Multiparty Alliances and Systemic Change: The Role of Beneficiaries and Their Capacity for Collective Action
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.
KeywordsCross-sector collaboration Collective action capacity Beneficiaries Value creation Systemic change
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- Austin, J. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and business succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco, CS: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2014). Creating value in nonprofit-business collaborations: New thinking and practice. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Cultural theory: An anthology (pp. 81–93). Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
- 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
- Castañeda, D. (2014). The European approach to peacebuilding: Civilian tools for peace in Colombia and beyond. Springer.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Cheney, D. (2014). Diocese of Barrancabermeja. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from http://www.catholichierarchy.org/diocese/dbrnc.html.
- Chetkovich, C. A., & Kunreuther, F. (2006). From the ground up: Grassroots organizations making social change. Ithaca: ILR Press/Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Ecopetrol (2012). Lo que hacemos. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from http://www.ecopetrol.com.co/contenido.aspx?conID=37994&catID=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
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
- 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
- Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Esteva, G. (1992). Development. In W. Sachs (Ed.), Development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (pp. 1–23). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
- 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
- Funnell, S. (1997). Program logic: An adaptable tool for designing and evaluating programs. Evaluation News and Comment, 6(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
- Gamson, W. A. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. Sage.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gray, A., Jenkins, B., Leeuw, F., & Mayne, J. (2003). The challenge for evaluation: Collaboration in public services. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Himmelman, A. T. (2002). Collaboration for a change: Definitions, decision-making models, roles, and collaboration process guide. Minneapolis: Himmelman Consulting.Google Scholar
- Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (2011), 36–41.Google Scholar
- Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2013, January). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses complexity. Stanford Social Innovation Review, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
- 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
- Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 29–39.Google Scholar
- 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
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Molano, A. (2009). En medio del Magdalena medio. Bogota: CINEP.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. (2005). Retrieved August 23, 2017 from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm.
- 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
- Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
- Rahnema, M., & Bawtree, V. (Eds.). (1997). The post-development reader. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.Google Scholar
- Sandoval, G. (2010). Immigrants and the revitalization of Los Angeles: Development and change in Macarthur Park. New York: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
- Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Yin, R. K. (Ed.). (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Zabala, S. (2006). Diagnóstico participativo y prospective de la región del Magdalena Centro. Bogota: Cinep (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar