Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Volume 38 Number ...

117

Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly

Volume 38 Number 1February 2009 117-143

© 2009 Sage Publications10.1177/0899764008316054

http://nvsq.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Challenges in MultipleCross-Sector PartnershipsKathy BabiakUniversity of Michigan, Ann ArborLucie ThibaultBrock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

This research examines challenges associated with partnerships among a group ofcross-sector organizations. The context for this study is a nonprofit organization inCanada’s sport system and its numerous partners in public, nonprofit, and commercialsectors. The results reveal challenges in the areas of structure and strategy. Specifically,data uncover structural challenges with respect to problems with governance, roles, andresponsibilities guiding the partnerships and with the complexity of partnership formsand structures. The data also uncover strategic challenges, in light of the focus on com-petition versus collaboration among various partners and the changes in missions andobjectives through the duration of the relationship. The results and implications fornonprofit organizations involved in multiple cross-sector partnerships are discussed.

Keywords: cross-sector partnership; sport organizations; structural and strategicchallenges

Huxham and Macdonald (1992) wrote, “There is a fine balance to be struckbetween gaining the benefits of collaborating and making the situation worse”

(p. 50). This balance between gaining the benefits and avoiding the disadvantages ofcollaborating is characteristic of most types of partnerships. With the high failure rateof partnerships (Anderson & Jap, 2005; Mohr & Spekman, 1994), this tenuous bal-ance needs to be understood and managed. A number of theorists have pointed tochallenges associated with same-sector or cross-sector partnerships in the public,nonprofit, and commercial sectors (Anderson & Jap, 2005; Hodge & Greve, 2005;Parise & Casher, 2003; Suen, 2005). These challenges have been attributed to factorssuch as environmental constraints; diversity in organizational aims; barriers in com-munication; and difficulties in developing joint modes of operating, managing per-ceived power imbalances, building trust, and managing the logistics of working withgeographically dispersed partners. Organizations need to think differently about theirpartnerships because there is a growing dependence on multiple partners fromacross sectors. As explained by Parise and Casher (2003), “Because most businessstrategies include more than one alliance, success often depends on how the wholecollection of alliances fit together” (p. 26).

118 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Although a great deal has been written on within-sector collaboration and a grow-ing body of work has examined cross-sector partnerships (i.e., public-nonprofit, non-profit-commercial, and public-commercial), much less has been written on multiplecross-sector partnerships involving the complex interchange of organizations frompublic, nonprofit, and commercial sectors (García-Canal, Valdéz-Llaneza, & Ariñio,2003; Hodge & Greve, 2005; Smith, Carroll, & Ashford, 1995). To this end, the pur-pose of this study was to examine the organizational-level challenges associated witha focal nonprofit organization’s interaction with multiple partners across differentsectors. More specifically, this article uncovered challenges related to structural andstrategic factors involved in the multiple cross-sector partnerships of one nonprofitCanadian sport organization.

In Canada, the high-performance sport system offers a rich site to examine the chal-lenges in managing cross-sector partnerships, for several reasons. First, the majorityof organizations in this system are nonprofit entities that have experienced a shift inthe level of financial and organizational support provided to them by the federal gov-ernment. This shift has led to the establishment of multiple cross-sector partnerships asa strategy to offer comprehensive support and resources for Olympic-level athletes andcoaches. Second, the system is comprised of organizational stakeholders from sev-eral sectors, including all levels of government (federal, provincial, and local), non-profit national sport federations (e.g., Athletics Canada, Canada Basketball,Gymnastics Canada), and multisport organizations (e.g., Canadian OlympicCommittee, Commonwealth Games Canada), as well as commercial organizations,including professional sports, sporting goods manufacturers and retailers, corporatesponsors, and the media.

Nonprofit organizations are a focal point in the delivery of sport programs andservices in Canada (i.e., from the sandbox to the podium).1 In light of the recentfunding changes in Canada’s sport system, executives in these nonprofit organiza-tions have faced financial challenges, pressures for greater accountability, andincreased concerns for their athletes to excel in international competitions (Mills,1998; Priestner Allinger & Allinger, 2004; Robertson, 2005). Partnership as a strat-egy to deal with these pressures is relatively new for sport organizations (Frisby,Thibault, & Kikulis, 2004; Noé, 1991; Thibault & Harvey, 1997; Vail, 1994), andconsequently, sport leaders and managers may lack the skills to identify, establish,and manage these partnerships effectively. Canadian sport organizations have tradi-tionally relied on one source of funding for their livelihood (i.e., the federal government),and this funding support has been reduced during the past several years (Mills, 1998;Thibault & Babiak, 2005), but the government is still a strong force in the decisionmaking and strategy development of organizations in the sport system. As a result,sport organizations face increasing pressures to partner with multiple organizationsacross different sectors (public, nonprofit, and commercial). Thus, this context pro-vides us with an opportunity to contribute to the literature by examining organizational-level challenges associated with developing and maintaining multiple cross-sectorpartnerships and how these challenges are interpreted and managed by those involved.

Given the confusing nature of different forms of interorganizational relation-ships, for the purpose of this study, we are using Oppen, Sack, and Wegener’s (2005)interpretation of partnerships. According to those authors, cross-sector partnershipshave specific characteristics.

First, formal autonomous actors, each with his, her, or its own objectives andresources, decide whether they wish to provide certain services in exchange withother actors. Second, interactions between the participants are framed by specific formsof organization—whether contractual or rather informal—and are coupled by virtue of theresources. Complementary resources are combined to serve jointly defined functions.Third, what sets intersectorial cooperation apart is that the participating actors are tiedinto different institutional arrangements roughly described by the generic terms ‘gov-ernment’, ‘market’, and ‘society’. The actions of the cooperating actors are thus deter-mined and guided by different rules and differing basic convictions. (p. 270)

Oppen et al. (2005) explain that intersectorial partnerships are different fromintrasectorial partnerships, and given this definition, we feel it is suitable as a pointof reference for the types of relationships we explore in this study. Oppen et al. haveexplained that cooperating with organizations from different sectors can lead to “rel-atively unstable joint coordination and coupling of resources” (p. 270) relative topartnerships between same-sector organizations. In this article, we are using thegeneric term partnership to include different forms of relationships (e.g., joint ven-tures, collaborations, sponsorships, cooperation, and alliances), although we recognizethat different forms of relationships exist and influence partnership dynamics.

Review of Literature

For nonprofit organizations, multiple cross-sector partnerships are becoming moreimportant than ever. As noted by Linden (2002), “growing numbers of nonprofitagencies are learning to collaborate with corporations . . . by offering some of theirsocial assets for the training, technology, and funds that companies are willing tospend in exchange for those assets” (pp. 5-6). Many researchers who have exploredpartnerships in the nonprofit sector have suggested that the nature of these partner-ships is complex because of the environmental challenges and the diversity of part-ners that are available within and across sectors (Guo & Acar, 2005; Parker &Selsky, 2004; Provan, Isett, & Milward, 2004; Sanyal, 2006). The complexity evi-dent in these types of partnerships is often observable in performance measures thatare unclear, in empirical measurement of goals, in the need to comply with govern-ment regulations, and in the nature of funding, which is often fragmented, withfinancial capital coming from several different sources (Alexander, 1998). Thesefactors make the management of multiple cross-sector partnerships challenging. Inaddition, the location of the organization within competing sectors (e.g., public,

Babiak, Thibault / Partnership Challenges 119

commercial, and other nonprofit) often pulls nonprofit organizations between institu-tional spheres, with the realm of responsibility for societal concerns becoming moreambiguous (Alexander, 1998). As partners, organizations in these different sectorsoften have specific managerial values, beliefs, and expectations that may end uppulling a nonprofit organization in potentially incompatible directions.

As a result of their perceived benefits, partnerships are evident in practice andreflected in the academic literature as a means of reducing uncertainty, acquiringresources, and solving organizational problems. It is often assumed that stakeholderscollaborate voluntarily, sharing common goals and equal power (Hardy & Phillips,1998). In their study of cross-sector partnerships within the U.K. refugee system,Hardy and Phillips (1998), however, maintained that several issues might impair part-nerships, including exploitation, repression, questionable management practices,unfairness, and asymmetrical power relations. Although organizations enter into part-nerships to capitalize on opportunity and reduce uncertainty, factors such as the loss ofautonomy in decision making, power, conflict, and control may create challenges andraise additional uncertainties. Ironically, these issues are often neglected in the litera-ture on multiple partnerships and cross-sector partnerships (Child & Faulkner, 1998;Gray, 1989; Hardy & Phillips, 1998; Linden, 2002; Oliver, 1990; Park, 1996). In thecontext of cross-sector partnerships, Andreasen (1996) identified further consequencesassociated with the ineffective management of these partnerships, including wastedresources (invested time and effort, which may compromise other activities), loss oforganizational flexibility (partners may impose restrictions and limitations), andstructural atrophy (a heavy reliance on one partner or investments of time and energyin maintaining one relationship instead of dedicating energies to exploring the poten-tial of alternative partners). Along similar lines, Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1996)suggested that partnerships may prevent managers from taking an initiative in devel-oping essential organizational skills and capabilities because their partners alreadyhave them, thereby lulling the managers into a state of complacency. Further com-pounding these challenges, the issues of self-interest and competition play a role in con-tributing to tensions in the coordination of multiple cross-sector partnerships.

In addressing the purpose of this study, we relied on the work of several researchersto address challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships involving a nonprofit sportorganization as the entity that coordinates the actions of its partners. We now turn ourattention to a review of this relevant literature. Although an important segment of theliterature on dyadic, multiple, or cross-sector partnerships emphasizes the merits andbenefits of organizations’ collaborating (Child & Faulkner, 1998; Doz & Hamel,1998; Kanter, 1994; Linden, 2002), an increasing number of studies warn leaders andmanagers about the complexities and difficulties of these types of organizational part-nerships (Frisby et al., 2004; Hodge & Greve, 2005; Huxham, 1996; Huxham &Vangen, 2000a; Provan et al., 2004; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000).

In their empirical study of partnerships in natural resources and conservationnonprofit organizations, Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000) argued that it is important


to understand the difficulties facing the development of multiple and cross-sectorpartnerships and to provide insight into how these challenges have been overcomein practice by leaders and managers. By doing so, “better bridges can be built thatare grounded in the hard work and experiences of others” (Wondolleck & Yaffee,2000, p. 47). The authors discussed the existence of barriers or obstacles in effec-tive multiple cross-sector partnerships. These barriers included conflicting goalsand missions, lack of opportunity or incentive to collaborate, inflexible policies andprocedures that do not support the partnership, constrained resources, mistrust,group attitudes about each other that may not be accurate, different organizationalnorms and culture, and lack of support or commitment to the partnership.

Frisby et al.’s (2004) study of cross-sector partnerships between Canadian localgovernments in sport and recreation departments and nonprofit and commercialorganizations revealed that the management function of partnerships was oftenneglected by organizational leaders. The authors found that cross-sector partnershipswere generally undermanaged and that as a result these partnerships were plaguedwith problems of inadequate managerial structures and inadequate managerialprocesses. Inadequate managerial structures included lack of clear planning and pol-icy guidelines, unclear roles and reporting channels, and insufficient humanresources. Inadequate managerial processes included insufficient training, insuffi-cient time devoted to partnerships, difficulties negotiating competing values, lack ofcommunication, poor coordination, insufficient supervision, lack of evaluation, and alack of partnership retention and termination strategies.

As challenges to cross-sector partnerships, several researchers have identifieddifferences in goals and objectives; in language; and in procedures, culture and power(Coulson, 2005; Huxham, 1996; Smith et al., 1995). According to Huxham (1996),these challenges led to organizations’ not realizing their full collaborative advantage.On the issue of differing values between partnering organizations across sectors,Carroll and Steane (2000) proposed the following explanation:

Partnerships between business, government and non-profits can be problematic whenvalues clash. . . . [V]alues or ideology can influence motivations, beliefs, norms ofbehaviour, and new expectations in managing and delivering a service. In some part-nerships, this may take the form of more conscious and overt consideration of theintangibles. For others, priorities regarding efficiencies and transparency may chal-lenge non-profit partners to engage [in] management practices more aligned with thecorporate world. (p. 50)

On the topic of multiple partnerships, Coulson (2005) argued that “excessivenumbers of partnerships create problems of accountability and create ambiguitiesabout who is responsible for what. Partnerships are a challenge— certainly not apanacea” (p. 155). According to García-Canal et al. (2003), managing multiple part-nerships is more complex than managing dyadic relationships for two reasons: “Thereare fewer incentives to behave cooperatively . . . [and] the incentives for free-riding


behavior are greater when partners are more numerous” (p. 746). The authors explainthat these problems can be addressed by creating formal control mechanisms and byencouraging what they call “relational investments”—relationship building involvingan ongoing process of negotiation, commitment, and execution.

The issue of a competitive–collaborative dichotomy, in which an organiza-tion simultaneously experiences both facilitating and constraining interdependencies(García-Canal et al., 2003; Parise & Casher, 2003), is also a challenge that meritsfurther discussion. Pressures to form partnerships by external agencies (e.g., gov-ernment) and efforts to be more accountable, efficient, cost conscious, and profes-sional have led organizations to engage in partnerships. At the same time, however,the competitive nature of acquiring scarce resources while seeking credibility andlegitimacy can also introduce tensions when collaborating organizations must vie forthese resources. Organizational-level aspects of partnership management may pro-vide insights into how firms interact with multiple cross-sector partners and howpolitical activities are infused within them. The competitive and collaborative natureof all partnerships—particularly within-sector alliances (e.g., between two or morenonprofit organizations or between two or more corporate firms) has been identifiedby authors such as Austin (2000), Kanter (1994), and Huxham and Vangen (2000b).These authors claim that dual pressures often create tensions within (because ofinternal struggles related to a reluctance to sacrifice autonomy) and between firms(because of a desire to gain relative power over others and to secure a prime positionwithin their general organizational domain; Wilson, 1992). Many of these tensionsare founded on the premise that partnerships are not a naturally occurring businessphenomenon; that is, managers do not want to depend on others or share in decision-making activities between organizations (Spekman, Forbes, Isabella, & MacAvoy,1998). Furthermore, scholars (Doz & Hamel, 1998; Provan et al., 2004; Roussin Isett& Provan, 2005; Winkler, 2006) have suggested that the coordination of multiplepartners with the purpose of achieving common goals is difficult because individualand group interests are often pursued over organizational or broader network interestsand because of the high degree of managerial complexity involved in the process.

We are proposing to contribute to the literature on multiple and cross-sector part-nerships by addressing these concepts collectively and by addressing the challengesorganizations face as they undertake partnerships with several organizations concur-rently from different sectors. In the following section, we present the researchmethods we carried out to address multiple cross-sector partnerships in the casestudy of a nonprofit organization.

Research Method

In this study, multiple cross-sector partnerships were examined between a focalorganization2 and its partners in the public, nonprofit, and commercial sectors. To


uncover challenges inherent in multiple cross-sector partnerships, a qualitativeresearch approach was selected to incorporate quality, depth, and richness in the data.

Research Context

The site for this study was a Canadian Sport Centre3 identified hereafter as CSC.There are eight other CSCs that have been created to provide centralized programsand services to Olympic-level (elite) athletes and coaches. The structure of the part-nerships for all CSCs includes (a) government partners (that provide financial sup-port), including Sport Canada (federal government) and the provincial government inwhich the CSC operates; (b) nonprofit partners (that provide some funding and carryout programs and services) such as the Coaching Association of Canada, theCanadian Olympic Committee, Legacy Organization (a pseudonym), a university,and national sport federations; and (c) corporate partners (commercial organizationsoperating in different businesses; e.g., energy production, pharmaceuticals, andfinancial services).

Data Collection

The study design incorporated two main approaches to evidence gathering: (a) doc-ument analysis and (b) semistructured interviews. In total, 110 organizational docu-ments dating back to the inception of the CSC under examination (1994) werereviewed and analyzed.4 As well, 28 semistructured interviews were conducted withCSC staff and partners who were identified as the primary individuals involved informing and managing the partnership. Data were gathered from various individu-als, including members of the core management team and executive board at theCSC as well as a group of senior executives (i.e., CEOs, executive directors, vicepresidents) in 14 of the partnering organizations.5 Participant numbers, partner type,and characteristics of the general roles and responsibilities are provided in Table 1.

Procedure

Interviews explored participants’ strategies, interests, perceptions, personal expe-riences, and expectations regarding their partnerships. Our intent was not to assumethat particular partnerships might exhibit particular challenges. Informants wereencouraged to discuss the benefits, challenges, and tensions experienced in their owncontexts and were probed for specific meanings and examples whenever possible.Questions covered relevant areas, such as what problems managers might expect toaddress at the onset of a partnership, the potential causes of conflict during the for-mation of this partnership (i.e., managerial ideology, uncooperativeness, lack of infor-mation, value dissonance), and ways they had overcome these conflicts. In addition,questions were posed related to informants’ (and their organizations’) willingness to


engage in partnerships and their perceptions of possible benefits of multiple cross-sector partnerships. The length of each interview ranged from 1 to 2 hours.

Data Coding and Analysis

The first stage of data analysis included the examination of all documents for anyreference to, or statement made about, any partnership (e.g., alliance, cooperation, col-laboration, network, partner, sponsor, or supporter). All passages relating to any type ofinteraction between or among organizations were highlighted and transcribed into acomputer file, assigned to ATLAS.ti (qualitative data analysis software), and subse-quently treated in the same manner as the interview transcripts. Specifically for thisstudy, documents were assessed for commentary regarding the process of partnershipformation and management, the negotiations that occurred at the outset, and any diffi-culties encountered in this process. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzedusing ATLAS.ti as well. Analysis of the data enabled identification, expression, andsense making of the informants’ responses and the content of documents.6

Results

In the following paragraphs, the results of this research are presented. From theinterview transcripts and the documents analyzed, two categories of multiple cross-sector partnership challenges were evident in the results: structural and strategic.Under structural challenges, two areas of concern were identified: (a) governance,roles, and responsibilities and (b) the complexity of partnership forms. Two issues werealso raised under strategic challenges: (a) focus on competition versus collaborationand (b) changing missions and objectives. A summary of the results is presented in


Table 1Breakdown of Informant Number, Role, and Relationship Type

Role Interviewsa How Relationship Is Defined or Supported

Canadian Sport Centre 7 (12) Responsible for delivery of programs or services staff or board to eligible high-performance athletes; manage

multiple cross-sector partnershipsGovernment partners 2 (2) Common objectives or interests—financialNonprofit partners 15 (27) Programming and service delivery; coordination

of services across country or resource sharingCorporate partners 4 (8) Community involvement—financial or in-kindTotal number of interviews 28

a. Numbers in parentheses reflects total number of possible informants or organizations from which toselect; e.g., 15 nonprofit partners were interviewed out of 27 nonprofit partner organizations in total.

Table 2. The table presents sample representative quotations regarding structural andstrategic challenges per sector (public, nonprofit, and commercial) and providesquantitative data to complement the qualitative results (i.e., number of times the cat-egory appears in the data and the percentage of interviewees who identified and dis-cussed the category).

Structural Challenges

A number of structural challenges in the multiple cross-sector partnerships in thiscase became evident as the data were analyzed. Two structural challenges were ofprimary concern: challenges with governance, roles, and responsibilities and thecomplexity of partnership forms and structures evident in the group of collaboratingorganizations.

Governance, roles, and responsibilities in the partnerships were mentioned a totalof 157 times in the data by 86% of the interviewees. This theme encompassed theextent to which partnerships were formalized with written rules, policies and proce-dures; the degree to which roles in the relationship were clearly defined (i.e., whodoes what); and who was responsible for overseeing major decisions in the relation-ship. Nonprofit partners and members of the CSC had the most concerns (i.e.,number of responses) on this issue, although all government and corporate partnerswere represented in this category. For members of the CSC, this issue was of partic-ular concern because they were overseeing the multiple cross-sector partnerships.CSC interviewees felt that there were often challenges in identifying who should dowhat in the partnership, who should have the responsibility for particular areas, andwho should have the responsibility for maintaining or managing the relationships.As a result, some felt that the efficiencies sought by the partnerships in the first placemight be compromised by not dealing with establishing governance, roles, andresponsibilities among several partners from different sectors. Government repre-sentatives suggested that they had to deal with challenges by representing larger enti-ties in the partnership (i.e., provincial or federal governments) and having to consultwith their organization’s executives, which slowed down the decision-makingprocess on many issues involving the governance and management of the multiplecross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit partners raised concerns about a lack of effi-ciency resulting in unclear roles and responsibilities in the relationships. And withthe growing number of relationships established by the CSC, corporate partnerssuggested that challenges existed because of lack of human resources to accomplishall of the duties necessary to sustain these partnerships. One of the main challengesaddressed by partners in all sectors, including CSC members, was the unclear responsi-bilities for the partnerships, or who was accountable for managing, evaluating, andmeasuring outcomes (organizational and system wide).

Another structural challenge identified in the data was the complexity of multiplecross-sector partnership forms and structures. This challenge was mentioned a total


(text continues on p. 134)

Tabl

e 2

The

mes

Ide

ntif

ied

Reg

ardi

ng C

halle

nges

in M

ulti

ple

Cro

ss-S

ecto

r P

artn

ersh

ips

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

tage

of

times

In

terv

iew

ees

cate

gory

R

epre

sent

ed in

C

ateg

ory

nam

e or

them

eSa

mpl

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e Q

uota

tions

appe

ars

in d

ataa

Cat

egor

ybC

onse

quen

ces

Stru

ctur

al c

halle

nges

(a)

Prob

lem

s w

ith g

over

nanc

e,15

786

Cha

lleng

es in

iden

tifyi

ng w

ho d

oes

wha

t ro

les,

or r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s in

rel

atio

nshi

pgu

idin

g re

latio

nshi

pD

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

pow

er q

uest

ione

d.C

anad

ian

Spor

t Cen

tre

“The

re is

a n

eed

for

thin

gs to

58

71In

divi

dual

s w

ho s

erve

as

‘con

veno

rs’

chan

ge to

bec

ome

mor

e sh

ould

er b

urde

n of

mai

ntai

ning

fo

rmal

ized

—if

I g

et h

it by

re

latio

nshi

p.a

bus,

the

orga

niza

tion

Del

ays

in a

chie

ving

obj

ectiv

es.

will

suf

fer.”

Eff

icie

ncy

is c

ompr

omis

ed b

ecau

se it

G

over

nmen

t par

tner

s“W

e w

rite

dow

n a

few

thin

gs

1710

0ta

kes

time

to f

igur

e ou

t gov

erna

nce,

and

away

we

go. W

e do

n’t

role

s,an

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s.ha

ve a

lot o

f pa

perw

ork,

or

Ove

rsig

ht—

who

is r

espo

nsib

le f

or

rule

s or

reg

ulat

ions

.”ev

alua

ting

and

mea

suri

ng o

utco

mes

“I

t has

n’t b

een

fully

thou

ght

(org

aniz

atio

nal a

nd s

yste

mw

ide)

—is

th

roug

h. T

hat i

s on

e of

the

uncl

ear.

chal

leng

es o

f pa

rtne

rshi

ps—

Non

prof

it an

d go

vern

men

t ho

w f

ar jo

int d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

repr

esen

tativ

es o

f pa

rtne

rshi

p ar

e no

t w

ill g

o,an

d ho

w f

ar it

ul

timat

e de

cisi

on m

aker

s—ne

ed to

w

on’t

go.

”co

nsul

t with

thei

r or

gani

zatio

n’s

exec

utiv

es a

nd b

oard

s—th

ereb

y de

layi

ng th

e de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

s.N

onpr

ofit

part

ners

“The

re a

re n

o po

licie

s,st

able

6793

arra

ngem

ents

,or

syst

ems

to d

irec

t our

inte

ract

ions

.”“T

he n

atio

nal m

arke

ting

prop

osal

is a

n ex

ampl

e of

som

ethi

ng th

at s

houl

d ha

ve

(con

tinu

ed)

126

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

tage

of

times

In

terv

iew

ees

cate

gory

R

epre

sent

ed in

C

ateg

ory

nam

e or

them

eSa

mpl

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e Q

uota

tions

appe

ars

in d

ataa

Cat

egor

ybC

onse

quen

ces

been

sig

ned

off

on f

rom

all

of u

s,bu

t has

n’t y

et.”

“We

have

to f

orm

aliz

e th

ings

bette

r—ei

ght o

f us

are

now

doin

g th

ings

ver

yin

depe

nden

tly,w

hich

isn’

tef

fici

ent,

but t

here

doe

sn’t

seem

to b

e a

lot o

fw

illin

gnes

s or

eag

erne

ss f

orus

to d

o th

at.”

Cor

pora

te p

artn

ers

“No

cont

ract

s. W

e w

ante

d to

1510

0ke

ep th

ings

sim

ple

with

out

a w

hole

lot o

f bu

reau

crac

y.”

“It c

an b

e in

effi

cien

t bec

ause

the

CSC

doe

sn’t

hav

een

ough

sta

ff to

get

us

info

rmat

ion

in a

tim

ely

man

ner.”

(b)

Com

plex

ity o

f pa

rtne

rshi

p “T

here

is r

eally

a w

ide

scop

e of

27

496

Man

agin

g di

ffer

ent p

artn

er f

orm

s fo

rms

and

stru

ctur

esre

latio

nshi

ps in

our

net

wor

k.

requ

ires

dif

fere

nt s

kills

and

C

anad

ian

Spor

t Cen

tre

Som

e of

them

can

sim

ply

be

8410

0kn

owle

dge.

pass

ing

over

of

a ch

eque

,but

St

ruct

ures

and

sys

tem

s ne

ed to

be

set u

pot

hers

wan

t to

get m

ore

to a

ddre

ss d

iffe

rent

for

ms

of r

elat

ion

=in

volv

ed.”

ship

s (s

peak

dif

fere

nt la

ngua

ges,

have

“The

re’s

a c

ompl

ex w

eb—

in s

ome

diff

eren

t exp

ecta

tions

,goa

ls a

ndca

ses,

we

have

ten

diff

eren

t ou

tcom

es).

leve

ls o

f pa

rtne

rshi

p th

at w

e G

eogr

aphi

c di

sper

sion

of

part

ners

als

oha

ve to

wor

k w

ith.”

requ

ires

dif

fere

nt s

truc

ture

s an

d (con

tinu

ed)

127

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

tage

of

times

In

terv

iew

ees

cate

gory

R

epre

sent

ed in

C

ateg

ory

nam

e or

them

eSa

mpl

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e Q

uota

tions

appe

ars

in d

ataa

Cat

egor

ybC

onse

quen

ces

Gov

ernm

ent p

artn

ers

“The

par

tner

ship

ope

rate

s sl

ight

ly

3710

0sy

stem

s to

ser

ve p

artn

ers

acro

ss th

edi

ffer

ently

bas

ed o

n its

for

m a

ndco

untr

y.th

e ob

ject

ives

of

the

rela

tions

hip.

”V

aryi

ng v

iew

s on

wha

t rel

atio

nshi

ps“E

ach

of th

e fo

undi

ng p

artn

ers

betw

een

orga

niza

tions

are

lead

s to

has

a re

pres

enta

tive

on th

e bo

ard

inef

fect

ive

com

mun

icat

ion,

mis

plac

edof

the

CSC

to r

etai

n th

e in

terp

lay

expe

ctat

ions

,and

fru

stra

tions

with

of th

e de

velo

pmen

t of

the

boar

d po

wer

and

dec

isio

n m

akin

g.an

d th

e ev

olut

ion

and

grow

th

of it

s m

anda

te.”

Non

prof

it pa

rtne

rs“I

dis

cove

red

that

this

is a

hug

e13

810

0co

untr

y an

d w

hat w

orke

d in

one

loca

tion

rega

rdin

g th

epa

rtne

rshi

p fo

rm m

ight

not

wor

k in

ano

ther

.”“T

here

is a

n un

plan

ned,

will

y-ni

llyne

ed to

say

that

you

hav

e a

part

ners

hip

with

som

ebod

y. W

ear

e tr

ying

to o

verp

artn

er—

inm

any

case

s,th

ere

is n

oco

mm

on g

roun

d.”

“We

have

a lo

t of

join

t ven

ture

san

d st

rate

gic

inve

stm

ents

. Ido

n’t t

hink

we

have

ver

y m

any

part

ners

hips

in th

e tr

ue s

ense

of

the

wor

d.”

(con

tinu

ed)

128

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

tage

of

times

In

terv

iew

ees

cate

gory

R

epre

sent

ed in

C

ateg

ory

nam

e or

them

eSa

mpl

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e Q

uota

tions

appe

ars

in d

ataa

Cat

egor

ybC

onse

quen

ces

“We

have

a v

ery

clos

e pa

rtne

rshi

pw

ith th

e C

SC,b

ut o

ther

s,lik

eth

e C

anad

ian

Oly

mpi

cC

omm

ittee

and

Spo

rt C

anad

a,ar

e m

ore

at a

rm’s

leng

th.”

“The

rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n th

eC

SC a

nd S

port

Can

ada

[fed

eral

gove

rnm

ent]

is c

laim

ed to

be

apa

rtne

rshi

p,bu

t I d

on’t

thin

kth

at’s

true

as

Spor

t Can

ada

isth

e on

e w

ith th

e m

oney

and

the

CSC

s ar

e tr

ying

to d

ance

to th

eir

tune

to m

ax o

ut th

e m

oney

they

can

get

.”C

orpo

rate

par

tner

s“T

his

is m

ore

of a

don

or ty

pe o

f15

75re

latio

nshi

p,a

supp

ort p

rogr

amfo

r st

raig

ht p

hila

nthr

opy

to c

hari

ty.”

“It i

sn’t

exa

ctly

a p

artn

ersh

ip,b

utm

ore

of a

cau

se I

wan

t to

bein

volv

ed w

ith.”

STR

AT

EG

IC C

HA

LL

EN

GE

S(a

) Fo

cus

on c

ompe

titio

n 35

210

0A

lthou

gh s

eem

ingl

y co

llabo

ratin

g,m

any

vers

us c

olla

bora

tion

orga

niza

tions

invo

lved

in th

e sy

stem

C

anad

ian

Spor

t Cen

tre

“We

have

had

cha

lleng

es in

11

910

0ar

e co

mpe

ting

on d

iffe

rent

leve

ls f

orco

llabo

ratin

g be

caus

e w

e w

orry

re

sour

ces

(mon

ey,a

thle

tes,

coac

hes)

abou

t pro

tect

ing

our

own

turf

.”an

d le

gitim

acy.

“The

sys

tem

has

mad

e us

V

iola

tes

perc

eive

d “t

rue

spir

it”of

com

petit

ive

beca

use

only

X

colla

bora

tion.

(con

tinu

ed)

129

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

tage

of

times

In

terv

iew

ees

cate

gory

R

epre

sent

ed in

C

ateg

ory

nam

e or

them

eSa

mpl

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e Q

uota

tions

appe

ars

in d

ataa

Cat

egor

ybC

onse

quen

ces

num

ber

of s

port

s ca

n be

fun

ded.

C

ompe

titio

n an

d te

nsio

ns b

etw

een

I’m

for

ced

to c

ompe

te w

ith y

ou

regi

onal

inte

rest

s— e

mph

asiz

ing

spor

t ra

ther

than

wor

k w

ith y

ou.”

deve

lopm

ent a

nd p

artic

ipat

ion

and

“Peo

ple

see

the

CSC

s as

na

tiona

l int

eres

ts—

focu

sed

on h

igh

com

petit

ion

for

gove

rnm

ent

perf

orm

ance

and

win

ning

.an

d co

rpor

ate

mon

ey. T

his

Con

fusi

on f

or c

orpo

rate

par

tner

s w

ith

mak

es it

dif

ficu

lt to

col

labo

rate

.”m

any

spor

t ent

ities

com

petin

g fo

r co

rpor

ate

fund

ing

and

supp

ort.

Gov

ernm

ent p

artn

ers

“Eve

n th

ough

we’

re c

oope

ratin

g,37

100

ever

yone

look

s at

thei

r ow

nor

gani

zatio

n an

d fe

els

like

they

’ve

got t

o pr

otec

t the

irem

pire

.”N

onpr

ofit

part

ners

“The

CSC

s ac

ross

the

coun

try

are

177

100

all i

n co

mpe

titio

n w

ith e

ach

othe

r fo

r th

e po

ol o

f at

hlet

esan

d sp

orts

ava

ilabl

e. I

t rea

llyst

ress

es th

e pa

rtne

rshi

p.”

“The

gov

ernm

ent w

ants

mor

eC

SCs,

but w

e do

n’t b

ecau

se it

will

mea

n w

ater

ing

dow

n th

epr

oduc

t,an

d a

smal

ler

reso

urce

pool

ava

ilabl

e to

us.

”“T

here

are

tens

ions

bet

wee

nre

gion

al in

tere

sts

and

natio

nal

inte

rest

s,w

ith n

atio

nal i

nter

ests

tryi

ng to

look

at t

he o

vera

ll

(con

tinu

ed)

130

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

tage

of

times

In

terv

iew

ees

cate

gory

R

epre

sent

ed in

C

ateg

ory

nam

e or

them

eSa

mpl

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e Q

uota

tions

appe

ars

in d

ataa

Cat

egor

ybC

onse

quen

ces

impo

rtan

ce o

f C

SCs

and

thei

rco

ntri

butio

n to

inte

rnat

iona

lsu

cces

s an

d re

gion

al in

tere

sts

who

are

mor

e fo

cuse

d on

deve

lopm

enta

l iss

ues

or w

hat i

sbe

st f

or th

eir

regi

on.”

Cor

pora

te p

artn

ers

“It i

s co

nfus

ing

to b

e on

the

1910

0bu

sine

ss s

ide

of th

is w

hen

you’

ve g

ot P

aral

ympi

cs[C

anad

ian

Para

lym

pic

Com

mitt

ee—

a no

npro

fit s

port

orga

niza

tion]

doi

ng th

is a

ndth

e C

SC d

oing

som

ethi

ng e

lse.

The

re is

a lo

t of

com

petit

ion

for

corp

orat

e su

ppor

t.”(b

) C

hang

ing

mis

sion

15

689

Som

e co

llabo

ratio

ns c

all f

or li

nkin

g w

ith

and

obje

ctiv

espa

rtne

rs w

ho m

ay h

ave

diff

eren

tC

anad

ian

Spor

t Cen

tre

“We’

re a

t a c

ritic

al p

oint

in o

ur

3710

0ob

ject

ives

and

goa

ls (

i.e.,

high

evol

utio

n. E

very

one

thin

ks

perf

orm

ance

vs.

spo

rt f

or a

ll).

we

shou

ld h

ave

mor

e C

SCs

Furt

her,

thro

ugho

ut th

e ev

olut

ion

of th

ean

d ea

ch o

ne s

houl

d ge

t the

re

latio

nshi

p,th

e m

issi

on a

ndsa

me

amou

nt o

f m

oney

. In

my

obje

ctiv

es s

hift

ed to

foc

us o

n di

ffer

ent

min

d,w

e ca

n’t d

o th

at—

that

el

emen

ts (

i.e.,

conc

entr

atin

g se

rvic

es in

wou

ld p

ut u

s on

the

verg

e of

ke

y lo

catio

ns v

s. e

xpan

ding

crum

blin

g. T

he o

nly

way

that

op

port

uniti

es to

ser

vice

ath

lete

s in

all

they

can

giv

e m

oney

to o

ther

pr

ovin

ces

thro

ugho

ut c

ount

ry).

CSC

s is

by

taki

ng it

fro

m th

e T

hese

cha

nges

and

shi

fts

crea

ted

exis

ting

CSC

s.”

tens

ions

,fee

lings

of

bein

g th

reat

ened

,

(con

tinu

ed)

131

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

tage

of

times

In

terv

iew

ees

cate

gory

R

epre

sent

ed in

C

ateg

ory

nam

e or

them

eSa

mpl

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e Q

uota

tions

appe

ars

in d

ataa

Cat

egor

ybC

onse

quen

ces

Gov

ernm

ent p

artn

ers

“Som

e of

the

gove

rnm

ent’s

soc

ial

2010

0an

d un

cert

aint

ies

rega

rdin

g re

sour

ceva

lues

com

e in

to c

onfl

ict w

ith

acqu

isiti

on,a

s w

ell a

s st

abili

ty o

fhi

gh-p

erfo

rman

ce g

oals

.”sy

stem

if m

ore

CSC

s w

ere

crea

ted.

“As

a fo

undi

ng o

rgan

izat

ion

inth

e pr

ojec

t,w

e ar

e ve

ryco

ncer

ned

abou

t the

cha

nge

info

cus

to e

quity

ver

sus

high

perf

orm

ance

bec

ause

we’

ve la

idso

me

grou

ndw

ork

that

we

don’

tw

ant t

o de

stro

y.”

Non

prof

it pa

rtne

rs“I

thin

k th

ere

are

tens

ions

bec

ause

9294

the

larg

er C

SCs

don’

t bel

ieve

that

sm

alle

r an

d ne

wer

CSC

ssh

ould

be

crea

ted.

The

y fe

el it

’sno

t in

line

with

the

orig

inal

purp

ose

of th

e en

deav

or.”

“I d

on’t

agr

ee w

ith th

e C

SC’s

defi

nitio

n of

exc

elle

nce

(i.e

.,gr

eate

r re

sour

ces

on f

ewer

athl

etes

). T

here

are

als

oin

cons

iste

ncie

s th

at c

ontr

adic

tth

eir

defi

nitio

n of

exc

elle

nce

(e.g

.,fu

ndin

g at

hlet

es o

fno

n-O

lym

pic

spor

ts).”

“Man

y pe

ople

fee

l tha

t the

gove

rnm

ent h

as a

des

ire

for

(con

tinu

ed)

132

Tabl

e 2

(con

tinu

ed)

Num

ber

ofPe

rcen

tage

of

times

In

terv

iew

ees

cate

gory

R

epre

sent

ed in

C

ateg

ory

nam

e or

them

eSa

mpl

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e Q

uota

tions

appe

ars

in d

ataa

Cat

egor

ybC

onse

quen

ces

mor

e C

SCs

and

has

com

mitt

edm

oney

to th

em. S

o th

ere

has

been

an

unex

pect

ed g

row

th in

the

num

ber

of C

SCs

with

out

cons

ensu

s by

oth

er p

artn

ers

that

this

gro

wth

is (

a) f

easi

ble

and

(b)

logi

cal.”

Cor

pora

te p

artn

ers

“We

wan

t to

supp

ort O

lym

pic

750

athl

etes

for

the

bene

fits

it c

anbr

ing

to o

ur o

rgan

izat

ion,

like

bein

g as

soci

ated

with

exc

elle

nce

and

havi

ng a

n at

hlet

e co

me

tosp

eak

to o

ur e

mpl

oyee

s an

dth

eir

kids

.”

Not

e:C

SC =

Can

adia

n Sp

ort C

entr

e.a.

Num

ber

of ti

mes

cat

egor

y/th

eme

appe

ars

in d

ata

=nu

mbe

r of

tota

l quo

tatio

ns.

b. P

erce

ntag

e of

inte

rvie

wee

s re

pres

ente

d in

cat

egor

y or

them

e =

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts p

er s

ecto

r (e

.g.,

in C

SC th

ere

wer

e se

ven

resp

onde

nts

in to

tal;

if tw

o in

divi

d-ua

ls d

iscu

ssed

an

issu

e,th

is w

ould

indi

cate

29%

of

resp

onde

nts)

.

133

of 274 times in the interview and document data. This theme was related to issues ofthe constitution and organization of the partnerships across sectors. In particular, thistheme encompassed aspects of the complexity of managing different types of part-nerships (e.g., funding relationships, philanthropic partnerships, strategic alliances,program-oriented relationships) that existed in this group of collaborating organiza-tions. Almost all (96%) of the interviewees suggested that this was a major challengein these cross-sector partnerships. For CSC members, different partner formsrequired different skills and knowledge to be able to address each partner’s needs. Italso meant that structures and systems needed to be set up to address different formsof partnerships (which speak different ‘business’ languages and have differentexpectations, goals, and values). The geographic dispersion of multiple cross-sectorpartners also required different structures and systems to allow the CSC to collabo-rate with partners across the country, such as different forms of communication anddifferent avenues for providing programs and services. For government partners,who provided more than 40% of the funding for the CSC (Canadian Sport Centre(City), 2005), there were varying perceptions of the nature of the partnership (i.e.,funding/donor relationship or a sponsorship), which led to difficulties in communi-cation, misplaced expectations, and frustrations with power and decision making. Fornonprofit partners, a main challenge was the tremendous growth and interest in (pri-marily sport) organizations focused on forming relationships with the CSC. Thisintroduced organizational and network dynamics, including lack of common ground forpartnerships as well as increased competition for scarce resources (such as money, ath-letes, coaches, and facilities). Also, for corporate partners, the complexity of part-nership forms was identified as an issue in that typical corporate expectations ofwhat constituted a partnership were often not what partners from other sectorsexpected. For instance, corporate partners felt that their involvement with the CSCsatisfied a philanthropic or charitable aspect of their business while members of theCSC expected corporate partners to play a more strategic and involved role in theCSC’s efforts.

Strategic Challenges

A number of strategic challenges also faced multiple cross-sector organizationsworking together with the CSC. The challenge of focusing on competition versus col-laboration was mentioned by 100% of the interviewees. This challenge received 352mentions in the data (interviews and documents), more than any other theme on part-nership challenges identified in the data. This was a primary concern for CSC and non-profit respondents because although seemingly collaborating, many organizationsinvolved in the system were competing on different levels for resources (money or otherresources, such as athletes and coaches), legitimacy, or power. For many, this competi-tion violated the perceived “true spirit” of collaboration and led to tension and frustra-tion between partners. The competition–collaboration dichotomy manifested itself in a


number of ways. For instance, there were tensions between regional interests, some(at the provincial level) of whom were focused on sport development and participa-tion and others with national interests who were wholly focused on high performanceand winning (i.e., medal performance). This aspect of competition focused on theincrease in the number of CSCs created across the country during the time ourresearch was conducted. This tension had implications for multiple partners because,depending on which decisions were made, resources would be allocated to differentinterests. Another example of the tensions between a focus on competing and a focuson collaborating also had to do with resources and the confusion they caused corpo-rate partners, who often had many sport organizations simultaneously lobbying fortheir funding dollars and support.

The final strategic challenge faced by organizations involved in these multiplecross-sector partnerships was the changing missions and objectives of the organiza-tions as the relationships evolved. This challenge received 156 mentions from inter-viewees in the study, with all CSC and government partners identifying it as a majorconcern and 94% of nonprofit partners indicating that it was an issue for them. Inaddition, 50% of corporate partners raised it as a concern in their relationships. Thistheme encompassed tensions that developed in the relationship when the goals of thepartnership changed over time to focus on differing interests in terms of whereresources should be invested (i.e., high performance vs. sport for all). Further,throughout the evolution of the relationship, the mission and objectives shifted tofocus on different elements (i.e., focus on concentrating services in key locations vs.expanding opportunities to service athletes in all provinces throughout the country).Historically, the Canadian federal government has allocated resources to sport orga-nizations on the basis of differing priorities. For instance, in the few years beforeOlympic Games are held, the federal government has increased financial support tohigh-performance (Olympic) athletes (Thibault & Babiak, 2005). At other times, thegovernment’s focus has been on encouraging mass participation and grassrootsdevelopment of sport. CSC interviewees felt their organization and its resourceswere threatened by shifts in this focus as exemplified in the growth of the number ofCSCs across the country which would provide similar programs and services tosupport athletes and coaches (a more equitable distribution of the government’sresources). With new centers created, this CSC’s own financial base, as well as itsathlete and coach base, was at risk of being reduced. These changes would haveshifted the balance of power, not only within the group of partnering organizations,but in the sport system in Canada. Nonprofit partners suggested that some of thesechanges have taken place without consultation and input from groups who might beaffected. Finally, corporate partners spoke about the confusion these shifts in empha-sis caused for them because they were more interested in being involved with high-profile (Olympic) athletes who might bring positive attention to their organizationand provide benefit to their employees. Overall, these changes in mission and objec-tives of the partnership created tensions and feelings of vulnerability and uncertainty


regarding resource acquisition, as well as concerns for stability of the sport systemas more CSCs were being created.

Discussion

The study presented here has analyzed the challenges of multiple cross-sector part-nerships at the organizational level of analysis. The results offer insights into barriersto the management of multiple cross-sector partnerships. As expected, an organizationis more likely to achieve its goals in a dyadic partnership than in a partnership involv-ing multiple organizations. As García-Canal et al. (2003) found, there are fewer inter-ests to be harmonized in two-way alliances than in multiple cross-sector partnerships.The results revealed the presence of structural and strategic challenges in the manage-ment of multiple cross-sector partnerships of a focal sport organization.

With respect to structural challenges, governance, roles, and responsibilities, aswell as complexity of partnership forms, the work of Frisby et al. (2004) on under-managed partnerships in local governments’ sport and leisure services provides sup-port for our results. The authors found that the organizations involved in their study“lacked the capacity to effectively manage the numerous and complex partnerships”(p. 123). Furthermore, Frisby et al. noted “that developing partnership managementplans that clearly stipulate roles, expectations, reporting mechanisms and policiesare also needed to build capacity” (p. 123). In our study, extensive formalization ofpolicies to guide the multiple cross-sector partnerships were not well developed.Although the focal organization, the CSC, is the logical choice for the developmentof these partnership policies and guidelines, its executives may not have had the nec-essary resources to accomplish this. As pointed out by García-Canal et al. (2003), thepresence of a dominant partner facilitates decision making and the coordination ofwork. In our case, however, it was difficult to distinguish who was the dominantpartner—was it the CSC, which coordinated the partners to provide programs and ser-vices, or the government, which provided the lion’s share of funding and had powerin resource allocation? Further, cross-sector ambiguity (Lewis, 1998; Smith et al.,1995) confused expectations among partners and created management tensions withrespect to roles and responsibilities and partnership governance.

Although the complexity of partnership forms and the various interpretations ofwhat a partnership is may not result in the demise of the relationship, recognizing thedifferent forms and structures of relationships that exist is of particular importancefor the organizations involved (Smith et al., 1995; Wood & Gray, 1991). Having aclear understanding and knowledge of how multiple cross-sector partners view theirrelationship does have implications for its effective operation; such an understandingallows managers to make more-informed choices about their partnering strategies(García-Canal et al., 2003). The divergence of perceptions regarding the complex-ity of partnership forms and structures illustrated in this case study is typical of the


partnerships nonprofit organizations experience because they must balance theexpectations of multiple partners that span the spectrum of sectors (Austin, 2000;Smith et al., 1995). Potential ramifications addressed by participants in this caseincluded mounting tensions, resource exchange issues, managerial challenges suchas negotiation and communication breakdowns, and the assignment of roles andresponsibilities for actionable results. The question that emerges from these differ-ent interpretations is, what are the implications of these variations in meanings andperceptions? Incongruity in perceptions and mutual expectations for the partnershipsis a function of complexity and a persistent source of potential conflict among orga-nizations (Austin, 2000). These incongruities may lead to different behaviors, struc-tures, and processes that do not fit with the objectives of the partnership.

With respect to the strategic challenges uncovered in our study, the focus on compe-tition rather than collaboration was discussed by Huxham and Macdonald (1992), whosuggested that advantage need not be advantage over another organization but could beadvantage over the situation that would follow if there were no collaboration.Organizational theorists have discussed how competitive advantage occurs betweenorganizations when one intends to benefit more than the other (Barney, 1991a, 1991b;García-Canal et al., 2003; Oliver, 1997). In the context of multiple relationships, García-Canal et al. (2003) explained that organizations can collaborate while competing; how-ever, they argue that more attention needs to be devoted to uncovering strategieswhereby forces favoring collaboration can overcome competitive forces. In our study,however, there appeared to be concern over both levels of advantage seeking, that is,advantage over other organizations as well as over the situation that would have ensuedwere there no collaboration. Informants from the CSC and multiple cross-sector part-ners reported pressure to resist and engage in collaboration simultaneously—somethingthat has not been addressed in the partnership literature, that is, how to resolve the bal-ance between collaboration and competition without compromising the benefits of thepartnership. In this study, tensions related to the simultaneous competitive and collabo-rative forces have made the formalization of a partnership approach in Canadian sportchallenging and have resulted in relationships that are often strained. Because of the dif-ficulty in controlling the perceived power imbalances among multiple cross-sector part-ners due to resource inequities and political backing, the challenge of building trustinitially resulted in feelings of ambiguity, resentment, uncertainty, and suspicion.

The multitude of organizational partners from across sectors creates a complexcompetitive environment for the CSC and expands the challenges it faces to suc-cessfully acquire and maintain its valuable organizational resources. These ambigu-ities and tensions are elements of a complex environment that contribute tochallenges to the formation and effective management of multiple cross-sector part-nerships. On many levels, competition among organizations is a healthy conditionbecause it forces organizations to focus their energies and resources on makingstrategic decisions, resulting in more effective and efficient functioning (Huxham &Macdonald, 1992). Similarly, collaboration among organizations is viewed as a


means to ensure effective use of resources and efficient integration of expertise,knowledge, structure, and programs.

Another strategic challenge uncovered in our study involves change in missionand objectives. Partnerships with organizations from multiple cross-sectors involvethe union of different missions, goals, and values (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000).Oppen et al. (2005) and Frisby et al. (2004) have discussed the challenges of col-laborating in cross-sector settings. For example, Oppen et al. (2005) noted that orga-nizations from different sectors operate in different “institutional arrangements” andthese institutional arrangements are couched in organizational values. Frisby et al.(2004) argued that in the context of leisure and sport, the values and missions ofpublic and nonprofit organizations are often in conflict or incompatible with the val-ues and missions of commercial organizations. In turn, when partnerships involvingorganizations across sectors are created, leaders need to negotiate how these valuesand missions will be considered during the collaboration. In addition to the potentialexistence of incompatible values and missions, our study has demonstrated that, dur-ing the span of the partnerships, some organizations changed their missions andobjectives, which created some issues between some of the collaborating organiza-tions. This finding has not been addressed in prior research on multiple cross-sectorpartnerships.

Conclusions and Implications

The phenomenon of partnerships has firmly established itself as a strategy that public,nonprofit, and commercial organizations have undertaken to create greater value andcapacity by leveraging resources and competencies of individual organizations. Althoughmuch research has examined challenges and tensions between dyadic partners, very fewstudies have examined these issues in multiple cross-sector partnerships. The purpose ofthis study was to examine multiple cross-sector partnerships of a focal nonprofitCanadian sport organization. The findings revealed that leaders of organizations involvedin multiple cross-sector partnerships need to understand the potential structural andstrategic challenges as they negotiate with these organizations to develop partnerships inorder to effectively achieve the objectives of the relationships. The results also revealedthat structural and strategic challenges presented unique tensions for all organizationsinvolved in multiple cross-sector partnerships. The pressures to collaborate were coun-tered by the existing competitive nature of the funding system in which the sport organi-zations operated. The challenges inherent in the multiple cross-sector relationships in thisstudy served to simultaneously enable and constrain the formation, development, andmanagement of partnerships. Partnerships enabled these organizations to access scarceresources, such as financial capital, expertise, and organizational legitimacy. However, atthe same time, the growth in the number of partnerships introduced constraints to the


CSC, including competition for scarce resources as well as challenges in coordinatingmultiple relationships.

It is our contention that by examining these challenges, both theorists and practi-tioners are provided with a more complete perspective of the dynamics of multiplecross-sector partner interactions. Based on our experience investigating this impor-tant topic, we provide below a number of implications for further study and for con-sideration by leaders managing multiple cross-sector partnerships.

Theorists

As partnerships become increasingly prominent among nonprofit organizations,it is important for theorists to extend the examination of multiple cross-sector part-nerships and to uncover strategies for how nonprofit organizations can thrive in thiscontext of collaboration. As called for by García-Canal et al. (2003), we feel that thecircumstances in which collaboration can overcome competition (or vice versa), as wasdescribed in this case, should be an area for future theoretical investigation. This mayrequire longitudinal studies to examine the ways in which relationships betweenorganizations evolve over time and how a balance between collaboration and com-petition can be achieved to the benefit of all the organizations involved.

An underexplored area in the partnership literature is the extent to which challengesin structure affect partner processes or behaviors and influence partnership managementand individual relations. Longitudinal empirical research that directly explores howprocesses unfold and relate to structural and strategic challenges is another area thatmight prove fruitful for researchers examining multiple cross-sector partnerships. Thisbroader conceptualization of partnerships between multiple organizations from differentsectors demonstrates that we still have much to learn about partnerships. A number ofquestions emerge from this examination which may be pursued in future studies, includ-ing the connection between antecedents (i.e., reasons for forming the relationship) andthe link to attitudes and perceptions of managers regarding the partnership.Furthermore, it appears that power and trust played a role in both introducing and over-coming some of the competitive–collaborative efforts faced by partners in our study.Future research in this area may be able to uncover the extent to which these factorsplayed a role in introducing tensions, challenges, and opportunities for multiple cross-sector partnerships.

Practitioners

Vulnerability of nonprofit organizations to their funding environment is an ongoingsource of tension and concern. Partnerships offer a means to reduce reliance on gov-ernment and diversify nonprofit organizations’ funding base, but partnerships also intro-duce other challenges. Managers would benefit by considering partnerships as a web of


alliances rather than several discrete relationships. A focal organization is more thana broker or organizer of dyadic interorganizational activities. In addition to develop-ing important tools such as a vision in which partners play a critical role, a strongimage, effective systems and support, and an atmosphere of trust and reciprocity, thefocal organization must also play the role of leading and orchestrating these systems,perceiving the full business idea, and understanding the role of all parties involvedin multiple cross-sector partnerships. Managers of relationships must ensure thatappropriate core skills, competencies, and capabilities are developed with focus oncomplementing other partners in the group to make them more effective and com-petitive as a whole. Thus, hiring staff who have experience with multiple cross-sectorrelationships would be a wise course of action. Assumptions, perceptions, and pri-orities involved in partnerships are different in that organizations must considerthemselves to be working for the good of the whole and not for the benefit of theirown organization. Despite these hurdles, the advantage of this form of structure stillholds much promise. As leaders and managers of nonprofit organizations struggle todesign and manage their partnerships, it behooves them to consider and plan forpotential roadblocks, challenges, and conflicts that can arise.

Notes

1. The expression “from the sandbox to the podium” highlights the fact that Canada’s sport system isconcerned with both grassroots developmental sport programs and helping athletes excel in high-perfor-mance sport.

2. For the purposes of this study, the term focal organization refers to an organization that is consid-ered to be central to a web of partnerships. The focal organization serves as the point of communicationand the catalyst to a number of organizations that work in partnership to achieve a common objective. Inour study, the focal organization and its partners collectively work toward enhancing Canadian athletes’success in international sport competitions.

3. At the time of study, the CSC was involved in some 30 cross-sector partnerships. Currently, thefocal CSC is involved in more than 140 cross-sector partnerships: 3 with public organizations, 120 withnonprofit organizations, and 21 with commercial organizations.

4. Documents included mission, vision, and goal statements; strategic and marketing plans; researchand annual reports; contracts; policy documents; press releases; promotional documents; memoranda ofunderstanding between the CSC and its partners; and notes or minutes from meetings and interviews. Inaddition, where possible, similar relevant documentation from each of the partner organizations was col-lected and analyzed.

5. Participants were selected on the basis of their degree of familiarity and expert knowledge of theorganization’s partnerships and their ability to report accurately and comprehensively. These managerswere most able to recognize and assess the relative importance of organizational dynamics and also werethe most qualified to report specific information on partnerships.

6. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested that researchers start with some general themes derivedfrom reading the literature and add more themes and subthemes as they progress through their analysis.From our review of the literature, we were aware of some of the challenges experienced by organizationsforming partnerships. Thus, the process of theme building began with the emphasis the interviews anddocuments placed on those challenges. Once all interviews and document passages were coded, they wereorganized into themes and patterns. These categories were then further scrutinized for relationships and


linkages between them. With ATLAS.ti, families are devices used to cluster codes for easier handling ofan especially large number of interpretative objects or primary documents (Scientific SoftwareDevelopment, 1997). One important objective of organizing the information into families is to managelarge amounts of objects by classifying them into subsets (e.g., all theoretical codes, groups of informants,or particular primary documents). For instance, when categorizing the factors leading to challenges inpartnership formation, we were able to isolate comments made by, and thematic categories associatedwith, particular groups, such as only the founding partners or only the corporate partners. In this way, theclustering of codes and quotations was facilitated and allowed for easy comparison and theme identifica-tion within and between groups.

References

Alexander, V. D. (1998). Environmental constraints and organizational strategies: Complexity, conflict,and coping in the nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell & E. S. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and thepublic good (pp. 227-290). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Anderson, E., & Jap, S. D. (2005). The dark side of close relationships. MIT Sloan Management Review,46(3), 75-82.

Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard Business Review, 74(6),47-59.

Austin, J. E. (2000). The collaboration challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barney, J. (1991a). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),

99-120.Barney, J. (1991b). Special theory forum: The resource-based model of the firm: Origins, implications

and prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1), 97-98.Canadian Sport Centre (City). (2005). Annual report.Carroll, P., & Steane, P. (2000). Public-private partnerships: Sectoral perspectives. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.),

Public-private partnerships. Theory and practice in international perspective (pp. 36-56). London:Routledge.

Child, J., & Faulkner, D. (1998). Strategies of cooperation. London: Oxford Press.Coulson, A. (2005). A plague on all your partnerships: Theory and practice in regeneration. The

International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(2), 151-163.Doz, Y., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation:

Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136-150.Frisby, W., Thibault, L., & Kikulis, L. M. (2004). The organizational dynamics of under-managed part-

nerships in leisure service departments. Leisure Studies, 23(2), 109-126.García-Canal, E., Valdéz-Llaneza, A., & Ariñio, A. (2003). Effectiveness of dyadic and multi-party joint

ventures. Organization Studies, 24(5), 743-770.Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding a common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: Combining

resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly, 34(3), 340-361.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examination of collab-oration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217-230.

Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (Eds.). (2005). The challenge of public-private partnerships: Learning from inter-national experience. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Huxham, C. (Ed.). (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Huxham, C., & Macdonald, D. (1992). Introducing collaborative advantage: Achieving interorganiza-tional effectiveness through meta-strategy. Management Decision, 30(3), 50-56.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000a). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas:How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1159-1175.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000b). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of collabo-ration. Human Relations, 53(6), 771-806.

Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96-108.Lewis, D. (1998). Nongovernmental organizations, business, and the management of ambiguity. Nonprofit

Management and Leadership, 9(2), 135-151.Linden, R. M. (2002). Working across boundaries: Making collaboration work in government and non-

profit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Mills, D. (1998). Sport in Canada: Everybody’s business. Leadership, partnership, and accountability. Ottawa,

Ontario, CA: Government of Canada.Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, commu-

nication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 135-152.Noé, N. (1991). Politique sportive municipale. Une analyse des relations municipalité–associations

[Municipal sport policy: An analysis of municipal–association relations]. Revue des Sciences etTechniques des Activités Physiques et Sportives, 12(26), 23-35.

Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions.Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241-265.

Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views.Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697-713.

Oppen, M., Sack, D., & Wegener, A. (2005). German public-private partnerships in personal social ser-vices: New directions in a corporatist environment. In G. Hodge & C. Greve (Eds.), The challenge ofpublic-private partnerships: Learning from international experience (pp. 269-289). Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.

Parise, S., & Casher, A. (2003). Alliance portfolios: Designing and managing your network of business-partner relationships. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 25-39.

Park, S. H. (1996). Managing an interorganizational network: A framework of the institutional mecha-nism for network control. Organization Studies, 17(5), 795-824.

Parker, B., & Selsky, J. W. (2004). Interface dynamics in cause-based partnerships: An exploration of emer-gent culture. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 458-488.

Priestner Allinger, C., & Allinger, T. (2004). Own the podium – 2010. Final report with recommendationsof the independent task force for winter NSOs and funding partners. Retrieved February 11, 2008,from www.olympic.ca/EN/organization/news/2005/files/otp_final.pdf

Provan, K. G., Isett, K. R., & Milward, H. B. (2004). Cooperation and compromise: A network responseto conflicting institutional pressures in community mental health. Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly, 33(3), 489-514.

Robertson, S. (2005). CSC leaders put issues on the table. Coaches Report, 12(1), 14-18.Roussin Isett, K., & Provan, K. G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational relationships in a net-

work of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,15(1), 149-165.

Sanyal, P. (2006). Capacity building through partnership: Intermediary nongovernmental organizations aslocal and global actors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 66-82.

Scientific Software Development. (1997). ATLAS.ti (Version 4.1 for Windows). Berlin: Author.Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra- and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a

research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 7-23.Spekman, R. E., Forbes, T. M., Isabella, L. A., & MacAvoy, T. C. (1998). Alliance management: A view

from the past and a look to the future. Journal of Management Studies, 35(6), 745-772.


Suen, W. W. (2005). Non-cooperation: The dark side of strategic alliances. Hampshire, NY: PalgraveMacmillan.

Thibault, L., & Babiak, K. (2005). Organizational changes in Canada’s sport system: Toward an athlete-centred approach? European Sport Management Quarterly, 5(2), 105-132.

Thibault, L., & Harvey, J. (1997). Fostering interorganizational linkages in the Canadian sport deliverysystem. Journal of Sport Management, 11(1), 45-68.

Vail, S. E. (1994). Better together: Partnership building between recreation and sport leaders. RecreationCanada, 52(5), 11-14.

Wilson, D. C. (1992). The strategic challenges of cooperation and competition in British voluntary organi-zations: Toward the next century. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(3), 239-254.

Winkler, I. (2006). Network governance between individual and collective goals: Qualitative evidencefrom six networks. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(3), 119-134.

Wondolleck, J., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in naturalresource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 27(1), 139-162.

Kathy Babiak is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan in the Department of SportManagement. She explores strategic factors motivating sport organizations to enter into partnership rela-tionships with organizations in the nonprofit, government, and private sectors. Her research examines theinteraction and exchange dynamics involved in managing a diverse network of partners.

Lucie Thibault is associate professor in the Department of Sport Management at Brock University. Herresearch interests include the Canadian sport system, government involvement in sport, interorganiza-tional relationships in public and nonprofit sports, and strategy and organizational change.


Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Volume 38 Number ...

Documents

Transcript of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Volume 38 Number ...