Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ties That Bind: Public Foundations in Dyadic Partnerships

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs) are grantmaking philanthropic foundations, largely held to be independent. However, some PubAFs exist in significant and exclusive relationships (dyadic partnerships) with a dominant stakeholder involving shared values, strategy, resources, and goals. This paper examines the benefits and challenges for PubAFs of being in a dyadic partnership and how this relationship affects their identity, accountability, and independence. Interviews with 28 PubAFs reveal significant differences between the operating forms and practices of PubAFs in dyadic partnerships, and those which were not. While dyadic partnerships are most commonly associated with donor organisations that establish and provide ongoing funding to foundations (e.g. corporate foundations), this study’s findings show that to be a limited understanding, with PubAFs existing in dyadic partnerships in a range of different contexts. Further, the closeness and exclusiveness of a dyadic partnership presented both benefits and challenges which PubAFs must actively manage over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Godfrey, P. C., Reger, R. K., & Whetten, D. A. (1998). Epilogue: What does the concept of identity add to organization science? In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 273–294). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). US: JAI Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Tabbaa, O., Leach, D., & March, J. (2014). Collaboration between nonprofit and business sectors: A framework to guide strategy development for nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(3), 657–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Taxation Office. (2019). Private and public ancillary funds, 2000–01 to 2016–17 income years. Retrieved 13 Aug 2020 from https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/taxation-statistics-2016-17/resource/abdc1c08-eef0-4220-9e6d-2817458f8aea.

  • Barman, E. (2007). An institutional approach to donor control: From dyadic ties to a field-level analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1416–1457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B., & Crant, J. M. (2000). Dyadic communication relationships in organizations: An attribution/expectancy approach. Organization Science, 11(6), 648–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 82–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L. (2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 864–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carboni, J. L. (2016). Combined effects: The influence of organizational form and structural characteristics on contract performance in mixed sector markets. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1781–1808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, J. (2016). Are all national nonprofit sectors around the world becoming “American”? In The nonprofit world: Civil society and the rise of the nonprofit sector (pp. 131–143). Kumarian Press, Lynne Rienner Publishers.

  • Chan, K.-B. (2010). Father, son, wife, husband: Philanthropy as exchange and balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(3), 387–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortis, N., Powell, A., Ramia, I., & Marjolin, A. (2018). Australia’s Grant-making charities in 2016: An analysis of structured philanthropy and other grant-makers. Retrieved 12 Dec 2019 from https://www.acnc.gov.au/tools/reports/grant-making-charities-australia-2016.

  • Empson, L., Cleaver, I., & Allen, J. (2013). Managing partners and management professionals: Institutional work dyads in professional partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 808–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Q., Fisher, K. R., & Li, B. (2019). Follower or challenger? How Chinese non-governmental organizations manage accountability requirements from funders. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 722–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furneaux, C., & Ryan, N. (2014). Modelling NPO–government relations: Australian case studies. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1113–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Burt, R. S. (1991). Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 88–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandara, D., Rippner, J. A., & Ness, E. C. (2017). Exploring the ‘how’ in policy diffusion: National intermediary organizations’ roles in facilitating the spread of performance-based funding policies in the states. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 701–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Canal, E., Valdés-Llaneza, A., & Ariño, A. (2003). Effectiveness of dyadic and multi-party joint ventures. Organization Studies, 24(5), 743–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government—nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 653–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, C., & Lai, W. (2019). Community foundations in China: In search of identity? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 647–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herlin, H., & Pedersen, J. T. (2013). Corporate foundations: Catalysts of NGO-business partnerships? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2013(50), 58–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambright, K. T., Mischen, P. A., & Laramee, C. B. (2010). Building trust in public and nonprofit networks: Personal, dyadic, and third-party influences. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(1), 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)Forming strategic cross-sector partnerships: Relational processes of social innovation. Business and Society, 49(1), 140–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leat, D., Williamson, A., & Scaife, W. (2018). Grantmaking in a disorderly world: The limits of rationalism. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(1), 128–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Anand, S., & Vidyarthi, P. (2016). Dyadic relationships. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 139–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mashaw, J. L. (2006). Accountability and institutional design: Some thoughts on the grammar of governance. In M. Dowdle (Ed.), Public law working papers: Public accountability: Designs, dilemmas and experiences (pp. 115–156): Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • McElroy, C. A. (2012). Corporate foundations in the mining industry: The relationship between responsible investment and social investment. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 2(3–4), 240–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., Zaheer, A., & Kamal, D. K. F. (2017). Mutual and exclusive: Dyadic sources of trust in interorganizational exchange. Organization Science, 28(1), 74–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor-Lowndes, M., & Williamson, A. (2018). Foundations in Australia: Dimensions for international comparison. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(13), 1759–1776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, S. C., & Brudney, J. L. (2014). Doing good, public good, and public value: Why the differences matter. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, S. C., & Brudney, J. L. (2018). Introduction: Why this book? In J. L. Brudney (Ed.), Partnerships the nonprofit way: What matters, what doesn’t. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, A. (2018). The global landscape of philanthropy. Retrieved 24 Oct 2019 from http://wings.issuelab.org/resources/29534/29534.pdf.

  • Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3), 415–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, N. F., & Evans, S. K. (2017). Civil society partnerships: Power imbalance and mutual dependence in NGO partnerships. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(4), 1399–1421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrander, S. A. (2007). Innovation, accountability, and independence at three private foundations funding higher education civic engagement, 1995 to 2005. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(2), 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu, S., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 8(3), 238–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Garcia, M., Martin-Cavanna, J., & Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I. (2012). Assessing and advancing foundation transparency: Corporate foundations as a case study. The Foundation Review, 4(3), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roussin Isett, K., & Provan, K. G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational relationships in a network of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., Koufopoulos, D. N., & Palmer, P. (2010). Partnership formation for change: Indicators for transformative potential in cross sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 139–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D. (2016). Public ancillary funds (PuAF) trustee handbook (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia, Australian Philanthropic Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., & Macdonald, E. K. (2018). Business-nonprofit engagement in sustainability-oriented innovation: What works for whom and why? Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, A., Luke, B., & Furneaux, C. (2018). Why be accountable? Exploring voluntary accountability of Australian private ancillary funds. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(3), 375–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Alexandra Kate Williamson & Craig Furneaux

  2. School of Accountancy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Belinda Luke

Authors
  1. Alexandra Kate Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Belinda Luke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Craig Furneaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Kate Williamson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors are all employed by Queensland University of Technology (QUT). An early version of this paper was presented at the 14th Australian and New Zealand Third Sector Research (ANZTSR) Conference, Sydney, November 2018, and all three authors received financial support from QUT to attend (airfares, registration, and accommodation costs). Our thanks to those present who gave feedback.

Human and Animal Rights

This research was approved by QUT's Low-risk human ethics advisory committee, Approval Number 1600000863.

Informed Consent

All participants in this research were provided with information about the project in accordance with QUT’s research ethics requirements, and all signed a consent form before participating in interviews. Signed consent forms are stored as per QUT’s research data policies. Further, participants were able to withdraw from the research up to two weeks following interview, with all data pertaining to them destroyed. None chose to do so.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Williamson, A.K., Luke, B. & Furneaux, C. Ties That Bind: Public Foundations in Dyadic Partnerships. Voluntas 32, 234–246 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00269-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00269-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation