Minneapolis: Himmelman Consulting.Google Scholar
  51. Hull, A. (2000). Neighborhood renewal: A toolkit for regeneration. GeoJournal, 51(4), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science, 16(4), 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Innes, J., & Booher, D. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Judge, K., & Bauld, L. (2001). Strong theory, flexible methods: Evaluating complex community-based initiatives. Critical Public Health, 11(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kallis, G., Kiparsky, M., & Norgaard, R. (2009). Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessons from California’s CALFED water program. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(6), 631–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (2011), 36–41.Google Scholar
  57. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2013, January). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses complexity. Stanford Social Innovation Review, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  58. Kolk, A. (2013). Mainstreaming sustainable coffee. Sustainable Development, 21(5), 324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2013). Multinationals, CSR and partnerships in Central African conflict countries. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lawrence, T. B., & Dover, G. (2015). Place and institutional work creating housing for the hard-to-house. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(3), 371–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Le Ber, M., & Branzei, O. (2010a). Value frame fusion in cross sector interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 163–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Le Ber, M., & Branzei, O. (2010b). Towards a critical theory of value creation in cross-sector partnerships. Organization, 17(5), 599–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lotia, N., & Hardy, C. (2008). Critical perspectives on collaboration. In S. Cropper, C. Huxham, M. Ebers & P. S. Ring (Eds.), Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  65. Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2009). Perspective: The interdependence of private and public interests. Organization Science, 20(6), 1034–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 29–39.Google Scholar
  67. McDonald, S., & Young, S. (2012). Cross-sector collaboration shaping corporate social responsibility best practice within the mining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McGinnis, M. D. (Ed.). (1999). Polycentric governance and development: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  69. Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Molano, A. (2009). En medio del Magdalena medio. Bogota: CINEP.Google Scholar
  72. Muradian, R., & Cardenas, J. C. (2015). From market failures to collective action dilemmas: Reframing environmental governance challenges in Latin America and beyond. Ecological Economics, 120, 358–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Murphy, M., Arenas, D., & Batista, J. M. (2016). Value creation in cross-sector collaborations: The roles of experience and alignment. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nowell, B. (2010). Out of sync and unaware? Exploring the effects of problem frame alignment and discordance in community collaboratives. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. O’Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2008). Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 422–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ospina, S. M., Foldy, E. G., El Hadidy, W., Dodge, J., Hofmann-Pinilla, A., & Su, C. (2012). Social change leadership as relational leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien & S. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives Leadership Horizons Series (pp. 255–302). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  77. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ostrom, E. (1997). Crossing the great divide: Co-production, synergy, and development. In P. Evans (Ed.), State-society synergy: Government and social capital in development (pp. 85–118). Berkeley, CA: University of California-Berkeley.Google Scholar
  79. Page, S., Stone, M., Bryson, J., & Crosby, B. (2015). Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. (2005). Retrieved August 23, 2017 from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm.
  81. Pettigrew, A. (1988). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. In Paper presented at the National Science Foundation Conference on Longitudinal Research Methods in Organizations, Austin.Google Scholar
  82. Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 515–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  85. Rahnema, M., & Bawtree, V. (Eds.). (1997). The post-development reader. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  86. Rama, D., Milano, B. J., Salas, S., & Liu, C. H. (2009). CSR implementation: Developing the capacity for collective action. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  88. Sandoval, G. (2010). Immigrants and the revitalization of Los Angeles: Development and change in Macarthur Park. New York: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
  89. Seitanidi, M. M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). Editorial: Cross-sector social interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Selsky, J., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 846–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  92. Shipilov, A., Gulati, R., Kilduff, M., Li, S., & Tsai, W. (2014). Relational pluralism within and between organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 449–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.Google Scholar
  94. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133–155). Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stadtler, L. (2016). Scrutinizing public–private partnerships for development: Towards a broad evaluation conception. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Trujillo, D. (2016) Value creation in cross-sector collaboration: Beneficiaries’ increased capacity for collective action. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University, New York.Google Scholar
  99. Von Tulder, R., Seitanidi, M., Crane, A., & Brammer, S. (2015). Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships: Four impact loops for channeling partnership Studies’. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2756-4.Google Scholar
  100. Weiss, C. H. (1997). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(76), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yin, R. K. (Ed.). (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zabala, S. (2006). Diagnóstico participativo y prospective de la región del Magdalena Centro. Bogota: Cinep (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de los Andes School of ManagementBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations