Advertisement

The Complexity of Inter-organizational Relationships: Cross-unit Analysis, Discussion, and Implications

  • Morgan R. Clevenger
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses the analysis across the six embedded units of the companies in the study to compare and contrast the size, scale, and scope of the businesses. Discussion begins with the ease or complexity of dealing with the varying sizes and cultures of the corporations and their capacity to engage with the research. From all data sources, the six companies are plotted on Cone’s (2010, The new era of global corporate citizenship & compliance. Presentation at Net Impact Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) corporate citizenship spectrum based on their overall behaviors as deemed in the categories of philanthropy, cause-related branding, operational culture, or DNA citizenship ethos. Implications for practice for both higher education and corporations are summarized and related to the potential lessons learned. Future research ideas are shared to promote additional exploration.

References

  1. Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP). (2018). Donor Bill of Rights (Appendix D). Retrieved from http://www.afpnet.org/Ethics/EnforcementDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=3359
  3. Benioff, M., & Adler, C. (2007). The business of changing the world: Twenty great leaders on strategic corporate philanthropy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bliese, P. D., Chan, D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). Multilevel methods: Future directions in measurement, longitudinal analyses, and nonnormal outcomes. Organizational Research Methods, 10(4), 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd, D. P., & Halfond, J. A. (1990). Corporate ties and integrity at U.S. business schools. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 36(38), A44.Google Scholar
  7. Brock, D. (2007, July 5), Focus on a customer’s need to buy, not on your need to sell. EyesOnSales. Retrieved from http://www.eyesonsales.com/content/article/focus_on_a_customers_need_to_buy_not_your_need_to_sell
  8. Bruch, H., & Walter, F. (2005). The keys to rethinking corporate philanthropy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 48–55.Google Scholar
  9. Burson, E. N. (2009, August 13–14). Management of the long-term relationship. Presentation at the NACRO Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://web.mac.com/nacro/NACRO/Toolbox.html
  10. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 863–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cleland, T. A., Colledge, B., Ellerbrock, M., Lynch, K., McGowan, D., Patera, S. et al. (2012, August 2). Metrics for a successful twenty-first century academic corporate relations program. White Paper, Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers Benchmarking Committee. Retrieved from http://www.nacroonline.org
  13. Clevenger, M. R. (2014). An organizational analysis of the inter-organizational relationships between a public American higher education university and six United States corporate supporters: An instrumental, ethnographic case study using Cone’s corporate citizenship spectrum. ProQuest published doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO. Retrieved from https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/45866
  14. Cohen, A. M. (2010). The shaping of American higher education: Emergency and growth of the contemporary system (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Cone, C. (2010, October 27). The new era of global corporate citizenship & compliance. Presentation at Net Impact Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  17. Croon, M. A., & van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M. (2007). Predicting group-level outcome variables from variables measured at the individual level: A latent variable multilevel model. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. S. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. DeMillo, R. A. (2011). Abelard to Apple: The fate of American colleges and universities. Cambridge, MA: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ebers, M. (1999). The dynamics of inter-organizational relationships. Sociology of Organizations, 16, 31–56.Google Scholar
  21. Edelman Trust Barometer. (2018). Special report: Institutional Investors U.S. results. Retrieved from https://www.edelman.com/research/trust-barometer-institutional-investors
  22. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  23. Evans, G. A. (2000). Ethical issues in fund raising. In P. Buchanan (Ed.), Handbook of institutional advancement (3rd ed., pp. 363–366). Washington, DC: CASE.Google Scholar
  24. Fischer, M. (2000). Ethical decision making in fund raising. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Frynas, J. G., & Yamahaki, C. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: Review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(3), 258–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fulton, K., & Blau, A. (2005). Looking out for the future: An orientation for twenty-first century philanthropists. Cambridge, MA: The Monitor Group.Google Scholar
  27. Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2004). Take back higher education: Race, youth, and the crisis of democracy in the post-civil rights era. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haley, U. C. V. (1991). Corporate contributions as managerial masques: Reframing corporate contributions as strategies to influence society. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 485–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoerr, T., Kucic, B., Wagener, A., & Nolan, M. (2010, August 11). Small and medium-sized businesses: Finding mutual value. Presentation at the 2010 NACRO Annual Conference, Urbana-Champaign, IL. Retrieved from http://www.nacroonline.org/conference-presentations
  30. Jacobson, H. K. (Ed.). (1978). Evaluating advancement programs: New directions for institutional advancement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Jacoby, N. H. (1973). Corporate power and social responsibility. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutionalism of three capitalisms. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaplan, A. E. (2018). 2017 voluntary support of education survey. New York, NY: Council for Aid to Education.Google Scholar
  34. Liggett, G. (2000). Ethics in corporate and foundation fundraising. In M. K. Murphy’s (Ed.), Corporate and foundation support: Strategies for funding education in the 21st century (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Case.Google Scholar
  35. Lin-Hi, N., & Müller, K. (2013). The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1928–1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Litan, R. E., & Mitchell, L. (2011). Should universities be agents of economic development? In C. J. Schramm (Ed.), The future of the research university: Meeting the global challenges of the 21st century (pp. 123–146). Kansas City, MO: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Madden, C. (1977). Forces which influence ethical behavior. In C. C. Walton (Ed.), The ethics of corporate conduct (pp. 31–78). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. White Paper. Retrieved from https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/papers/seminars/margolis_november_07.pdf
  39. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, J., Samels, E., & Associates. (2012). The sustainable university: Green goals and new challenges for higher education leaders. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
  41. McDonnell, M.-H., King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2015). A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social changes. American Sociological Association, 80(3), 654–678.Google Scholar
  42. McGoldrick, M. (1989). Details you should know. In J. L. Fisher & G. H. Quehl (Eds.), The president and fund raising (pp. 160–169). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., & Spicer, P. F. A. (2016). On the forgetting of corporate irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 720–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Meuth, E. F. (1991). Corporate philanthropy in American higher education: An investigation of attitudes towards giving. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  46. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Molnar, A. (2002). The corporate branding of our schools. Educational Leadership, 60(2), 74–78.Google Scholar
  49. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). (2017). Table 21. Higher education R&D expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by source of funds: FY 2017 (Dollars in thousands) from Higher education research and development survey: Fiscal year 2017. Retrieved from National Science Foundation at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2017/index.html
  50. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2011). Table 14. Higher education R&D expenditures ranked by all R&D expenditures, by source of funds: FY 2011. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13325/pdf/nsf13325.pdf
  51. Nuveen. (2018). Responsible investing: Fourth annual responsible investing survey. Retrieved from https://www.nuveen.com/fourth-annual-responsible-investing-survey
  52. Pasque, P. A., & Lechuga, W. M. (2016). Qualitative inquiry in higher education organization and policy research. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Pollack, R. H. (1998). Give and take: Create a mutually beneficial relationship to bring corporate support to your campus. Currents, 24(2), 16–22.Google Scholar
  55. Rhodes, F. H. T. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American University. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  56. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robbins, Z., Cirillo, A., Kaylor, R., Larson, D., & Reed, R. (2007, August 15). Industry-university relationships. Panel at the NACRO Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from http://web.mac.com/nacro/NACRO/Toolbox.html
  58. Rose, A. P. (2011). Giving by the numbers 2011. New York, NY: Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy.Google Scholar
  59. Sanzone, C. S. (2000). Securing corporate support: The business of corporate relations. In P. Buchanan (Ed.), Handbook of institutional advancement (3rd ed., pp. 321–324). Washington, DC: CASE.Google Scholar
  60. Saul, J. (2011). The end of fundraising: Raise more money selling your impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  61. Saul, J. (2012, August 2). The business case for corporate involvement: How to sell your impact. Presentation at the NACRO Conference, Evanston, IL. Retrieved from http://www.nacroonline.org/conference-presentations
  62. Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2005). Classics of organization theory (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  63. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Solórzano, A. (2017). Giving in numbers: 2017 edition. New York, NY: Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy.Google Scholar
  65. Stage, F. K., & Manning, K. (Eds.). (2015). Research in the college context. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 850–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University (COP). (2007). Corporate philanthropy: The age of integration. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University. Retrieved from http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/files/research/corporate_giving_-_july_2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
  69. The State of Corporate Citizenship 2012 – Highlights. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.bcccc.net/pdf/SOCC2012HighlightPresentation.pdf
  70. Touraine, A. (1977). The self-production of society. Chicasectgo, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Vogel, D. (2010). The private regulation of global corporate conduct: Achievements and limitations. Business & Society, 49(1), 68–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgan R. Clevenger
    • 1
  1. 1.Post-doctoral Fellow in Corporate Social Responsibility and Global Business EthicsMonarch Business SchoolZugSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations