Due 5/1

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging Author(s): John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby and Melissa Middleton Stone Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 75, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015), pp. 647- 663 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration, ASPA Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24757438 Accessed: 26-04-2026 16:46 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley, American Society for Public Administration, ASPA are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

75th Anniversary Article

John M. Bryson Barbara C. Crosby

Melissa Middleton Stone

University of Minnesota

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations:

Needed and Challenging

Editor's Note-. Cross-sector collaborations are a noteworthy addition to the tools of public administration. In this anniversary article, John Bryson, Barbara Crosby and Melissa Middleton Stone visit themes from their

2006 article, which strongly influenced this line of research and practice. Their review of the last decade's

research leads them to revise and add new propositions anchored in propositions they introduced in 2006. JLP

Abstract: Theoretical and empirical work on collaboration has proliferated in the last decade. The authors'2006

article on designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations was a part of, and helped stimulate, this growth. This

article reviews the authors' and others' important theoretical frameworks from the last decade, along with key empirical

results. Research indicates how complicated and challenging collaboration can be, even though it may be needed now

more than ever. The article concludes with a summary of areas in which scholarship offers reasonably settled conclu

sions and an extensive list of recommendations for future research. The authors favor research that takes a dynamic,

multilevel systems view and makes use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, especially using longitudinal

comparative case studies.

Practitioner Points

• Make sure there is a clear collaborative advantage to be gained by collaborating, meaning that collaborators can gain something significant together that they could not achieve alone. Make use of windows of opportu nity to advance the collaboration approach.

• View collaborations as complex, dynamic, multilevel systems. • Collaborating parties should take a design approach to cross-sector collaboration. This means starting as

much as possible with the ends in mind and designing processes, structures, and their interactions in such a

way that desired outcomes will be achieved and required accountabilities met. Build ongoing learning into the design, including learning about what goals and performance indicators should be.

• Make sure that committed sponsors, champions, and facilitators are involved throughout. • Use inclusive processes to develop inclusive structures, which, in turn, will sustain inclusive processes. • Adopt flexible governance structures that can adjust to different requirements across the life cycle of the

collaboration.

Our 2006 Public Administration Review article "The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations" appeared when

collaboration theory, research, and practice were accel erating. Cross-sector collaboration has now become a staple of public management research as governments are called on to partner with organizations across sec

tors and civil society in order to address public prob lems that they cannot successfully address alone (Kettl 2015). In the last decade, researchers have continued

to highlight cases of successful cross-sector collabora tion, but many report cases of failure and uneven

results (e.g., Andrews and Entwistle 2010; Hodge and Greve 2007). Some research, including our own, has

drawn on the design propositions presented in our original article (e.g., Lai 2012; Simo and Bies 2007), and that research has led us to alter some propositions and add new ones (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2014; see the appendix at the end of this article).

Our abiding aim is to help public managers and integrative leaders from any sector design and sustain effective cross-sector collaborations when such efforts

are likely to produce public value. We are therefore pleased to have been asked to assess the theoretical and empirical work on cross-sector collaboration over the last decade and the influence that our article

might have had. Much has happened, but some

John M. Bryson is McKnight

Presidential Professor in the Hubert H.

Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the

University of Minnesota. He works in the

areas of leadership, strategic management,

collaboration, and the design of engage

ment processes. He wrote Strategic

Planning for Public and Nonprofit

Organizations, 4th edition (2011),

and cowrote (with Barbara C. Crosby)

Leadership for the Common Good,

2nd edition (2005). He is a fellow of the

National Academy of Public Administration.

E-mail: [email protected]

Barbara C. Crosby is associate

professor in the Humphrey School of

Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, and

part of the school's Public and Nonprofit

Leadership Center. She focuses on

leadership and public policy and women in

leadership. She is author of Leadership

for Global Citizenship (1999) and

cowrote (with John M. Bryson) Leadership

for the Common Good, 2nd edition

(2005). She has conducted training for

senior managers of nonprofit, business, and

government organizations in the United

States and Europe.

E-mail: [email protected]

Melissa Middleton Stone is Gross

Family Professor of Nonprofit Management

and Distinguished University Teaching

Faculty in the Humphrey School of Public

Affairs, University of Minnesota. Her

teaching and research focus on public and

nonprofit management and governance as

well as the design of cross-sector collabora

tions. She has published widely in scholarly

journals and books in the fields of nonprofit

studies, public management, and strategic

management.

E-mail: [email protected]

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 75, Iss. 5, pp. 647-663. © 2015 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar. 12432.

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging 647

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

things have not changed. Recent research only reinforces our earlier conclusion that cross-sector collaboration is hardly an easy answer

to complex public problems. Indeed, it is typically frustrating for participants (although sometimes exhilarating as well) and full of opportunities for what Huxham and Vangen (2005) call "collabora tive inertia." Yet those who seek to combat problems such as poverty

and urban traffic congestion often have no choice but to work across

sector lines to develop shared understandings of the problem and commitments to shared solutions.

In this article, we review the most significant theoretical frameworks

developed in the last decade for exploring cross-sector collaboration. We then review some of the most important empirical studies since 2006. Finally, we offer conclusions and suggest next steps for this

important research and practice field.

Significant Frameworks for Understanding Cross-Sector Collaboration

Several important holistic frameworks for understanding cross-sec

tor collaboration have been published in the last decade. This review focuses on those developed by Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006); Thomson and Perry (2006); Ansell and Gash (2008); Agranoff (2007, 2012); Provan and Kenis (2008); Emerson, Nabatchi, and

Balogh (2011); and Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer (2012). Table 1 provides a summary of each theoretical framework.

The definitions of collaboration used by the frameworks' authors

vary, but they are generally similar to our own in that they stress a

continuum of progressively more intense interorganizational relation ships. We define cross-sector collaboration as the linking or sharing of

information, resources, activities, and capabilities by organizations in two

or more sectors to achieve jointly an outcome that could not be achieved by

organizations in one sector separately (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006,

44). We assert that collaboration occurs in the midrange of a con tinuum of how organizations work on public problems (Crosby and

Bryson 2005). At one end are organizations that hardly relate to each

other, and at the other are organizations merged into a new entity. In

the middle, toward the formal end of interorganizational configura

tions, are collaborative entities that fit the foregoing definition.1

Collaborations are given a variety of labels (e.g., consortium, alliance). We use the term "collaborations" interchangeably with "partnerships" because of the prevalence of the latter term in the

literature. However, we make an important distinction between col laborations and public-private partnerships. We see public-private partnerships as a particular type of cross-sector collaboration based on formal, contractual relationships between two or more entities

(Minnesota Department of Transportation 2011). We cite studies of public-private partnerships in this review when findings are relevant to understanding cross-sector partnerships more generally (rather than how to structure and administer contracts).

Frameworks from Earlier in the Decade

Building on prior work (e.g., Gray 1989; Huxham and Vangen 2005; Ostrom 1990; Ring and Van de Ven 1994), several holis tic frameworks were published about the same time as our own. These include Thomson and Perry (2006), Ansell and Gash (2008), Agranoff (2007, added to in 2012), and Provan and Kenis (2008).

These frameworks have clear similarities. All attend to important

general external antecedent conditions, more proximate initial conditions, internal processes, structural elements, and outcomes. Antecedent conditions include the availability of varied resources,

Table 1 Major Cross-Sector Collaboration-Related Theoretical Frameworks Table 1 Major Cross-Sector Collaboration-Related Theoretical Frameworks

Publication Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006) Thomson and Perry (2006) Ansell and Gash (2008) Agranoff (2007, 2012)

Theory base Diverse, including organization Diverse, including organization theory, Diverse, including organization Diverse, including theory, public administration public administration theory, strategic theory, public administra organization theory, theory, leadership theory, strategic management theory tion theory, policy studies, public administra management theory planning and environmental

management studies tion theory, strategic management theory

Major components Initial conditions Antecedents Starting conditions Decision networks

Formal and informal processes Processes Collaborative process versus nondecision

• Agreements • Governance • Face-to-face dialogue networks

• Leadership • Administration • Trust building

• Legitimacy • Organizational autonomy • Commitment to process Processes

• Trust • Mutuality • Shared understanding • Activation

• Conflict management • Norms of trust and reciprocity • Intermediate outcomes • Framing • Planning Outcomes • Facilitative leadership • Mobilizing

Formal and informal structures Outcomes • Synthesizing

• Membership Plus core contingencies: time, • Structural configurations

• Governance structures trust, and interdependence

Contingencies and constraints • Type of collaboration • Power imbalances

• Competing institutional logics Outcomes and accountabilities

Particular emphases Cross-sector collaboration, institu Learning, organizational autonomy, leader Face-to-face dialogue, incen Leadership through vis-^-vis the others tional logics, planning, contingen ship, administration tives and disincentives, the a whole range of

cies, power and the importance importance of remedying roles, processes, and of remedying power imbalances, power imbalances structures, public

the need for alignment across value, capacity build components ing, and learning

648 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Table 1 Major Cross-Sector Collaboration-Related Theoretical Frameworks, Continued Table 1 Major Cross-Sector Collaboration-Related Theoretical Frameworks, Continued

Provan and Kenis (2008) Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2011) Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer (2012)

Theory base Network theory Diverse, including organization theory, public adminis Communication theory tration theory, conflict management theory, planning

and environmental management studies Major components Ideal types of network governance: System context Communication practices

• Participant governed • Drivers • Increasing meaningful communication • Lead organization Collaborative governance regime • Managing centripetal and centrifugal • Network administration organization Collaboration dynamics forces

• Principled engagement • Creating a distinct and stable identify Critical contingencies: • Capacity for joint action Development of authoritative texts • Degree of trust, number of members, • Shared motivation

goal consensus, need for network Actions Trajectory of authoritative texts level competencies (nature of the Impacts task and kinds of external demands) Adaptation Communication practices to assess over

Persistent tensions: all cross-sector partnership value • Efficiency versus inclusion • External intertextual influence

• Internal versus external legitimacy • Accounts of capital transformation • Flexibility versus stability

Evolution of these governance systems over time

Particular emphases Governance structures Collaborative regimes, what makes collaborations work, Authoritative texts and their effects on vis-a-vis the others capacity building activities and partners

Pulling out collaborative actions from overall impact/ outcomes

characteristics of the institutional environment, and the need to

address complex public issues. Initial conditions encompass the sig nificance of preexisting histories and relationships (whether positive

or negative), some agreement on collaborative aims and perceived interdependence among members, and the availability of leadership.

Processes emphasize fostering trust, organizing inclusive participa tion, developing a shared understanding of the problem, building commitment to collective goals and actions, and formal advance

planning or emergent planning. Structures highlighted by all the

frameworks include norms and rules that emerge to promote these

processes as well as to reach agreement on collaborative goals and actions. Governance at the intersection of processes and structures is

a feature of each framework. These early works also emphasize several

different types of endemic tensions or conflicts facing collabora

tions. For example, Thomson and Perry (2006) emphasize ongoing tensions between the need for partner autonomy versus the inter dependence of collective interests, while Kenis and Provan (2008) focus on tensions between stability versus flexibility, inclusivity versus

efficiency, and internal versus external legitimacy. Several frameworks

highlight power imbalances (Agranoff 2007; Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006), and ours raises the issue of conflict as a result of multi

ple institutional logics.

These frameworks also differ, especially

regarding attention to specific aspects of

collaboration. For example, some emphasize the importance of particular leadership roles (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Thomson and Perry 2006), while others focus on leader ship activities (Ansell and Gash 2008) or the structure of a "leadership core" (Agranoff

2007, 2012). Another difference pertains to the extent to which collaborative struc

ture is considered as a separate component (Bryson, Crosby and Stone 2006; Kenis and Provan 2008) or is subsumed under process

dynamics (Agranoff 2007; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Thomson and Perry 2006). Frameworks also differ with regard to

whether they focus on collaborations involving multiple sectors or primarily those led by public agencies. Our own framework

highlights the role of sector failure as a prompt to cross-sector col

laboration as a way of making up for the shortcomings of particular sectors.

Noticeably, most of these early frameworks do not pay special atten

tion to outcomes and accountabilities, but they do offer important insights. For example, most argue that evaluative assessments should consider substantive as well as process outcomes for individual par ticipants, member organizations, the collaboration as a whole, and the community. Agranoff adds that collaborations should be judged on whether they produce public value from the standpoint of vari

ous stakeholders, while Thomson and Perry and we argue that the issue of accountabilities is especially problematic in collaborations.

More Recent Frameworks

Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh's (2011) "collaborative governance regime" framework extends the view of collaboration as a system embedded in, and interacting with, a larger environment. They are

Determinants of the collabo

rative governance regime are rooted in the external context,

including resource condi tions, policy and legal frame works, and politics and power

conditions.

focused principally on public organizations as collaborators but note the likely involve ment of actors from other sectors as well.

Determinants of the collaborative governance regime are rooted in the external context,

including resource conditions, policy and legal frameworks, and politics and power

conditions. A set of drivers separate from

system context include leadership, conse quential incentives, recognized interdepend ence, and uncertainty. The authors highlight

three important internal collaboration dynamics: principled engage ment, leading toward shared motivation, and ending with capacity for

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging 649

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

joint action, which includes important elements of structure. These collaboration dynamics create action, which may further influ

ence collaboration dynamics as well as affect the external system or

context. The possible broad impacts are similar to those in our own framework. The framework is quite comprehensive, although it may

excessively privilege process over structure. The framework improves

on previous frameworks in its move toward articulating causal con nections and calling for greater attention to exploring which causal relationships matter in which contexts.

The final framework we review is that of Koschmann, Kuhn, and

Pfarrer (2012), which theorizes communication as constitutive of

organizations and collaborations. They emphasize the importance of formulating "authoritative texts" that can include implicit norms

of cooperation or bylaws, mission statements, and memoranda of understanding. These texts indicate the collaboration's "general direction and what it is 'on track' to accomplish" (337). Ideally, these texts will marshal the willing consent of partners, attract other

resources, and help collaborators exercise collective agency. The

authors argue that communication practices increase the potential impact of cross-sector collaborations by shaping public perception as well as member perspectives on issues and providing accounts of intellectual, social, and organizational capital transformation. This framework offers two noteworthy contributions: the addition

of communication theory, especially the idea of communication as constitutive of collaborations, and attention to authoritative texts.

Summary All frameworks imply some causality among particular components

but eschew simple causal connections, instead focusing on important contextual contingencies. For example, a common theme across these frameworks is their attention to the influence of antecedent condi

tions on collaboration effectiveness. Ansell and Gash are especially

explicit about particular aspects of starting conditions, including the

need for a collaboration to rectify significant power or resource asym

metries, acknowledge interdependence among members, and mitigate

negative prehistories. Likewise, Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh begin their causal logic model with specific elements of the external system

in which the collaboration is embedded. Provan and Kenis also pro pose more explicit causal connections where appropriate governance structures are determined by the number of collaboration members,

degrees of goal consensus and trust, and need for network-level competencies. We emphasize contingencies related to the influence of collaboration type, power imbalances, and competing institutional logics, while Agranoff adds the effects of collaborative capacity.

The frameworks leave out some important considerations. None of the frameworks delves very deeply into the effects of the broader

technical and institutional environments on collaboration, including the effects of adjacent and often competing social fields (Fligstein and McAdam 2012; Scott and Davis 2006); how collaboration

might differ depending on the nature of the issue or task to be dealt

with; the effects of technology broadly construed; the need for struc tural and processual ambidexterity (O'Reilly andTushman 2013) across the life cycle of a collaboration; and the array of attitudes,

competencies, and capacities needed for effective collaboration.

In calls for future research, a number of themes are apparent,

including, most obviously, the need to view collaborations as

complicated dynamic systems. Within these systems, a better

understanding is needed of, for example, the interactions between

managerial actions, processes and structures over time; the effects of various internal and external contingencies; how collaborations are affected by being embedded in, or directly affected by, existing

hierarchies; and what helps create effective performance. Finally,

these articles advocate for a variety of research designs and the use of

both quantitative and qualitative methods. Most call for longitudi nal research in order to capture the dynamic contexts and responses of collaborations over time.

In a review of the collaboration field, O'Leary and Vij argue that

"the study and practice of collaborative public management is generally fragmented with a low level of consensus; from a research

perspective, it is a low-paradigm field" (2012, 518). They make several suggestions for improvement, including the need for "more

precise theoretical models of behavior, and agreement on the meas urement of relevant variables" (507). We concur but note that such

a state of affairs is not surprising at this stage of the field's develop

ment, and beyond that, in the last 10 years, considerable theoretical

and empirical advances have produced greater understanding of collaboration. Collectively, the frameworks reviewed here provide a

rich picture of the importance of seeing collaboration as embedded in larger systems; what is involved in collaboration and cross-sector

collaboration; its inherently interdisciplinary nature; its systemic,

multilevel, multiactor nature; and the array of significant constitut ing elements. These frameworks have provided important guidance for empirical research, to which we now turn.

Significant Empirical Work in the Last Decade This section highlights areas in which empirical work is filling in the foregoing theoretical frameworks. Occasionally, we will cite earlier work when it is important for the argument.

We developed the list of possible works using the time parameter of 2007 to early 2015 and certain keywords, such as "cross-sector collaboration" and "partnership," and keyword combinations, including "collaboration" and "accountability," "outcomes," "power," "antecedents," and so forth. In all, we reviewed 196 articles and

three books. We removed the articles that were either nonempiri cal or added little to existing theory or empirical work. (We use "empirical" broadly to mean qualitative or quantitative studies, meta-analyses, or literature reviews of empirical work.) The team

further refined the list using five criteria; the study (1) was situ

ated within a larger systems view of collaboration; (2) was focused

on cross-sector collaboration; (3) illuminated a key aspect of the frameworks discussed earlier; (4) had an empirical grounding; and (5) specified influence relationships, or contextual constraints, such

as rules, resources, or settings that alter the range of possible effects.

The team divided up responsibility for reviewing articles and books

and then discussed collectively specific findings and overarching themes. In spite of the limitations of our search procedures, we are reasonably confident that the included references provide an

important overview of empirical findings over the last decade and additional needed work. We describe the studies according to the major categories encompassed in the frameworks just described: general antecedent conditions; initial conditions, drivers, and link ing mechanisms; processes, structures, and links between them;

650 Public Administration Review • September! October 2015

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

GENERAL ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS

Resources

Institutional environment

o Mandates

o Window of collaborative opportunity o Vulnerable to policy/political change Need to address public issue o Sector failure

O Resources from nongovernmental partners to solve issue

INITIAL CONDITIONS, DRIVERS, AND LINKING MECHANISMS

Agreement on initial aims o Authoritative texts

Recognized interdependence Preexisting relationships o Initial leadership

Specific leader characteristics

Consequential incentives

Nature of task

COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES

Trust and commitment

Shared understanding of problem Communication mechanisms

Legitimacy o Internal legitimacy

Formal and emergent planning

LEADERSHIP

GOVERNANCE

Emergent, dynamic

Contingent

TECHNOLOGY

CAPACITY AND

COMPETENCIES

COLLABORATION

STRUCTURES

Development of norms and rules or practices of engagement Dynamic and particularistic structures

Structural ambidexterity

ENDEMIC CONFLICTS AND TENSIONS

Power imbalances

Vulnerable to exogenous and endogenous shocks

ACCOUNTABILITIES AND OUTCOMES

Complex accountabilities o Formal and informal

Multiple institutional logics Tensions

o Flexibility versus stability o Inclusivity versus efficiency o Unity versus diversity o Autonomy versus interdependence (or self-interest

versus collective interest)

Tangible and intangible outcomes o Immediate, intermediate, and long

term

o Multiple levels of outcomes o Resilience and reassessment learning o Public value creation

Figure 1 Summary of Major Theoretical Frameworks and Findings from Empirical Studies, 2006-15. Bolded elements are from both the theoretical frameworks and recent empirical studies; elements in italics are new elements from empirical studies

endemic tensions or points of conflict; and outcomes and account abilities. Figure 1 presents a reasonably parsimonious and pragmatic synthesis of the theoretical frameworks and empirical studies we

reviewed. (The figure represents a significant adaptation of a similar

figure in our 2006 article.)

General Antecedent Conditions

Recent research confirms that the institutional environment is espe cially important for partnerships focused on public policy or public problem solving because it includes broad systems of relationships across jurisdictional areas (Sandfort and Moulton 2015; Scott and

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging 651

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Meyer 1991) that can directly affect collaborative purpose, struc ture, and outcomes (Dickinson and Glasby 2010; McGuire and Agranoff 2011). In particular, attention to mandated versus volun tary collaborations has increased. For example, government poli cies or grant programs often require or strongly suggest that public

managers organize cross-sector collaborations in order to obtain public funds (Stone, Crosby, and Bryson 2013). These mandates may specify collaboration membership, designate decision makers,

and establish performance measures or accountability mechanisms (Andrews and Entwistle 2010; Vangen and Huxham 2012).

Dynamics in the political environment also can strongly affect the formation of cross-sector collaborations. For example, the

cross-sector collaboration that formed in Minnesota as part of the

federal Urban Partnership/Congestion Demonstration Program was initially stymied by the governor's refusal to endorse any initiative

that involved tolling on preexisting highway lanes (Bryson et al. 2008). Related to factors in the political environment is the notion of collaborative windows of opportunity (Lober 1997). Drawing on Kingdon's (1995) notion of policy windows of opportunity, some suggest that collaboration formation is contingent on the conflu ence of relatively independent streams (such as a problem stream of worsening situations and the existence of a solutions stream) that

a collaboration entrepreneur recognizes. The entrepreneur then is able to mobilize resources and partners around this opportunity

(Lober 1997). Takahashi and Smutny (2002) argue from their case research that these "collaboration windows" are likely to create static

and nonadaptive governance structures (but conflicting results come from other research cited later).

A key reason for forming cross-sector collaborations is public man agers' and policy makers' realization that government cannot remedy a public problem on its own, or at least that involving business,

nonprofit, and community partners can spread risk and provide more effective remedies (Kettl 2015). Nongovernment partners may have additional expertise, technology, relationships, and financial

resources that can be deployed in a joint endeavor (Demirag et al. 2012; Holmes and Moir 2007).

Initial Conditions, Drivers, and Linking Mechanisms Even when environmental conditions favor the formation of cross

sector collaborations, they are unlikely to get under way without the presence of more specific drivers or initial conditions. While several of the theoretical

frameworks discuss the importance of leader

ship both initially and during implementation, much more empirical work has been done on specific leader characteristics. Especially

important is the involvement of committed,

boundary-spanning leaders, whom we call sponsors and champions (Crosby and Bryson 2010). A "collaborative mind-set" is a key characteristic of both sponsors and champions (Cikaliuk 2011). Also needed is the ability to frame the issue at hand so that diverse partners can understand its

importance and its relevance to them (Page 2010). Other significant individual leadership characteristics include a belief that a problem

needs to be addressed, relevant educational qualifications, and age (Esteve et al. 2012; McGuire and Silva 2010).

Other important drivers or initial conditions have also been identified in recent studies. First, in line with several theoretical

frameworks, there is evidence about the importance of initial, albeit general, agreement on the problem definition that also indicates

the interdependence of stakeholder organizations when it comes to addressing the problem (Simo and Bies 2007). While informal agreements about the collaboration's composition, mission, and process can work, formal agreements have the advantage of sup

porting accountability. The absence of formal agreements can make collaboration more difficult, especially when accompanied by a lack of administrative capacity (Babiak and Thibault 2009). Furthermore, Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer (2012) emphasize that naming the collaboration, weaving a compelling story of the

collaborations work, and developing an "authoritative text" can help marshal the willing consent of partners and foster collective agency.

This text may include implicit norms of operation or by-laws, mis

sion statements, and memoranda of understandings; it indicates the collaboration's "general direction and what it is 'on track' to accomplish" (Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer 2012, 337). ("Text" in this case clearly overlaps with structure and governance, discussed

later.) Additionally, the need for different types of initial agreements

and the reworking of agreements are likely to increase as collabora tions grow to include more geographically dispersed partners and diverse actors within a problem domain (Clarke and Fuller 2010; Sandstrom, Bodin, and Crona 2015; Vangen and Huxham 2012).

Second, the role of prior relationships or existing networks is also important because it is often through these that partners judge the

trustworthiness of other partners and the legitimacy of key stake holders (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2014; Bryson et al. 2011). Third, consequential incentives to collaborate are important drivers

(Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh 2011; Romzek, LeRoux, and Blackmar 2012). Fourth, early research (Alter and Hage 1993), and later Provan and Kenis (2008), noted that the nature of the task

to be addressed could be expected to have a significant impact on the membership, structure, and process of an interorganizational

network. Unfortunately, later scholarship has not pursued this issue systematically, although there are exceptions. Simo and Bies (2007), for example, explore the effects of the extreme conditions posed by

Hurricane Katrina on collaboration responses. Finally, observations from our fieldwork prompt us to take a broader view of drivers than we had previously. Requests for proposals, plans, projects, various

Even when environmental

conditions favor the formation

of cross-sector collaborations,

they are unlikely to get under way without the presence of more specific drivers or initial

conditions.

technologies, and consequential incentives all were drivers in one or more of the case studies

because they facilitated collaborative efforts

(Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2014; Quick and Feldman 2014).

Collaborative Processes

Research indicates that processes and struc tures work closely together in fostering effective cross-sector collaboration. Inclusive

processes in particular help bridge differ

ences among stakeholders and help partners establish inclusive structures, create a unifying vision, and manage power imbalances. Inclusive structures, in turn, facilitate governance of the collaboration and help implement the partners' agreements (Berardo, Heikkila, and Gerlak 2014; Quick and Feldman 2011, 2014; Saz-Carranza and Ospina 2011).

652 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Trust and commitment. Trusting relationships are often depicted as the essence of collaboration (Lee et al. 2012). Trust can comprise interpersonal behavior, confidence in organizational competence and expected performance, and a common bond and sense of goodwill (Chen and Graddy 2010). Many researchers realize that collaborations begin with varying degrees of trust but emphasize that trust building is an ongoing requirement for successful collaborations (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Nolte and Boenigk 2011; Walker and Hills 2012). Collaboration partners build trust by sharing resources such as information and

demonstrating competency, good intentions, and follow-through; conversely, failing to follow through or serving one's own or one's

organizations interests over the collaboration undermines trust (Chen 2010). Often this work is highly personal—in other words, it is about building relationships among individuals, which, in turn, leads to trust among organizations (Lee et al. 2012; Murphy, Perrot, and Rivera-Santos 2012).

Communication. Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer note the

importance of communication—that is, the "complex process of meaning negotiation and construction" (2012, 335)—throughout. Indeed, they argue that communication creates collaborations as

"higher-order systems that are conceptually distinct from individual

member organizations" (334). Much of this work probably must be face to face (Ansell and Gash 2008; Romzek, LeRoux, and Blackmar 2012).

Legitimacy. As institutional theory contends, an organization seeking

to acquire necessary resources must build legitimacy by using

structures, processes, and strategies deemed appropriate within its

environment (Fligstein and McAdam 2012; Suchman 1995). In the context of collaborations, both external and internal legitimacy are

critical. For example, nonhierarchical structures and inclusive decision

making processes may not be perceived as legitimate by outsiders more accustomed to traditional command and control bureaucracies. It is

critical, however, that both outsiders and collaboration members see

the collaboration as a legitimate entity in its form and interactions

(Human and Provan 2000). Internal legitimacy as perceived by collaboration members has garnered particular attention, especially as

it relates to establishing commitment among members. Aspects of internal legitimacy include procedural legitimacy, meaning that

stakeholders feel they have gotten a "fair hearing" in decision-making

settings (Ansell and Gash 2008), and cognitive legitimacy, which arises from mutual understanding, recognition of interdependence, and trust

(Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012).

Collaborative planning. Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel (2009) distinguish between deliberate and emergent approaches to

planning. Deliberate, formal planning involves careful advance articulation of mission, goals, and objectives; roles and

responsibilities; and phases or steps, including implementation. In the emergent approach, a clear understanding of mission, goals,

roles, and action steps emerges over time as conversations

encompass a broader network of involved or affected parties

(Koppenjan 2008; Vangen and Huxham 2012) and as the need for methods of overcoming problems in a system becomes apparent (Campbell 2012). Deliberate and emergent planning are likely to occur at both the collaboration level and in individual collaborating

organizations (Clarke and Fuller 2010).

Regardless of approach, several elements are important: careful attention to stakeholders in both formal organizations and informal

groups (Simo 2009; Simo and Bies 2007), deep understanding of the problem(s) addressed by the collaboration and the development of an array of potential solutions (Clarke and Fuller 2010), and clarification of the collaboration's goal system, including process and outcome goals (Vangen and Huxham 2012). Vangen and Huxham (2012) recommend seeing a collaboration's goal system as a partly hierarchical "tangled web" of individual, organizational, and col laboration goals that are partly congruent and partly diverse and that change over time.

Collaboration Structures

Within the collaboration literature, structure has not attracted the

same degree of interest as process, in part because researchers have

emphasized "organizing" as a process over "organization" (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012). Nevertheless, scholars now recognize that collaborations or networks have often overlaid—rather than

replaced—existing hierarchical arrangements (Agranoff 2007), and thus attention to structural components has increased.

Contextual influences on structure. In line with traditional organization theory, scholars point out that collaborative structure is

influenced by numerous external factors, including windows of collaborative opportunity; public policies and policy fields; system

stability; and degree of resource munificence, environmental

complexity, and dynamism (Cornforth, Hayes, and Vangen 2014; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Siddiki et al. 2015). The effects of government mandates have already been noted.

Furthermore, one study found that collaborative governance structures formed in response to particular windows of collaborative opportunity were unable to adapt to significant changes later on

(Takahashi and Smutny 2002). More recent research suggests that while initial collaborative governance structures pose important

constraints on further development, these structures are often quite

adaptive and changeable (Cornforth, Hayes, and Vangen 2014; Kenis and Provan 2008; Stone, Crosby, and Bryson 2013).

Internally, several aspects of a collaboration influence structure.

Agranoff (2012) notes that networks self-organize into "particu laristic structures" that are affected by what partners bring to the

network and how they decide to manage their joint work through norms and rules or practices of engagement. The ambiguity and complexity inherent in collaborations also make these structures especially dynamic. A "tangled web" of goals, uncertain member ship, and overlapping collaborations create a context within which structures are formulated and reformulated over time (Vangen and Huxham 2012). Complexity is heightened when collaborations span national boundaries (Vangen and Winchester 2014).

The role of structural and related processual ambidexterity. Our research illustrates another aspect of structure not highlighted in

previous literature, and that is the importance of being structurally

ambidextrous on an as-needed basis (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2014; Bryson et al. 2008; O'Reilly andTushman 2013). Ambidexterity involves effectively managing tensions: stability

versus change, hierarchy versus lateral relations, the existing power

structure versus voluntary and involuntary power sharing, formal

networks versus informal networks, and existing forums versus new

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging 653

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

forums. Managing the tensions—that is, being ambidextrous in handling both poles—typically involves separating the elements of the tension in time or space. For example, collaborating organizations are likely to keep stable all aspects of the organization not involved in a collaboration while making changes to those parts that are. This is the

strategy of spatial separation. Alternatively, the

strategy formulation process relies a great deal on lateral relations, informal networks, new

forums, and more power sharing, while the implementation process typically produces a reemergence of reliance on hierarchy, formal

networks, existing forums, and less power

sharing. This is the strategy of temporal

separation. In this discussion of ambidexterity,

we are reminded of Thompson's (1967) classic description of reciprocal interdependence, entailing mutual adjustment of each unit to the action of other units; thus, the coordination mechanism

for reciprocal interdependence is mutual adjustment among units (Ansell and Gash 2008; Thomson and Perry 2006) in order to effectively manage spatial and temporal separations (Clarke and Fuller 2010). Future research might explore what kinds of ambidexterity are necessary in large, multiactor, multilevel

collaborations and how ambidexterity is best developed and managed.

Intersections of Processes and Structure

As mentioned earlier, there is a recognition that processes and structures are difficult to consider separately in the collaborative

context, as in the case of ambidexterity discussed earlier. In this sec

tion, we highlight particular areas in which research suggests their interactions.

Leadership roles, practices, and skills. Leadership for collaboration has received considerable attention in the last decade. As

noted earlier, collaborations are unlikely to get off the ground without the involvement of sponsors and champions. In order for collaborations to thrive, they need ongoing sponsorship from people who have formal authority and championing from people who use mainly informal authority to engage partners in their mutual work. More specifically, research indicates that collaborations that

are dependent in some important way on a public bureaucracy need one or more consistent sponsors and champions who are embedded near the top of the public bureaucracy (AgranofF 2012). Furthermore, a champion acts as a "collaborative capacity builder," which Weber and Khademian describe as "someone who either by legal authority, expertise valued in the network, reputation as an honest broker, or some combination of the three, has been accorded

a lead role in the network's problem-solving exercises" (2008, 340). A crucial task for sponsors and champions is managing the tensions

surrounding unity and diversity in collaborations; for example, they

must help partners shape a unifying identity for the collaboration while highlighting the unique contributions of partner organizations (Ospina and Foldy 2010; Saz-Carranza and Ospina 2011). Because collaborations are likely to extend over years, original champions or

sponsors may move on to other causes or positions; therefore,

collaborators need strategies for managing transitions in these roles

The strategy formulation pro cess relies a great deal on lateral relations, informal networks,

new forums, and more power

sharing, while the implementa tion process typically produces a reemergence of reliance on hier archy, formal networks, existing forums, and less power sharing.

(Ivery 2010; Koliba, Mills, and Zia 2011; Simo 2009).

Beyond key sponsors and champions, many other people must exercise leadership at the level of the collaboration and in partner

organizations if the collaboration is to suc ceed (Agranoff 2012; Baker, Kan, and Teo 2011; Clarke and Fuller 2010). They keep the collaborative vision at the forefront of

everyone's efforts and facilitate collaborative

processes and inclusive structures but also

may practice "collaborative thuggery" at times in order to ensure the collaboration does not

succumb to "collaborative inertia" (Huxham and Vangen 2005). Sullivan, Williams, and Jeffares argue that prime assignments for

leaders in collaborations are "in coming to terms with ambiguity, dilemma, risk and loss of control, in building trust and productive

relationships between partners and in finding ways of influencing people and organizations outside leaders' direct authority" (2012, 56). These leaders "can best be seen as 'situated agents'—a product of the particular structural characteristics that define collaborative

contexts, yet capable of independent action through their skills, experience and expertise" (58).

Other authors have described the integrative leadership practices and

skills that foster effective collaboration (e.g., Crosby and Bryson 2010,

2012; Morse and Stephens 2012; Ospina and Foldy 2010; Sun and Anderson 2012). Morse (2010), for example, suggests that leadership enables the different dimensions of cross-sector collaboration to form

In order for collaborations to

thrive, they need ongoing spon sorship from people who have

formal authority and champion ing from people who use mainly

informal authority to engage partners in their mutual work.

a whole and achieve outcomes in the absence of

hierarchical power and control. He uses three case studies from North Carolina to illustrate

the following elements of public integrative

leadership: creating and sustaining boundary organizations, creating common purpose, and organizing boundary experiences that create

boundary objects. Morse also emphasizes some leaders' skill in building "relationship capital." Based on a case study, Page (2010) describes three broad leadership tactics for developing

collaborative governance: framing the agenda, convening stakeholders,

and structuring deliberation. Leadership development programs can help build such skills (Getha-Taylor and Morse 2013). In a study of two Finnish cross-sector partnerships, Ritvala, Salmi, and Andersson

(2014) found that managers engaged in "bricolage"—strategically combining resources—in order to enact integrative mechanisms that helped the collaboration function more effectively. Future research

might consider more thoroughly how leaders at different levels of a

collaboration draw on personal and organizational resources as they engage in these practices.

Governance. What constitutes governance for networks or collaborations is an elusive question (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; O'Leary and Vij 2012; Provan and Kenis 2008) but is gaining more attention. Scholars distinguish between collaborative governance (i.e., a public policy implementation tool that involves

654 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

government and nonstate actors) and the governance of collaborations through structures and processes for collective

decision making (Stone, Crosby, and Bryson 2010, 2013; Vangen, Hayes, and Cornforth 2014). Vangen, Hayes, and Cornforth offer a useful definition: "The governance of a collaborative entity entails

the design and use of a structure and processes that enable actors to direct, coordinate, and allocate resources for the collaboration as a

whole and to account for its activities" (2014, 8). Unlike many aspects of organizational governance that are taken as "givens," the

governance of collaborations typically emerges through frequent, structured exchanges that develop network level values, norms, and

trust enabling social mechanisms to coordinate and monitor behavior (Thomson and Perry 2006).

The literature on the governance of collaborations emphasizes atten tion to contextual elements. Key external factors include govern

ment policies and mandates and preexisting relationships among members (Cornforth, Hayes, and Vangen 2014; Crosby, Stone, and Bryson 2015; Siddiki et al. 2015). Mandates, in particular, may specify hierarchical collaborative governance structures in which one

partner is granted more authority and control. As a consequence, the more powerful partner may ignore other partners, thus under

mining the potential for more genuine collaboration (Dienhart and Ludescher 2010; Van Gestal, Voets, and Verhoest 2012). Previous

relationships among collaboration members are also likely to influ ence collaborative governance. If positive, these relationships likely

contain residual trust, making it easier to build commitment to the new endeavor (Crosby, Stone, and Bryson 2015).

Governance structures are also influenced by internal contingen cies such as network size, collaborative task, and degrees of trust

among members (Provan and Kenis 2008; Stadtler 2011). Stage of collaborative development has also garnered attention relative to

governance structures. As noted earlier, while some argue that initial

governance structures resist adaptation over time (Takahashi and

Smutny 2002), others describe considerable churning as collabora tions respond to fluctuations in their external environments and

internal dynamics (Cornforth, Hayes, and Vangen 2014; Stone, Crosby, and Bryson 2013).

Recent research has also cited the role of paradoxical tensions as an influencer of collaborative governance (and a contributor to its dynamic quality), including tensions around control versus trust, inclusivity versus efficiency, congruent versus divergent goals, and unity versus diversity (Cornforth, Hayes, and Vangen 2014; Provan and Kenis 2008; Saz-Carranza and Ospina 2011; Schirmer 2013; Stone, Crosby, and Bryson 2013; Vangen and Huxham 2012; Sandstrom, Bodin, and Crona 2015). Further research seems mer

ited on management of these tensions through structures as well as processes.

Technology. Traditionally technology includes both work procedures

and specific tools or equipment; now it is often conceptualized in

organizations and interorganizational networks as part of an

organization's social system and as an actor in its own right (Sandfort

2009). Viewed as technology-in-use (Orlikowski 2000), technology is an "ensemble or 'web' of equipment, techniques, applications, and people that define a social context" (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001,

122). Technologies can facilitate the work of the collaboration itself.

Technologies fulfill two crucial roles for collaborations: First,

technology can act as facilitator of collaborative behavior (Ritvala,

Salmi, and Andersson 2014). Technology may be viewed as a

motivating or attractor force when the prospect of using new

technologies incentivizes participation. As a relationship builder

among partnership members, technologies allow or force people to integrate across boundaries, both within their own agencies or across different agencies and organizations (Bryson et al. 2011). Second,

technology also acts as a "nonhuman actor" (Latour 2005), meaning it can provide solutions and present a systems view of complex

interactions that surpass perceptions of individual actors, be a

significant policy mechanism and political factor, be essential to

changing public perceptions, and stimulate internal organizational changes (Bryson et al. 2008; Bryson et al. 2011).

Collaborative capacity and competencies. Several researchers have found that individuals and organizations are more reliable and

productive partners in collaborations when they have particular

attitudes, competencies, and capacities. Among the individual attitudes deemed helpful for cross-sector collaboration are

interpersonal understanding, openness to collaboration, and concern for the common good (Crosby and Bryson 2010; Getha Taylor 2008). Key individual and organizational competencies include the ability to work across boundaries, analyze and involve

stakeholders, engage in strategic planning, and participate in teamwork (Crosby and Bryson 2012; Quick and Feldman 2014; Simo 2009; Simo and Bies 2007). Past experience working in collaboration or with a particular issue is likely to be helpful as

a source of capacity and competency. Depending on the collaboration, additional technical competencies and expertise may be needed. Collaborative capacity is an important determinant of success (Babiak andThibault 2009; Weber and Khademian 2008).

Endemic Conflicts and Tensions

Endemic conflicts and tensions are both likely to be present in these multiorganizational arrangements and likely to influence their inter nal workings. Tensions noted previously involve power imbalances,

competing institutional logics, autonomy versus interdependence, stability versus flexibility, inclusivity versus efficiency, and inter

nal versus external legitimacy. Conflicts often erupt around these tensions, Additional sources of conflict are noted here.

Sources and consequences of conflict. Conflict in a collaboration emerges from the differing aims and expectations that partners bring to a collaboration, tensions in loyalties to home organizations versus the collaboration, differing views about strategies and tactics, as well as from attempts to protect or magnify partner control over the collaboration's work or outcomes (Berardo, Heikkila, and Gerlak

2014; Vangen and Huxham 2012). Conflict may be exacerbated when the collaborating organizations differ in status (either because of size, funding, constituency, or reputation). There is some

indication that power conflicts are also more likely at the inception

of collaborations than at later stages. Ingold and Fischer (2014), for

example, found that partners' beliefs and power seem less important

in establishing collaborative ties during implementation compared with early stages.

Effective conflict management is more likely if partners are "will

ing to explore alternatives rather than enroll others in a preexisting

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed arid Challenging 655

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

vision" (Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer 2012, 341; see also Leach

et al. 2014). Use of effective conflict management practices, such as extensive use of regular meetings to raise and resolve issues, and other kinds of "boundary work" (Quick and Feldman 2014) are important. Irregular meetings may be needed to stop the action

and deal with particular conflicts before moving ahead. Vangen and Winchester (2014), in the only article dealing directly with cultural differences, offer a three-stage process (focusing on recognition,

research, and reconciliation) for dealing with collaborative tensions tied to those differences.

Although the rhetoric of collaboration emphasizes partnership and inclusion, some partners will have more power (of various kinds) and authority than others. The ability to manage power imbal ances therefore becomes important. Government partners have special authority by virtue of representing the public (McGuire and Agranoff 2011). A nonprofit organization might have author ity and power because of its connection to a particular constitu ency; a business partner might have knowledge of a needed technology. Thus, collaboration leaders intent on organizing the inclusive processes and structures that collaboration requires would be wise to work with power differences and find ways to minimize them when needed. As Battisti (2009) notes, less power ful partners may have reduced commitment to a collaboration because they fear they will be exploited. Purdy (2012) suggests ways of increasing the "discursive legitimacy" of partners who may be at a disadvantage—for example, by organizing separate forums for those partners. Sometimes increasing the power of a govern ment partner may be necessary, as Weir, Rongerude, and Ansell (2009) found. In a study of Swiss cross-sector networks focus ing on climate change, Ingold and Fischer (2014) found that government partners with formal decision power were more active than other actors in the networks—that is, they

had a greater number of intranetwork ties.

Fueling conflict and tensions are exogenous and endogenous shocks, to which collabora tions are especially vulnerable because of their permeable boundaries. Shocks can affect relations among partners, resources, and even the purpose of the collaboration (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012; Fligstein and McAdam 2012). Funders may change their priorities. "The demographics of the collabora

tion's clientele may change. The collaboration may be caught up in scandals involving one or more members or in partisan political

shifts. Some members may drop out and new ones join. Tactics such as strategic planning and flexible governance arrangements can help

collaborations anticipate and shape future developments (Bryson etal. 2008).

Building legitimacy, leadership and trust, along with managing conflict, all become more complex for multisector collaborations because of the likelihood that members represent and enact competing institutional logics and because collaborations, by their nature, face institutional complexity (Koliba, Mills, and Zia 2011; Saz-Carranza and Longo 2012). Institutional logics are macro-level historical patterns, both symbolic and mate rial, that establish formal and informal rules of the game and

provide interpretations of action. Logics compete because actions, processes, norms, and structures that are seen as legitimate given one institutional logic may be seen as less legitimate or even illegitimate when one uses other logics (Kraatz and Block 2008; Pache and Santos 2013). Saz-Carranza and Longo's study (2012) found that collaboration actors adopted two practices to man age competing logics: involving and communicating with a wide array of stakeholders to build external legitimacy and facilitating joint-learning spaces to promote internal trust.

Accountabilities and Outcomes

In this section we discuss assessing outcomes of cross-sector collabo ration in four categories: (1) public value; (2) immediate, intermedi ate, and long-term effects; (3) resilience and reassessment; and (4) accountability.

Public value. We argue that the point of creating and sustaining cross-sector collaborations involving governments ought to be the production of "public value" (Benington and Moore 2011; Bozeman 2007; Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg 2014) that could not be created by single sectors alone and that is within the scope of what networked solutions might accomplish (Agranoff 2012; McGuire and Agranoff 2011). Public value in cross-sector collaborations seems most likely to be created by using each sector's characteristic strengths while finding ways to minimize, overcome, or compensate for each sector's characteristic weaknesses.

Andrews and Entwistle (2010) surveyed managers of depart ments providing an array of services in Welsh local governments.

The authors found that intergovernmental

Intergovernmental partnerships may have the best outcomes

because they have special legal power, specialized expertise, and a public service ethos; employ certain collaboration strategies; and enjoy higher mutual trust and greater goal alignment.

partnerships appear to increase effectiveness,

efficiency, and equity; government-business partnerships appear to decrease effectiveness,

have little effect on efficiency, and decrease

equity; and government—nonprofit partner

ships appear to have no impact on effective ness, efficiency, and equity. Because the findings are based on correlations, the authors do not make causal claims. They speculate that intergovernmental partnerships may have the best outcomes because they have special

legal power, specialized expertise, and a public service ethos; employ certain collaboration strategies; and enjoy higher mutual trust and

greater goal alignment.

Immediate, intermediate, and long-term effects. Innes and Booher (1999, 2010) argue based on their case studies that collaborative planning efforts have first-, second-, and third-order

positive effects, analogous to immediate, intermediate, and long-term effects. Immediately discernable effects are a direct

result of the collaboration process. These include the creation of social, intellectual, and political capital; high-quality agreements; and innovative strategies. Intermediate effects occur when collaboration is well under way, or else may occur outside the formal boundaries of the effort. These might include new partnerships, new physical facilities, coordination and joint action, joint learning that extends beyond the collaboration, implementation of agreements, changes in practices, and changes

656 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

in perceptions. Finally, long-term effects may not be evident for some time. These might include new collaborations; more coevolution and less destructive conflict between partners; adaptations of services, resources, cities, and regions; new institutions; new norms and social heuristics for addressing public problems; and new modes of discourse.

Clarke and Fuller (2010) in their comparative case study provide

a complementary list of six categories applied to the collaboration and to the individual collaborating organizations: effects that result

directly from the planning process or the plan, those related to

learning or behavior change by the partners, those involving changes in relations between the collaborators and nonparticipating stake holders, outcomes affecting individuals, and unexpected outcomes beyond the focal issue(s) of the collaboration. Herranz (2010) uses Provan and Milward's (2001) levels of organization, network, and community in a multilevel comparative case study to identify

important performance dimensions and outcomes. It is important to recognize that not all effects at whatever level are likely to be

positive (Andrews and Entwistle 2010; Codecasa and Ponzini 2011; Koliba, Mills, and Zia 2011).

Resilience and reassessments. Ongoing learning appears to be an important feature of successful collaborations (Chen 2010;

Koppenjan 2008; Leach et al. 2014). Learning is a product of effective emergent planning (Clarke and Fuller 2010); active, networked governance (Lindencrona, Ekblad, and Axelsson 2009); and a focus on boundaries between organizations as sites for

learning about how to work together (Quick and Feldman 2014). Learning is particularly important when goals and performance indicators either are not or cannot be known in advance; in other

words, ongoing learning is the way to figure out what the goals and

indicators might and ought to be (Koppenjan 2008).

Complex accountabilities. Accountability is a particularly complex issue for collaborations because it can be unclear to whom the

collaborative is accountable and for what (Koliba, Mills, and Zia 2011; Romzek, LeRoux, and Blackmar 2012; Romzek et al. 2014).

Relationships between the collaborative and home organizations may

be abstruse, and there typically are multiple and competing stakeholder perceptions of how to define results and outcomes (Clarke and Fuller 2010). Further complicating the picture, collaborations will vary in their ability to exercise collective agency

and to have their "authoritative texts" affect public perceptions, collaborative legitimacy, and justifications for collaborative action, as

well as to affect individual organizational texts and actions along with those of other constituents (Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer 2012).

Accountability actually can be for inputs, process, outputs, or

outcomes. Forrer et al. (2010) argue that public-private partner ships should be accountable in terms of understanding and allocat ing risk, costs and benefits, political and social impacts, expertise,

collaboration, and performance measurement. Koliba, Mills, and Zia (2011) offer an accountability framework that applies more broadly to cross-sector collaboration. They consider democratic, market, and administrative frames, each with a different set of

accountabilities to different kinds of people or organizations, differ

ing strengths of accountability relationships, and different explicit

and implicit standards. Romzek et al. (2014) provide and test a

framework for understanding informal accountability that empha sizes the link between shared norms and facilitative behaviors with

informal rewards and sanctions where these relationships are often

mediated by challenges that may undermine the development of

informal accountability. Page et al. (2015) offer an accountability

framework focused on public value creation. They argue that public value in the context of collaboration involves three dimensions—

democratic accountability, procedural legitimacy, and substantive outcomes—that reflect distinct priorities and concerns for public

administration. Of course, accountability may not always be clear cut, for example, when a collaboration works with other collabora tions; additionally, collaborating organizations may have their own accountability frameworks that conflict with the collaboration's

accountability approach (Clarke and Fuller 2010; Sullivan, Barnes, and Matka 2002). Clearly, substantial additional work is needed on cross-sector collaboration outcomes and accountabilities.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Cross-sector collaborations have proliferated in recent years for

a variety of reasons, but first and foremost because the organiza

tions in the collaboration are trying to accomplish something they could not achieve by themselves (Provan and Kenis 2008, 240).

Many see such arrangements as a necessary approach to dealing with challenging public problems (Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg 2014; Kettl 2015; Popp et al. 2014). In the last decade, scholars have developed comprehensive theoretical frameworks for under

standing cross-sector collaborations and how they might produce desirable outcomes. The frameworks have much in common, but

they differ in important ways. Collectively, they show that cross

sector collaboration is a very complex phenomenon that should be conceptualized as a dynamic system. The complexity is inescapable

because these collaborations are dynamic fields that brush up against and are penetrated by other dynamic fields (Fligstein and McAdam 2012). A systemic view is necessary in order to understand how

the parts fit together and to avoid unintended deleterious effects.

The challenge for scholars is clear, as Berardo, Heikkila, and Gerlak

note: "Collaboration processes are complex enough as to demand a simultaneous analysis of all its moving parts, a goal that should

drive future research efforts in this area" (2014, 701). The challenge for practice is the same—how to understand collaborations and their moving parts well enough to actually produce good results and minimize failure.

Figure 1 presents our attempt at a reasonably parsimonious and pragmatic synthesis of the frameworks and empirical studies we

reviewed. The immediate challenge for scholars is the need to take into account contributions from multiple theories, as so many offer

relevant insights. The frameworks reviewed here draw on a broad

range of theories from organization studies, public administration,

leadership, strategic management, conflict management, collective

action, policy studies, planning and environmental management, network theory, and communication. Given that cross-sector collab

oration is an inherently interdisciplinary phenomenon, this is to be

expected. The challenge for scholars is to understand these theories,

their assumptions, and their strengths and weaknesses well enough to use them appropriately and in integrated and complementary,

rather than conflicting or contradictory, ways. The challenge for practitioners is analogous if they are to make reasonable assessments

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging 657

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

of the utility of the research for practice. Because learning is an

important feature of successful collaborations (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2011; Leach et al. 2014; Thomson and Perry 2006), they are natural sites for action research

that has theory building and testing as its aim (Eden and Huxham 1996). Given that collaboration practice is generally ahead of collaboration scholarship, research that collaboratively joins practitioners

and scholars makes sense (Popp et al. 2014).

Meanwhile, empirical research has proliferated and filled in details about how elements of

these theoretical frameworks work, or do not,

in practice. Clearly, the practical challenges

of designing and implementing effective cross sector collaboration are substantial. Theory,

empirical research, and practice all reveal that because cross-sector collaborations are

so complex and dynamic and operate in such diverse contexts, it is unlikely that research

based recipes can be produced. Probably the best that research can offer is design guidance

(Romme and Endenburg 2006) and what Huxham and colleagues have called "handles for reflective practice" (Huxham and Vangen 2005; Poppet al. 2014).

Some research areas are very well developed

and offer reasonably clear conclusions. These

areas include when and when not to collaborate (e.g., Agranoff 2012; Popp et al. 2014); the antecedents of effective collaboration (e.g., Crosby, Stone, and Bryson 2015); the elements of effective collaboration leadership (e.g., Clarke and Fuller 2010; Morse 2010; Ospina and Foldy 2010; Page 2010; Saz-Carranza and Ospina 2011; Sullivan, Williams, and Jeffares 2012); the multilevel nature

of collaboration (e.g., Herranz 2010; Popp et al. 2014); the range of, and contingencies guiding, effective governance approaches (e.g., Cornforth, Hayes, and Vangen 2014; Provan and Kenis 2008; Vangen, Hayes, and Cornforth 2014); likely collaboration outcomes (Innes and Booher 2010; Popp et al. 2014); and the difficulties or challenges of collaboration (e.g., Vangen and Huxham 2012; Popp et al. 2014).

Based on the empirical research, it is safe to say that collaboration success depends on leadership of many different kinds. Scholars

have highlighted several roles that people play, such as sponsors,

champions, boundary spanners, and facilitators. Huxham and Vangen (2005) and Sydow et al. (2011) argue that leadership—in the sense of what "makes things happen"—also occurs through structures and processes. The leadership challenge in cross-sector

collaboration may therefore be viewed as the challenge of aligning initial conditions, structures, processes, and outcomes and accounta bilities such that good things happen in a sustained way over time— indeed, so that public value can be created. We have suggested that researchers focus on leadership at multiple levels.

Also important is the mix of environmental factors over which

managers have little control and strategic choices over which managers have some control. Support from the institutional

environment is critical for legitimizing cross-sector collaboration, but it is not easily controlled by local managers. On the other hand, the choices of governing mechanism, stakeholder partici pants, planning processes, and conflict management techniques, for example, are at least partially within the purview of manage

rial choice. Research and practice must pay

Theory, empirical research, and practice all reveal that because cross-sector collaborations are

so complex and dynamic and operate in such diverse contexts, it is unlikely that research-based

recipes can be produced.

attention to the external environment and

also recognize that many of these compo nents represent strategic contingencies that will influence, but not necessarily determine,

managerial or collaborative action. Leaders and managers, constrained though they may be, are likely to produce independent effects—in part by design—on collabora tion success (Agranoff 2007; Agranoff and

Research and practice must pay attention to the external

environment and also recognize that many of these components represent strategic contingen

cies that will influence, but not

necessarily determine, manage rial or collaborative action.

McGuire 2003). Future research should

explore what the range of those effects might be in different circumstances.

While considerable progress has been made on understanding collaboration outcomes, including process outcomes, further research is needed to understand how collaborations

can contribute to the creation of public value

(e.g., Page et al. 2015) and to clarify the com plex nature of accountabilities (e.g., Romzek et al. 2014). Perhaps surprisingly, given the

general agreement in the literature that col laboration only makes sense when there is

some kind of collaborative advantage to be gained (Huxham and Vangen 2005), there is very little on how to actually go about dis cerning what the collaborative advantage is in specific circumstances other than engaging in dialogue and deliberation (e.g., Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2011; Innes and Booher 2010).

Several of the theorists we have cited argue for grounding col

laboration research in a multilevel, dynamic systems view, and we would underscore that argument. Such a perspective would include attention to the effects of a collaboration's embeddedness in an

institutional environment, the role of technology, and effects on the

collaborating partners as well as the social and institutional environ ment. A dynamic systems perspective also would allow researchers to more perceptively probe the interaction of processes and struc ture and the way crucial tensions play out over time. Emerson,

Nabatchi, and Balogh (2011), for example, argue persuasively that the dynamic interaction of shared motivation, principled engage ment, and capacity for joint action leads to actions, impact, and

outcomes, but the structural aspects of this progression are left in

the background. The other theoretical frameworks we have reviewed

similarly privilege process over structure, with the exceptions of our

own and that of Provan and Kenis (2008). Research on leadership in complex adaptive systems (e.g., Uhl-Bien and Marion 2009) is likely to offer helpful insights how to help collaborations learn and adapt structurally and processually. A dynamic systems perspective

also should deepen understanding of the effects of antecedents, processes, structures, and contingencies on outcomes (positive and negative). Ideally, researchers will seek to uncover the precise causal mechanisms that can advance or undermine effective collabora

tion (Mayntz 2004; Tilly and Tarrow 2007). Emerson, Nabatchi,

658 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

and Balogh (2011), for example, posit that the dynamic interac tion of shared motivation, principled engagement, and capacity for joint action is, in effect, a causal mechanism leading to actions. Additional theorizing and empirical research are needed to move

beyond variable-based explanations to clearly understand more

precisely what is causing what.

Advancing collaboration scholarship presents a number of meth odological challenges. One challenge is the need to blend multiple theoretical and research perspectives (Rethemeyer 2005). Many public management scholars tend to view these collaborations as "networks," use network theory to ground research questions, and

situate their research within recent work on policy implementation

tools. This perspective offers a rich theoretical base, often focused on

structural variables, but tends to disregard three critical components

of cross-sector collaborations: an appreciation of the uniqueness

and differential strengths and weaknesses of governments, nonprofit

organizations, businesses, news media, and communities; ongo ing process dimensions, including leadership broadly defined; and the dynamic nature of collaborative development (O'Toole 2014; Popp et al. 2014). On the other hand, scholars who focus on col laborations as collective action solutions to public problems offer

less theoretically grounded research but rich material on process

dimensions, sources of ambiguity within collaborative work, and

findings that can more easily be translated to the world of practice.

Future research must bridge these two perspectives in order to begin

to capture the complexity inherent in cross-sector collaborations (O'Toole 2014).

A second challenge involves the limitations of single-case studies and variable-driven research for studying complex, dynamic phe

nomena, in comparison with longitudinal, multilevel, multimethod comparative case studies that collect rich qualitative and quantita tive data. The latter kind of research fosters better understanding of

the impacts of context and changes in context, internal and external dynamics, causal connections, and systemic connections in general. Very little such research has been done because it is hard, expensive,

and typically takes a team. Quite a few case studies, even compara tive case studies, focus on some part of the more comprehensive

frameworks and offer valuable insights in particular areas (e.g., AgranofF 2012; Bryson et al. 2011; Clarke and Fuller 2010; Herranz 2010; Innes and Booher 2010; Weir, Rongerude, and Ansell 2009). More work of this kind is needed to trace causality among ante

cedents, process, structure, and outcomes; compare cross-sector collaborations focused on similar problems but in very different contexts and on different problems in similar contexts; trace the

effects of power dynamics and differing governance structures on

outputs and outcomes; and incorporate the multiple dimensions of outcomes—including public value outcomes—and accountabilities. Experiments, simulations, and games, which are gaining traction as

public administration research methodologies, provide complemen tary methodologies for exploring complex, dynamic interactions in collaborations (Bretschneider et al. 2015; Richardson, Anderson,

and Luna-Reyes 2015).

The research challenges involved in studying cross-sector collabora tions and in providing practical, research-based guidance to policy

makers regarding the design and implementation of cross-sector col laborations are clearly substantial. Yet the challenges must be met,

or effectively addressing the major public problems that confront us

will be unlikely, and some of the most important opportunities for

creating public value will be missed.

Note

1. Please note that we are not reviewing the extensive literature on interorganiza

tional networks (see Popp et al. 2014). "Network" is a general term encompass

ing all interorganizational relationships, while collaborations and partnerships

are specific types of networked relationships. Hence, not all networks are col

laborations, but all collaborations and partnerships are networks.

References

Agranoff, Robert. 2007. Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public

Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

. 2012. Collaborating to Manage: A Primer for the Public Sector. Washington,

DC: Georgetown University Press.

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative Public Management:

New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University

Press.

Alter, Catherine, and Jerald Hage. 1993. Organizations Working Together. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Andrews, Rhys, and Tom Entwistle. 2010. Does Cross-Sectoral Partnership Deliver?

An Empirical Exploration of Public Service Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(3): 679-701.

Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2008. Collaborative Governance in Theory and

Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543-71.

Babiak, Kathy, and Lucie Thibault. 2009. Challenges in Multiple Cross-Sector

Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38(1): 117-43.

Baker, Ellen, Melanie M. Kan, and Stephen T. Teo. 2011. Developing a Collaborative

Network Organization: Leadership Challenges at Multiple Levels. Journal of

Organizational Change Management 24(6): 853-75.

Battisti, Martina. 2009. Below the Surface: The Challenges of Cross-Sector

Partnerships. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 35: 95-108.

Benington, John, and Mark H. Moore, eds. 2011. Public Value: Theory and Practice.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Berardo, Ramiro, Tanya Heikkila, and Andrea K. Gerlak. 2014. Interorganizational

Engagement in Collaborative Environmental Management: Evidence from the

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Journal of Public Administration

and Research Theory 24(3): 697-719.

Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic

Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bretschneider, Stuart, Yujin Choi, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O'Leary. 2015.

Incentivizing Collaboration: An Experimental Analysis of Performance

Information and Public Value Promotion. In Creating Public Value in Practice:

Advancing the Common Good in a Multi-Sector, Shared-Power, No-One-Wholly

in-Charge World, edited by John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura

Bloomberg, 85-202. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. 2014. Public Value

Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New

Public Management. Public Administration Review 74(4): 445-56.

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Melissa Middleton Stone. 2006. The

Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from

the Literature. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 44-55.

. 2014. Designing and Strategically Managing Cross-Sector Collaborations.

In The U.S.-India Relationship: Cross-Sector Collaboration to Promote Sustainable

Development, edited by Michael J. Fratantuono, David M. Sarcone, and John

Colwell, Jr., 31-88. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War

College.

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging 659

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Melissa M. Stone, and J. Clare Mortensen.

2008. Collaboration in Fighting Traffic Congestion: A Study of Minnesota's

Urban Partnership Agreement. Report no. CTS 08-25, Center for Transportation

Studies, University of Minnesota. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/

ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=17l4 [accessed July 13, 2015].

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, Melissa M. Stone, Emily Saunoi-Sandgren,

and Anders S. Imboden. 2011. The Urban Partnership Agreement: A

Comparative Study of Technology and Collaboration in Transportation Policy

Implementation. Report no. CTS 11-07, Center for Transportation Studies,

University of Minnesota. http://www.its.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/

reportdetail.html?id=20l6 [accessed July 13, 2015].

Campbell, David. 2012. Public Managers in Integrated Service Collaboratives: What

Works Is Workarounds. Public Administration Review 72(5): 721-30.

Chen, Bin. 2010. Antecedents or Processes? Determinants of Perceived Effectiveness

of Interorganizational Collaborations for Public Service Delivery. International

Public Management Journal 13(4): 381—407.

Chen, Bin, and Elizabeth A. Graddy. 2010. The Effectiveness of Nonprofit Lead

Organization Networks for Social Service Delivery. Nonprofit Management and

Leadership 20(4): 405-22.

Cikaliuk, Monique. 2011. Cross-Sector Alliances for Large-Scale Health Leadership

Development in Canada: Lessons for Leaders. Leadership in Health Services

24(4): 281-94.

Clarke, Amelia, and Mark Fuller. 2010. Collaborative Strategic Management:

Strategy Formulation and Implementation by Multi-Organizational Cross

Sector Social Partnerships. Supplement, Journal of Business Ethics 94(1):

85-101.

Codecasa, Guido, and Davide Ponzini. 2011. Public-Private Partnership: A Delusion

for Urban Regeneration? Evidence from Italy. European Planning Studies 19(4):

647-67.

Cornforth, Chris, John Paul Hayes, and Siv Vangen. 2014. Nonprofit

Public Collaborations: Understanding Governance Dynamics. Nonprofit

and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Published electronically on May 2.

doi: 10.1177/0899764014532836.

Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. 2005. Leadership for the Common Good:

Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. 2nd ed. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

. 2010. Integrative Leadership and the Creation and Maintenance of Cross

Sector Collaborations. Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 211-30.

. 2012. Integrative Leadership and Policy Change: A Hybrid Relational View.

In Advancing Relational Leadership Research: A Dialogue among Perspectives,

edited by Mary Uhl-Bien and Sonia M. Ospina, 303—33. Charlotte, NC:

Information Age.

Crosby, Barbara C., Melissa M. Stone, and John M. Bryson. 2015. Governance in

an Era of Partnerships. In Handbook of Public Administration, 3rd ed., edited by

James L. Perry and Robert K. Christensen, 38-54. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Demirag, Istemi, Iqbal Khadaroo, Pamela Stapleton, and Caral Stevenson. 2012. The

Diffusion of Risks in Public Private Partnership Contracts. Accounting, Auditing

and Accountability Journal 25 (8): 1317—39.

Dickinson, Helen, and Jon Glasby. 2010. "Why Partnership Working Doesn't Work":

Pitfalls, Problems and Possibilities in English Health and Social Care. Public

Management Review 12(6): 811-28.

Dienhart, John W., and Jessica C. Ludescher. 2010. Sustainability, Collaboration,

and Governance: A Harbinger of Institutional Change? Business and Society

Review 115(4): 393-415.

Eden, Colin, and Chris Huxham. 1996. Action Research for Management Research.

British Journal of Management 7(1): 75—86.

Emerson, Kirk, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh. 2011. An Integrative

Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory 22(1): 1—29.

Esteve, Marc, George Boyne, Vicenta Sierra, and Tamyko Ysa. 2012. Organizational

Collaboration in the Public Sector: Do Chief Executives Make a Difference?

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(4): 927-52.

Fligstein, Neil, and Doug McAdam. 2012. A Theory of Fields. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Forrer, John, James Edwin Kee, Kathryn E. Newcomer, and Eric Boyer. 2010.

Public—Private Partnerships and the Public Accountability Question. Public

Administration Review 70(3): 475—84.

Getha-Taylor, Heather. 2008. Identifying Collaborative Competencies. Review of

Public Personnel Administration 28(2): 103—19.

Getha-Taylor, Heather, and Ricardo S. Morse. 2013. Collaborative Leadership

Development for Local Government Officials: Exploring Competencies and

Program Impact. Public Administration Quarterly 37(1): 71-102.

Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty

Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Herranz, Joaquin, Jr. 2010. Multilevel Performance Indicators for Multisectoral

Networks and Management. American Review of Public Administration 40(4):

445-60.

Hodge, Graeme A., and Carsten Greve. 2007. Public-Private Partnerships: An

International Performance Review. Public Administration Review 67(3): 545-58.

Holmes, Sara, and Lance Moir. 2007. Developing a Conceptual Framework

to Identify Corporate Innovations through Engagement with Non-Profit

Stakeholders. Corporate Governance 7{A): 414—22.

Human, Sherrie E., and Keith G. Provan. 2000. Legitimacy Building in the

Evolution of Small-Firm Multilateral Networks: A Comparative Study of Success

and Demise. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(2): 327—65.

Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and

Practice of Collaborative Advantage. New York: Routledge.

Ingold, Karin, and Manuel Fischer. 2014. Drivers of Collaboration to Mitigate

Climate Change: An Illustration of Swiss Climate Policy over 15 Years. Global

Environmental Change 24: 88—98.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus Building and Complex

Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. Journal

of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-23.

. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality

for Public Policy. New York: Routledge.

Ivery, Jan. 2010. Partnerships in Transition: Managing Organizational and Collaborative

Change. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 20(1): 20-37.

Kettl, Donald F. 2015. The Job of Government: Interweaving Public Functions and

Private Hands. Public Administration Review 75(2): 219—29.

Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York:

Longman.

Koliba, Christopher J., Russell M. Mills, and Asim Zia. 2011. Accountability

in Governance Networks: An Assessment of Public, Private, and Nonprofit

Emergency Management Practices Following Hurricane Katrina. Public

Administration Review 71(2): 210-20.

Koppenjan, Joop. 2008. Creating a Playing Field for Assessing the Effectiveness of

Network Collaboration by Performance Measures. Public Management Review

10(6): 699-714.

Koschmann, Matthew A., Timothy R. Kuhn, and Michael D. Pfarrer. 2012. A

Communicative Framework of Value in Cross-Sector Partnerships. Academy of

Management Review 37(2): 332-54.

Kraatz, Matthew S., and Emily S. Block. 2008. Organizational Implications of

Institutional Pluralism. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism,

edited by Royston Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin, and Roy

Suddaby, 243—75. London: Sage Publications.

Lai, Allen Y. 2012. Towards a Collaborative Cross-Border Disaster Management:

A Comparative Analysis of Voluntary Organizations in Singapore. Journal of

Comparative Policy Analysis 14(3): 217-33.

660 Public Administration Review • September!October 2015

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network

Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leach, William D., Christopher M. Weible, Scott R. Vince, Saba N. Siddiki, and

John C. Calanni. 2014. Fostering Learning through Collaboration: Knowledge

Acquisition and Belief Change in Marine Aquaculture Partnerships. Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory 24(3): 591—622.

Lee, Hyung-woo, Peter J. Robertson, Lavonna Lewis, David Sloane, Lark Galloway

Gilliam, and Jonathan Nomachi. 2012. Trust in a Cross-Sectoral Interorganizational

Network. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41 (4): 609-31.

Lindencrona, Fredrik, Solvig Ekblad, and Runo Axelsson. 2009. Modes of

Interaction and Performance of Human Service Networks: A Study of

Refugee Resettlement Support in Sweden. Public Management Review 11(2):

191-215.

Lober, Douglas J. 1997. Explaining the Formation of Business—Environmentalist

Collaborations: Collaborative Windows and the Paper Task Force. Policy Sciences

30(1): 1-24.

Mayntz, Renate. 2004. Mechanisms in the Analysis of Social Macro-Phenomena.

Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(2): 237-59.

McGuire, Michael, and Robert Agranoff. 2011. The Limitations of Public

Management Networks. Public Administration 89(2): 265—84.

McGuire, Michael, and Chris Silvia. 2010. The Effect of Problem Severity,

Managerial and Organizational Capacity, and Agency Structure on

Intergovernmental Collaboration: Evidence from Local Emergency

Management. Public Administration Review 70(2): 279-88.

Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2011. Advancing Public Interest in

Public-Private Partnership of State Highway Development. http://www.

pwfinance.net/document/research_reports/Research%20Misc%20Advancing.pdf

[accessed June 30, 2015].

Mintzberg, Henry, Bruce Ahlstrand, and Joseph Lampel. 2009. Strategy Safari: Your

Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic Management. 2nd ed. London:

Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Morse, Ricardo S. 2010. Integrative Public Leadership: Catalyzing Collaboration to

Create Public Value. Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 231—45.

Morse, Ricardo S., and John B. Stephens. 2012. Teaching Collaborative Governance:

Phases, Competencies, and Case-Based Learning. Journal of Public Affairs

Education 37(1): 71-102.

Murphy, Matthew, Francois Perrot, and Miguel Rivera-Santos. 2012. New

Perspectives on Learning and Innovation in Cross-Sector Collaborations. Journal

of Business Research 65(12): 1700-1709.

Nolte, Isabella M., and Silke Boenigk. 2011. Public-Nonprofit Partnership Performance in a Disaster Context: The Case of Haiti. Public Administration

89(4): 1385-1402.

O'Leary, Rosemary, and Nidhi Vij. 2012. Collaborative Public Management:

Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? American Review of Public

Administration 42(5): 507-22.

O'Reilly, Charles A., Ill, and Michael L. Tushman. 2013. Organizational

Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives

27(4): 324-38.

Orlikowski, Wanda J. 2000. Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A

Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Information Systems

Research 12(2): 121-34.

Orlikowski, Wanda J., and C. Suzanne Iacono. 2001. Research Commentary:

Desperately Seeking the "IX" in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT

Artifact. Information Systems Research 12(2): 121-34.

Ospina, Sonia, and Erica Foldy. 2010. Building Bridges from the Margins: The

Work of Leadership in Social Change Organizations. Leadership Quarterly 21(2):

292-307.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O'Toole, Laurence J., Jr. 2014. Networks and Networking: The Public

Administrative Agendas. Public Administration Review 75(3): 361-71.

Pache, Anne-Claire, and Filipe Santos. 2013. Inside the Hybrid Organization:

Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of

Management Journal 56(4): 972—1001.

Page, Stephen. 2010. Integrative Leadership for Collaborative Governance: Civic

Engagement in Seattle. Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 246-63.

Page, Stephen B., Melissa M. Stone, John M. Bryson, and Barbara C. Crosby. 2015.

Public Value Creation by Cross-Sector Collaborations: A Theory and Challenges

of Assessment. Public Administration. Published electronically on March 15.

doi: 10.1111/padm. 12161.

Popp, Janet K., H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ronald

Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to

Inform Practice. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Provan, Keith G., and Patrick Kenis. 2008. Modes of Network Governance:

Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory 18(2): 229-52.

Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 2001. Do Networks Really Work?

A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public

Administration Review 61(4): 414—23.

Purdy, Jill M. 2012. A Framework for Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance

Processes. Public Administration Review 72(3): 409—17.

Quick, Kathryn S., and Martha S. Feldman. 2011. Distinguishing Participation and

Inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31 (3): 272—90.

. 2014. Boundaries as Junctures: Collaborative Boundary Work for Building

Efficient Resilience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(3):

673-95.

Rethemeyer, R. Karl. 2005. Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaborative Networks.

Public Administration Review 65(1): 117-21.

Richardson, George, David Anderson, and Luis Luna-Reyes. 2015. Joining Minds:

Group System Dynamics Modeling to Create Public Value. In Public Value and

Public Administration, edited by John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura

Bloomberg, chap. 4. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Ring, Peter Smith, and Andrew H. Van de Ven. 1994. Developmental Processes of

Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review

19(1): 90-118.

Ritvala, Tiina, Asta Salmi, and Per Andersson. 2014. MNCs and Local Cross-Sector

Partnerships: The Case of a Smarter Baltic Sea. International Business Review

23(5): 942-51.

Romme, A. Georges L., and Gerard Endenburg. 2006. Construction Principles

and Design Rules in the Case of Circular Design. Organization Science 17(2):

287-97.

Romzek, Barbara S., Kelly LeRoux, and Jeannette M. Blackmar. 2012. A Preliminary

Theory of Informal Accountability among Network Organizational Actors.

Public Administration Review 5(1): 442—53.

Romzek, Barbara, Kelly LeRoux, Jocelyn Johnston, Robin J. Kempf, and Jaclyn S.

Piatak. 2014. Informal Accountability in Multisector Service Delivery Colla

borations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(4): 813-42.

Sandfort, Jodi R. 2009. Human Service Organizational Technology: Improving

Understanding and Advancing Research. In Human Services as Complex

Organizations, edited by Yeheskel Hasenfeld, 269-90. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Sandfort, Jodi, and Stephanie Moulton. 2015. Effective Implementation in Practice:

Integrating Public Policy and Management. San Francisco: Wiley.

Sandstrom, Annica, Orjan Bodin, and Beatrice Crona. 2015. Network Governance

from the Top—The Case of Ecosystem-Based Coastal and Marine Management.

Marine Policy 55: 57-63.

Saz-Carranza, Angel, and Francisco Longo. 2012. Managing Competing Institutional

Logics in Public-Private Joint Ventures. Public Management Review 14(3): 331-57.

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging 661

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Saz-Carranza, Angel, and Sonia M. Ospina. 2011. Behavioral Dimensions of Governing

Interorganizational Goal-Directed Networks—Managing Unity-Diversity Tension.

Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory 21(2): 327-65.

Schirmer, Heike. 2013. Partnership Steering Wheels: How the Formation Process of

a Cross-Sector Partnership Can Influence Its Governance Mechanisms. Journal of

Corporate Citizenship 50: 23-45.

Scott, W. Richard, and Gerald F. Davis. 2006. Organizations and Organizing: Rational,

Natural, and Open System Perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Scott, W. Richard, and John W. Meyer. 1991. The Organization of Societal Sectors:

Propositions and Early Evidence. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational

Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 108-40. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Siddiki, Saba N., Julia L. Carboni, Chris Koski, and Abdul-Akeem Sadiq. 2015. How

Policy Rules Shape the Structure and Performance of Collaborative Governance

Arrangements. Public Administration Review 75(4): 536—47.

Simo, Gloria. 2009. Sustaining Cross-Sector Collaborations: Lessons from New

Orleans. Public Organization Review 9(4): 367-84.

Simo, Gloria, and Angela L. Bies. 2007. The Role of Nonprofits in Disaster

Response: An Expanded Model of Cross-Sector Collaboration. Special issue,

Public Administration Review 67: 125-42.

Stadtler, Lea. 2011. Aligning a Company's Economic and Social Interests in Cross

Sector Partnerships. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 44: 85-106.

Stone, Melissa M., Barbara C. Crosby, and John M. Bryson. 2010. Governing

Public-Nonprofit Collaborations: Understanding Their Complexity and the

Implications for Research. Voluntary Sector Review 1(3): 309-34.

. 2013. Adaptive Governance in Collaborations: Design Propositions from

Research and Practice. In Nonprofit Governance: Innovative Perspectives and

Approaches, edited by Chris Cornforth and William A. Brown, 249-71. London:

Routledge.

Suchman, Mark C. 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional

Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571-610.

Sullivan, Helen, Marian Barnes, and Elizabeth Matka. 2002. Building Collaborative

Capacity through "Theories of Change." Evaluation 8(2): 205-26.

Sullivan, Helen, Paul Williams, and Stephen Jeffares. 2012. Leadership for Collabo

ration: Situated Agency in Practice. Public Management Review 14(1): 41—66.

Sun, Peter Y. T., and Marc H. Anderson. 2012. Civic Capacity: Building on

Transformational Leadership to Explain Successful Integrative Public Leadership.

Leadership Quarterly 23(3): 309—23.

Sydow, Jorg, Frank Lerch, Chris Huxham, and Paul Hibbert. 2011. A Silent Cry for

Leadership: Organizing for Leading (in) Clusters. Leadership Quarterly 22(2):

328-43.

Takahashi, Lois M., and Gayla Smutny. 2002. Collaborative Windows and

Organizational Governance: Exploring the Formation and Demise of Social

Service Partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31(2): 165-85.

Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of

Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thomson, Ann Marie, and James L. Perry. 2006. Collaboration Processes: Inside the

Black Box. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 20—32.

Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. Contentious Politics. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Uhl-Bien, Mary, and Russ Marion. 2009. Complexity Leadership in Bureaucratic

Forms of Organizing: A Meso Model. Leadership Quarterly 20(4): 631—50.

Vangen, Siv, John Paul Hayes, and Chris Cornforth. 2014. Governing Cross-Sector,

Inter-Organizational Collaborations. Public Management Review. Published

electronically on April 4. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.903658.

Vangen, Siv, and Chris Huxham. 2012. The Tangled Web: Unraveling the Principle

of Common Goals in Collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory 22(4): 731-60.

Vangen, Siv, and Nik Winchester. 2014. Managing Cultural Diversity in

Collaborations. Public Management Review 16(5): 686—707.

Van Gestel, Kit, Joris Voets, and Koen Verhoest. 2012. How Governance of Complex

PPPs Affects Performance. Public Administration Quarterly 36(2): 140-88.

Walker, Richard M., and Peter Hills. 2012. Partnership Characteristics, Network

Behavior, and Publicness: Evidence on the Performance of Sustainable

Development Projects. International Public Management Journal 15(4): 479-99.

Weber, Edward P., and Anne M. Khademian. 2008. Wicked Problems, Knowledge

Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings. Public

Administration Review 68(2): 334—49.

Weir, Margaret, Jane Rongerude, and Christopher K. Ansell. 2009. Collaboration Is

Not Enough. Urban Affairs Review 44(4): 455-89.

662 Public Administration Review • September | October 2015

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Appendix Revised and New Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006) Propositions (changes noted in italics)

Address Initial Conditions

Proposition 1: Similar to all interorganizational relationships, cross-sector collaborations are more likely to form in turbulent environments. In particular, the formation and sustainability of cross-sector collaborations will be affected by driving and constraining forces in their competitive and institutional environments, including politi cal forces and the availability of relevant technology.

Proposition 2: Public policy makers are most likely to try cross-sector collaboration if they believe that separate efforts by several sectors to address a public problem have failed, or are likely to fail, and the actual failures cannot be fixed by a separate sector alone, or, less dramatically, that no sector can address the presenting problem effectively on its own.

Proposition 3: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed when one or more linking mechanisms—such as powerful leaders and sponsors; general agree ment on the problem; existing networks; neutral conveners; requests for proposals, plans, projects or technologies requiring collaboration; and consequential incen tives favoring collaboration—are in place at the time of their initial formation.

Design Effective Processes

Proposition 4: The form and content of a collaboration's initial agreements, as well as the processes used to formulate them, will affect the outcomes of the collabo ration's work. A sequence of increasingly operational agreements involving key decision makers, a certain degree of flexibility, and re-negotiability are likely to be important elements of the agreement process.

Proposition 5: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if they have committed, able sponsors and effective, persistent champions at many levels who provide formal and informal leadership.

Proposition 6: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if they establish with both internal and external stakeholders the legitimacy of collaboration as a necessary form of organizing, as a separate entity, and as a source of trusted interaction among members.

Proposition 7: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if a continuing virtuous circle of trust-building activities (including nurturing of cross-sectoral and cross-cultural understanding) can be established and maintained.

Proposition 8: Because conflict is common in partnerships, cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if partners use resources and tactics to help equalize power and manage conflict, particularly in the early phases of planning and organizing the work to be done.

Proposition 9: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if they use a combination of deliberate and emergent planning, with deliberate planning empha sized more in mandated collaborations and emergent planning emphasized more in nonmandated collaborations. At some point, however, emergent planning needs to be followed by formalization; too much emergent planning can undermine collaboration success.

Proposition 10: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if their planning makes use of stakeholder analyses, emphasizes responsiveness to key stakehold ers, uses the process to build trust and the capacity to manage conflict, and builds on the competencies and distinctive competencies of the collaborators.

Proposition 11: Inclusive processes are needed to produce inclusive structures that, in turn, foster inclusive practices. Both inclusive processes and structures facilitate effective collaboration. (Proposition 12 has been moved to a different category and will be found below proposition 18.)

Create Effective Structural and Governance Arrangements

Proposition 13: Collaborative structure is influenced by environmental factors, such as system stability and the collaboration's strategic purpose; structures must be able to handle changes in the environment and strategic purpose.

Proposition 14: Collaborative structure is also likely to change over time due to ambiguity of membership and complexity in local environments. Proposition 15: Collaboration structure and the nature of the tasks to be performed at various levels, including the client or street level, are likely to influence a collabo

ration's overall effectiveness; a measure of structural ambidexterity is likely to be necessary to manage the array of tasks. Proposition 16: Governing arrangements, including those that operate at both informal and formal levels, must be able to respond effectively to strategic, operational,

and mixed issues and the extent to which they do is likely to influence collaboration effectiveness. This responsiveness is needed in part to decide who gets to decide and to be able to manage spatial and temporal ambidexterity.

Manage Contingencies and Constraints Affecting Process and Structure

Proposition 17: Collaborations that are prepared to take advantage of a window of opportunity are far more likely to succeed than those that are not. Proposition 18: In order to be effective, collaborations must manage the many roles of technology as a facilitator of collaboration and as a nonhuman actor capable of

providing solutions, affecting policies and politics, altering public perceptions, and, stimulating internal organizational changes. Proposition 12: Collaborations involving system-level planning activities are likely to involve the most negotiation, followed by collaborations focused on administrative

level partnerships, followed by service delivery partnerships. Proposition 19: Needed competencies must be available or developed or cross-sector collaboration goals will not be achieved. Proposition 20: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if the collaborations build in resources and tactics for dealing with power imbalances and shocks.

Shocks need to be expected and can be positive, for example, a window of opportunity. Proposition 21: Competing institutional logics are likely within cross-sector collaborations and may significantly influence the extent to which collaborations can agree

on essential elements of process and structure as well as outcomes. Competing logics must be managed effectively.

Manage Outcomes and Accountabilities

Proposition 22: Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to create public value if they build on individuals' and organizations' self-interests along each sector's charac teristic strengths, while finding ways to minimize, overcome, or compensate for each sector's characteristic weaknesses.

Proposition 23: Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to create public value if they produce positive first-, second-, and third-order effects far in excess of negative effects.

Proposition 24: Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to create public value if they are long-lived, resilient, and engage in regular reassessments. Proposition 25: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to be successful if they have an accountability system in place that tracks inputs, processes, and outcomes;

use a variety of methods for gathering, interpreting, and using data; and have in place a results management system built on strong relationships with key political and professional constituencies.

Proposition 26: The normal expectation ought to be that success will be very difficult to achieve in cross-sector collaborations.

Appendix Revised and New Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006) Propositions (changes noted in italics)

Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging 663

This content downloaded from 50.222.214.250 on Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:46:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms