Human Relations and Development V Essay

148

Journal of Sport Management, 2017, 31, 148 -160

© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE

Journal of Sport Management, 2017, 31, 148 -160 https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0118 © 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Gareth J. Jones is with the School of Sport, Tourism and Hos- pitality Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Mike Edwards, Jason N. Bocarro and Kyle S. Bunds are with the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Manage- ment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Jordan W. Smith is with the Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, Logan, UT. Address author correspondence to Gareth Jones at [email protected].

Collaborative Advantages: The Role of Interorganizational Partnerships for Youth Sport Nonprofit Organizations

Gareth J. Jones Temple University

Mike Edwards, Jason N. Bocarro, and Kyle S. Bunds North Carolina State University

Jordan W. Smith Utah State University

Interorganizational partnerships have been used by nonprofits in a variety of industries to build organizational capacity, yet they are currently underutilized by many youth sport nonprofit organizations. While previous research has highlighted key features of dyadic relationships that inhibit the development and maintenance of partnerships, there has been less attention to the influence of broader or complete networks. This study examined key structural properties of a youth sport nonprofit network in one municipality to determine how interorganizational partnerships were used to build organizational capacity. Whole network analysis was used to study partnerships between youth sport nonprofits and analyze the configuration and structural features of the network. Results indicated a fragmented network of youth sport nonprofit organizations, with the majority of organizations operating independently of one another, and the network itself characterized by unbalanced ties. The discussion highlights how this network structure influences organizational action and contributes to relational issues often observed at the dyadic level. The introduction of a third-party brokerage organization is discussed as a potentially useful strategy for improving this network structure.

Keywords: community sport, networks, management, social network analysis

In the United States, opportunities for youth to participate in sport were traditionally offered through a diverse mix of public, for-profit, and nonprofit programs (Coakley, 2010). However, these services have undergone substantial changes over the last 30 years (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011), and many youth sport programs are now delivered through nongovernmental organiza- tions such as community sport clubs and membership associations (Doherty, Misener, & Cuskelly, 2014; Misener & Doherty, 2009). Nonprofit organizations in particular have become an integral part of “grassroots” sport participation (Seippel, 2006). These organizations

typically form organically in response to an identified need and rely almost exclusively on local volunteers and resources to provide services (Doherty et al., 2014). This informal structure not only promotes positive outcomes for participants, but also offers opportunities for com- munity members to develop skills and knowledge, social capital, and civic engagement through their involvement (Sharpe, 2006).

Similar to public and for-profit organizations, the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations is contingent upon their organizational capacity (De Vita & Fleming, 2001). Organizational capacity refers to the ability of organizations to identify, access, and leverage resources to achieve stated goals and objectives (Paynter & Berner, 2014). Resources are characterized by external dimen- sions such as capital infrastructure and financial support, and internal dimensions such as strategic planning and volunteers (Misener & Doherty, 2009). Organizations with strong capacities are more likely to plan, implement, and sustain programs that achieve intended goals, while organizations with limited capacities are more likely to encounter difficulties operationalizing their plans

Collaborative Advantages 149

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

(Eisinger, 2002). Maintaining and building capacity is especially difficult in the nonprofit sector, as organiza- tions must find ways to continuously grow capacity amid increased competition and declining resources, all while remaining aligned with their established mission state- ments (Hawkins, 2014). Nonprofit organizations that stay bound within the rigid parameters of their mission statements may miss important opportunities to evolve, while those that continuously discard such parameters to increase capacity risk “mission drift,” a state described by Hawkins (2014) as “anchorless . . . where organizations grasp at passing financial straws and where unplanned outcomes retrospectively become reasons for existence” (p. 41).

Understanding how to build organizational capacity is especially critical for youth sport nonprofit organiza- tions. Reductions in government subsidies, external grants, and in-kind donations have left many youth sport nonprofit organizations struggling to financially support their operations (Balduck, Lucidarme, Marlier, & Willem, 2015; Wicker & Breuer, 2011). Moreover, declining vol- unteer rates have deprived many programs of the most important human resource needed to organize, manage, and implement their activities (Balduck, Van Rossem, & Buelens, 2010; Byers, 2013; Cuskelly, Taylor, Hoye, & Darcy, 2006). These issues are also exacerbated by the continuous growth of the commercial youth sport sector, which has increased competition over sport facilities and resources (Coakley, 2010). Indeed, many youth sport nonprofit organizations operate with limited resources and inadequate infrastructure that make it difficult for them to reach their goals (Misener & Doherty, 2013)

One strategy that can help alleviate these issues and contribute to organizational capacity-building is inter- organizational partnerships (Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Cousens, Barnes, Stevens, Mallen, & Bradish, 2006; Frisby, Thibault, & Kikulis, 2004; Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; Misener & Doherty, 2012, 2013). Babiak (2003) described partnerships as “voluntary, close, long-term planned strategic action between two or more organiza- tions with the objective of serving mutually beneficial purposes in a problem domain” (p. 6). When managed effectively, partnerships with funding agencies, govern- ment, for-profit businesses, and other nonprofit orga- nizations can be used to build organizational capacity (Casey, Payne, & Eime, 2009). In addition, interorgani- zational partnerships have been shown to contribute to positive program effects such as greater public exposure, increased social capital, and the development of a learning organization (Guo & Acar, 2005; Isett & Provan, 2005; Paarlberg & Varda, 2009).

However, partnerships are not always used effec- tively in the youth sport context (Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Frisby et al., 2004; Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Misener & Doherty, 2013; Sharpe, 2006). Community sport clubs represent one of the largest sectors of nonprofit organizations in North America (Misener & Doherty, 2009) and provide many youth with their first exposure to organized sport (Doherty et al., 2014), yet they often

struggle to establish effective partnerships. Even when partnerships do exist, research suggests that many are constrained by limited resources (Misener & Doherty, 2012), poor communication (Frisby et al., 2004), power imbalances (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010), and issues of trust (O’Boyle & Shilbury, 2016). Given many of these organi- zations draw on limited resources to run their programs, this lack of collaboration may significantly impact their ability to deliver consistent services.

Previous research has focused primarily on dyadic features of partnerships involving sport organizations (MacLean, Cousens, & Barnes, 2011). These studies have uncovered the unique challenges associated with forming and maintaining relations and elucidated how strategic partnerships may influence goal achievement (Frisby et al., 2004; MacLean et al., 2011; Misener & Doherty, 2013). However, there is currently a paucity of research on the structural features of whole networks, particularly those comprising youth sport nonprofit organizations (MacLean et al., 2011). This is a significant limitation, considering the organizational capacity of youth sport nonprofits is greatly influenced by their embeddedness within the broader system of interactions (Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, & Dowell, 2006).

The use of the word “network” as a methodologi- cal, theoretical, and even metaphorical concept has been widespread in organizational research and practice, leading to a wide array of definitions. Rather than trying to capture such complex phenomena with one singular definition, researchers typically discuss networks in terms of how they are being used in a particular context (Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007). Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the whole network structure of partner- ships among youth sport nonprofit organizations. We adopted Popp and colleagues’ (2014) broad definition of networks as “the structure of relationships between actors (e.g., organizations) and the meaning of the link- ages that constitute those relationships” (p. 19). This research contributes to the special issue by examining key structural features of a youth sport nonprofit network in the United States, and analyzing how such features influ- ence nonprofit sport management. The results contribute to a growing body of literature on both the efficient use of partnerships (e.g., Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Misener & Doherty, 2012, 2013) and collaborative approaches to sport management and governance (O’Boyle & Shilbury, 2016; Shilbury & Ferkins, 2015).

Interorganizational Partnerships Interorganizational partnerships have become an integral part of building organizational capacity in nonprofit orga- nizations, particularly those in social and public service industries (Chaskin, 2001; Guo & Acar, 2005). Nonprofit organizations were traditionally organized by rigid hierar- chical management structures that emphasized unilateral communication, rapid production, and efficiency (Raab & Kenis, 2009). However, globalization and emerging technologies have led many nonprofit organizations to

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

150 Jones et al.

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

use partnerships that promote bilateral communication as well as collaborative inter- and intraorganizational networks. These flexible and dynamic management structures are thought to help nonprofit organizations adapt to the changing demands of their constituents (Raab, Mannak, & Cambré, 2015). They are also thought to provide greater access to embedded resource systems (Salamon, 2002) and promote more effective solutions to complex social problems (Head & Alford, 2015).

Resource dependence theory (RDT) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) and transactional cost economics (TCE) (Williamson, 1991) represent the two most prominent theoretical frameworks used to understand partnerships in the nonprofit sector. RDT emphasizes the influence of external environments and resources on organizational action (Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1987). With a founda- tion in theories of power-dependence (Emerson, 1962), RDT posits that organizations that control resources have power over organizations that need resources (Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009). Organizations gain control over resources by acquiring them directly or positioning themselves in a way that minimizes their dependence on other organizations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Alter- natively, organizations can bridge the structural gaps between organizations and key resources, thus maxi- mizing the dependence of other organizations on them (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Because the social, economic, and political contexts in which organizations operate are highly dynamic, this positioning often results in new and more complicated patterns of interdependence (Hillman et al., 2009). As a result, resource dependence is generally understood as a function of both the availability and dis- tribution of resources, and the interdependency between organizations (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005).

From this perspective, interorganizational partner- ships provide opportunities for organizations to acquire resources that might otherwise elude them when oper- ating independently (Hillman et al., 2009). Organiza- tions can combine complementary resources to create additional benefits that are shared between partnering organizations (Adegbesan & Higgins, 2011; Gulati, 1998; Malatesta & Smith, 2014), or collaborate to “co- create” social, economic, or political value that may be collectively leveraged (Austin, 2010; Austin & Seitanidi, 2012). These interorganizational partnerships grow the potential pool of resources and help nonprofit organiza- tions stabilize the environments in which they operate (Guo & Acar, 2005). They can also reduce competition between organizations and help them gain more power over resource providers (Adegbesan & Higgins, 2011; Hillman et al., 2009). This is especially important for youth sport nonprofit organizations, given competition over fixed commodities (e.g., fields, pools, courts, equip- ment) is known to dramatically increase costs (Gazley & Brudney, 2007). Interorganizational partnerships can help alleviate this issue by creating a broad consensus on network-level goals for sport organizations, and helping sport managers work together to acquire resources rather than compete over them (Provan & Kenis, 2008).

TCE augments this perspective by focusing on the costs associated with turning resources into products or services. TCE has been used to understand how organiza- tions minimize the comprehensive costs associated with production and transaction (Williamson, 1991). These include direct costs such as the acquisition of facilities, payments to staff, or equipment purchases, and indirect costs such as the expenses associated with planning, implementing, and monitoring activities (Williamson, 1985). Costs can vary given the size of an organiza- tion, the competencies and experience of managers, and locational advantages (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). According to TCE principles, the proclivity of organiza- tions to demonstrate opportunistic behavior, characterized by self-interested action lacking candor or honesty, is thought to increase transaction costs within market set- tings (Williamson, 1975, 1985). For example, competing organizations that withhold strategic information and attempt to seize excess benefits from transactions ulti- mately reduce the level of trust involved in negotiations (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). This discord impinges future interactions and increases transaction costs by compelling managers to internalize production compo- nents that would otherwise be produced more efficiently through partnerships (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). According to Williamson (1975, 1985), the inefficiencies perpetuated by this process can lead to market failure when independent transaction costs become prohibitive for production.

Interorganizational partnerships expand managers’ decisions to produce or purchase by adding the option to partner (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). Partnerships have distinctive characteristics that help mitigate the transaction costs found in many market systems (Jarillo, 1988). Partnerships allow organizations to share large production costs that could not be financed independently (Harrigan, 1988); they also create ownership incentives that minimize opportunistic behavior by creating a joint interest in shared resources (Barringer & Harrison, 2000; Jarillo, 1988). Moreover, continuous successful interactions between organizations can lead to greater feelings of trust and reciprocity between partners which can foster more integrated management systems (Ansell & Gash, 2008; O’Boyle & Shilbury, 2016; Robertson & Choi, 2012). These systems of collaborative governance not only contribute to more efficient network exchanges, but also strengthen relations and discourage organiza- tions from leaving the network to engage in self-serving opportunistic behavior (Barringer & Harrison, 2000; Maitland, Bryson, & Van De Ven, 1985).

Interorganizational Partnerships in Sport

Previous research on interorganizational partnerships involving youth sport nonprofits has revealed numer- ous potential benefits. For example, Thibault and col- leagues (1999) found that partnerships helped public, nonprofit, and for-profit sport and leisure organizations share human, financial, and infrastructural (e.g., land,

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

Collaborative Advantages 151

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

facilities) resources that reduced costs and created service efficiencies. Similarly, Casey, Payne, and Eime (2009) found that cross-sector partnerships helped sport and recreation organizations gain access to equipment, venues, and transportation infrastructure. Though the development of tangible capacities characterizes much of the research in this area (Misener & Doherty, 2013), several studies have also highlighted potential strategic and social benefits. Partnerships have been shown to help nonprofit sport organizations increase their visibility and legitimacy within communities (Babiak, 2003; Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010), build social capital (Misener & Doherty, 2012; Sharpe, 2006), and promote community leadership (Allison, 2001; Vail; 2007).

However, despite the potential advantages of partner- ships for sport organizations, previous research suggests many organizations fail to realize these benefits. For example, in a national sample of sport clubs in Scotland, Allison (2001) found that only one-fourth of sport clubs had partnerships with schools or other community orga- nizations, and less than one-fifth had partnerships with for-profit organizations. In the Canadian context, Babiak and Thibault (2009) uncovered unique challenges associ- ated with managing partnerships across public, nonprofit, and commercial sectors, and Misener and Doherty (2013) found that relationships and networks were especially sparse among smaller sport nonprofits. From a RDT perspective, these constraints may be limiting the abil- ity of youth sport nonprofits to access a broader pool of resources. From a TCE perspective, it may be creating additional production costs that could otherwise be allevi- ated through strategic partnerships. This is particularly salient from a management perspective, as administrators may be unnecessarily juggling operational duties that could otherwise be shared or outsourced, which limits their time to focus on strategic planning and longer term goals. It should also be noted that without a strong base of community partners, many youth sport nonprofit orga- nizations may be struggling to demonstrate the network capacity now sought by funders (Lee & Nowell, 2015).

Many of these limitations may be attributed to the inherent difficulty associated with building and maintain- ing partnerships (e.g., Gazley & Brudney, 2007; Selsky & Parker, 2005). Indeed, partnerships do not automati- cally build organizational capacity and can actually have detrimental effects when mismanaged (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Yet previous research has highlighted key dyadic limitations that are especially acute in partner- ships involving youth sport nonprofits, such as mutual trust (Babiak & Thibault, 2009), shared values (Shaw & Allen, 2006), and available social capital (Doherty et al., 2014). For example, mutual trust develops when partners continuously fulfill obligations and maintain consistent interactions, which require important capacities such as collaborative leadership and formalized governance structures (Brinkerhoff, 2002). Since many youth sport nonprofit organizations do not possess these capacities, their partnerships are often disorganized, undermanaged, and unsuccessful at establishing trust (Babiak & Thibault,

2009; Frisby et al., 2004). Similarly, key philosophical and programmatic differences between “sport develop- ment” organizations, which prioritize elite performance and competition, and “sport-for-development” orga- nizations, which direct sport toward more social and health-related goals, have been known to create value discrepancies that hinder effective partnerships (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010). These tensions prohibit agreement over the overarching purpose of partnering organizations and the value they intend to create for stakeholders, and limit opportunities for effective partnerships (Austin, 2010; Frumkin & Andre-Clark, 2000).

Power and dependence is another key dyadic feature often studied in partnerships involving youth sport non- profit organizations (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010; MacLean et al., 2011). Although partnerships can increase access to resources, they also entail a loss of operating autonomy that must be balanced and negotiated during the formative stages of a partnership (Guo & Acar, 2005). Due to their limited financial and infrastructural capacities, the value proposition offered by many youth sport nonprofit orga- nizations is limited. From a RDT perspective, this allows potential partners to negotiate from a position of power, as they control critical resources and have substitutable partners to drive up competition (Austin, 2010; Gazley & Brudney, 2007). As market-based economics continue to permeate public and social service industries, these issues are becoming increasingly salient for nonprofit organizations (Isett et al., 2011; Salamon, 2002). This is especially true for youth sport nonprofit organizations, which typically do not own critical infrastructure and are becoming increasingly reliant on external sources of funding (Balduck et al., 2015; Wicker & Breuer, 2013). Indeed, power imbalances are common in many partnerships involving youth sport nonprofit organiza- tions, resulting in a loss of autonomy that can perpetuate mission drift (Allison, 2001; Coalter, 2010; Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010).

Although many of these studies are informed by prin- ciples of network theories, empirical analysis has focused primarily on the dyadic features of interorganizational partnerships. Even studies examining broader networks have analyzed a relatively small number of organiza- tions within a specific sport category (e.g., MacLean et al., 2011). However, an organization’s position within a network, along with the configuration of the network itself, can dramatically shape the formation and efficacy of dyadic relations (Cook & Emerson, 1984; Galaskie- wicz, 1985; Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, & Dowell, 2006; Galaskiewicz & Krohn, 1984). While this influence has been recognized in the broader literature (e.g., Marsh & Rhodes, 1992; Marsh & Smith, 2000), empirically investigations have proven difficult. For example, Lind- sey (2006) used Marsh and Rhodes’s (1992) framework to qualitatively assess the policy network evolving from a national physical education and sport program in the United Kingdom. In summarizing his insightful findings, Lindsey (2006) emphasized the need for more detailed examinations of network structure and specifically

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

152 Jones et al.

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

indicated how studies of network interaction “would benefit from the use of alternative research methods” (p. 182). Although the literature informing our study primar- ily emanates from management rather than policy disci- plines, the utilization of social network analysis (SNA) represents an alternative method of studying network structure that complements the existing body of literature.

Specifically, this study contributes to the special issue by examining how within-sector partnerships were used to build organizational capacity among youth sport non- profit organizations. The study draws on SNA to analyze the partnerships between youth sport nonprofits in one American municipality and focuses on key dimensions of connectivity and cohesion at the whole network level. This topic contributes to the special issue by analyzing how these structural features may facilitate or constrain interactions with broader industry sectors, and provides an indication of how youth sport nonprofit organizations have used collaborative management strategies. In addi- tion to presenting and examining the implications of the results, the paper contributes to the growing discussion on collaborative governance strategies in sport management (O’Boyle & Shilbury, 2016; Shilbury & Ferkins, 2015). In particular, “broker” organizations are discussed as a potentially useful strategy to help youth sport nonprofits use partnerships more effectively.

Method In the organizational literature, a distinction is typically made between formal partnerships and informal “seren- dipitous” networks that form opportunistically (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003). This study used Babiak’s (2003, p. 6) criteria to focus specifically on formal partnerships characterized as close, long-term, and planned strategic action between organizations with the objective of mutually beneficial outcomes.

Boundary Specification and Study Setting The issue of boundary specification is integral to net- work analysis, as it determines which organizations will be included in the study. Because there were no formal structures bounding youth sport nonprofit organizations together within the study setting, a nominalist approach was used for this study (Laumann, Marsden, & Prensky, 1983). Nominalist boundaries are defined by identify- ing organizations that may interact with one another to achieve a common purpose and/or establishing defini- tional foci to delineate actors that share some attribute or characteristic (Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007). Both aspects were used to establish three criteria that delineated the network boundary. First, the boundary was defined geographically to only include nonprofit organizations registered within the municipality of a large city in the Southeastern United States. The municipality has a population of almost 500,000 people, with over one-fifth under the age of 18. Residents were primarily White (61.3%), Black (27.2%), or Hispanic/Latino (12%), and

the median household income was $53,654. According to ReferencesUSA, 54 organizations in this municipality were registered as Fitness and Recreational Sports Cen- ters under the North American Industry Classification System Code 71394011, which provides an indicator of for-profit investment in sport and recreation services. In terms of public investment, the municipality’s parks and recreation department operated over 9,000 acres of parkland with numerous courts, gymnasiums, and pools, and had an annual operating budget of over $50 million.

Nonprofit organizations in this municipality were identified using GuideStar, an information service spe- cializing in reporting on U.S. nonprofit organizations. The first geographical criterion produced an initial pool of 3,708 nonprofit organizations. The second criterion retained organizations if they were registered in one of four GuideStar categories: (1) Recreation, Sports, Lei- sure, Athletics (Code: N); (2) Youth Development (Code: O); (3) Human Services (Code: P); and (4) Community Improvement, Capacity Building (Code: S). This nar- rowed the pool to 458 organizations. Finally, organiza- tions were screened using an iterative process that evalu- ated the name, mission statement, and objectives of each organization to determine if they met three definitional criteria: (1) focused on promoting youth development, (2) served youth under the age of 18, and (3) used sport as a primary program component. This resulted in a final sampling frame of 36 organizations.

Data Collection

Contact information for these organizations was retrieved from their website and GuideStar accounts. Representatives from each organization were contacted via e-mail and/or phone to introduce the study and ask for an appropriate contact person in management or administration. This resulted in successful contacts with representatives from 32 of the 36 youth sport nonprofit organizations in the municipality of interest (response rate = 89%). Face-to-face structured interviews were requested with all 32 responding organizations, and phone interviews were used when face-to-face inter- views could not be facilitated. Structured interviews have been highlighted as the most effective means of collecting network data because they allow researchers to establish a rapport with respondents and ask prob- ing questions that improve respondent recall (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013).

Network data were collected through both open- and closed-ended questions. Open-ended questions were used to elicit partnerships with other organizations. Respondents were given a roster of all 36 youth sport nonprofit organizations in the municipality to reduce the likelihood of recall error and selection bias (Borgatti et al., 2013). Partnerships were classified based on their contribution to one or more measures of organizational capacity (Hall et al., 2003). These capacity measures included (1) human resource capacities, (2) financial capacities, (3) infrastructure capacities, and (4) strategic

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

Collaborative Advantages 153

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

planning capacities. A list of potential resources and capacities was provided to typify each dimension and further categorize the partnership. For example, the question related to financial capacities solicited partner- ships related to (1) funding (i.e., grants, sponsorships, donations, dues); (2) fundraising strategies and activities (i.e., fundraising events, grant writing strategies, cowrit- ing grants); and/or (3) information regarding potential funding sources (i.e., request for proposals, potential donors, potential sponsors). For each capacity dimen- sion, respondents were asked the question, “Which organizations do you send or receive one or more of the following resources with?” Respondents were then asked to indicate the direction of the partnership using three categorical answer choices: (1) Send, (2) Receive, or (3) Send and Receive.

Analysis Data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2013 in edge array format, then imported into UCINET 6 for analy- sis. The structural features of the youth sport nonprofit network were assessed using measures of density, frag- mentation, distance, reciprocity, centrality, transitivity, and efficiency. Density and fragmentation collectively assess the connectivity between organizations, and dis- tance provides an indication of network configuration. Dyad reciprocity provides an indication of the direction of exchanges and calculates the proportion of ties that were reciprocated by alters in the network. Measures of degree and betweenness centrality identify key actors in the network. Degree centrality assesses the number of ties that a particular node sends and receives, and betweenness centrality assesses how many times the “shortest path” between pairs in a network pass through a particular actor. A triad census was used to measure network closure. The census analyzes the structure of all possible triads (i.e., group of three actors) within a network to determine how often the ties between three actors are intransitive (i.e., at least one pair disconnected) or transitive (i.e., all pairs connected). Finally, efficiency calculates the number of ties that are locally redundant and provides an indication of how many actors share similar alters in the network.

To assess the association between partnerships involving different dimensions of capacity, a quadratic assignment procedure (QAP) correlation was used. This method calculates the observed Pearson correlation coefficient between corresponding cells of relational matrices, then randomly permutes the rows and columns of one matrix and recalculates the correlation measures. This process is repeated through a large number of iterations to compute the proportion of times that a measure from a random model is larger than or equal to the measure in the observed model. The measure can be interpreted as a Pearson correlation coefficient, and a low proportion (p < .05) indicates the relationship between the matrices was unlikely to have occurred by chance.

Results

Ties represent directional partnerships between organi- zations related to a specific dimension of capacity. For example, if organization “i” sends a capacity dimension to organization “j” (i.e., paid staff and volunteers), that rep- resents 1 tie. If organization “j” reciprocates by sending a capacity dimension to organization “i” (i.e., funding), that represents 2 ties. Among the network of 32 youth sport nonprofit organizations, there were 6 ties related to human resource capacities, 5 ties related to financial capacities, 8 ties related to infrastructural capacities, and 11 ties related to strategic capacities. Table 1 provides measures of cohesiveness for each of these dimensions, as well as the aggregated overall network.

The total network density of 0.024 indicates that only 2.4% of the total possible ties were used within the overall network. In fact, 19 of the 32 organiza- tions interviewed as part of this study were “isolates,” indicating they operated independently of other youth sport nonprofit organizations in the network. This lack of connectivity is further confirmed by the fragmenta- tion ratio of 0.886, which indicates that 88.6% of the possible pairs of organizations in the network did not reach each other. Interestingly, while dyad reciprocity measures for the human resource, financial, and infra- structural dimensions indicated that less than one-fifth of

Table 1 Cohesiveness Measure for Each Capacity Dimension

Measure

Capacity dimension

Human resource Financial Infrastructural Strategic Total

Average degree .188 .156 .250 .344 .750

Density .006 .005 .008 .011 .024

Fragmentation ratio .989 .994 .986 .989 .886

Average distance 1.455 1.167 1.500 1.00 2.513

Dyad reciprocity .200 .250 .143 .833 .714

Note. See in-text interpretation for description of measures.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

154 Jones et al.

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

dyadic ties were reciprocated within these networks, this measure was much higher for the strategic and overall networks (.833 and .714, respectively). This indicates that 83.3% of partnerships involving strategic capacities were reciprocated with strategic capacities and suggests partnerships involving other dimensions of capacity were mainly reciprocated through complementary capacities (i.e., financial capacities in exchange for infrastructural capacities). The average degree of the network was 0.750, indicating that on average, youth sport nonprofit organizations in this network had less than 1 tie with other youth sport nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the average distance of the network was 2.51, indicating that on average, youth sport nonprofit organizations that were connected within the network were separated by between 2 and 3 paths (e.g., partnerships).

Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the youth sport nonprofit network. Nodes are plotted using a spring embedding technique that locates them based on their geodesic proximity and path length similarity. The size of each node is determined by its total number of ties, and the nodes are labeled with unique ID numbers.

As shown in the graph, node 32 occupied a central role within the network, with a normalized in- and out- degree centrality of 0.194 and 0.129, respectively. This indicates that node 32 sent 19.4% of all possible ties and received 12.9% of all possible ties within the network. In addition, node 32 had a normalized betweenness central- ity score of 0.083, meaning 8.3% of all possible geodesic

(shortest) paths in the network passed through this node. This indicates that node 32 has considerable influence on the transfer and exchange of capacities throughout the network. Nodes 10 (3.4%), 7 (3.0%), and 1 (2.7%) also occupied central roles in this respect. In terms of balance, the triad census uncovered only two instances of transitive triads (i.e., all three actors connected), which represented only .04% of the total census. This indicates a lack of closure among youth sport nonprofit organizations, sug- gesting the network is susceptible to power and hierarchy imbalances. Altogether, 92% of the potential triads in the network were empty and 7.9% were intransitive.

The limited dyadic redundancy also highlights the presence of structural holes within the network. The average efficiency measure for organizations in this network was 0.865, which indicates that for each noniso- lated organization, an average of 86.5% of partnerships were with organizations that did not share similar ties. This indicates that youth sport nonprofit organizations used their ties efficiently within the network, but it also means the network was vulnerable to fragmentation. For example, node 32 had almost twice the effective size (5.8) of any other node, and a very high efficiency (0.967). If this organization were deleted from the network, it would create another isolated organization (Node 9) and four fragmented sets of partnerships. This is referred to as the “Key Player Problem/Negative” (Borgatti, 2006, p. 22), as the deletion of one node dramatically disrupts the cohesiveness of the remaining network.

Figure 1 — Youth sport nonprofit network.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

Collaborative Advantages 155

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

Table 2 displays the results of the QAP correla- tion. Compared with the other associations, there was a very weak relationship between financial partnerships and partnerships based on other capacity dimensions. There was no significant association between financial partnerships and infrastructural or strategic partnerships, and a relatively weak positive association between financial partnerships and human resource partnerships (r = .178, p < .05). This finding indicates youth sport nonprofit organizations that engaged in partnerships related to financial capacities were slightly more likely to engage in human resource partnerships as well, and vice versa. There were stronger associations between partnerships related to other dimensions of capacity. There was a significant positive correlation between strategic partnerships and human resource partnerships (r = .240, p < .05), and strategic partnerships and infra- structural partnerships (r = .206, p < .01). This finding indicates youth sport nonprofit organizations that shared partnerships based on strategic capacities were slightly more likely to engage in partnerships related to human resource and infrastructural capacities, and vice versa. The strongest significant association was between infra- structural partnerships and human resource partnerships (r = .284, p < .001), indicating youth sport nonprofit organizations that were engaged in partnerships related to infrastructural capacities also tended to engage in partnerships related to human resource capacities, and vice versa.

Discussion These results indicate that the network of youth sport nonprofit organizations in the municipality of interest was fragmented and characterized by a low level of cohesive- ness. Over half of the organizations reported no partner- ships with other youth sport nonprofit organizations, and less than 3% of the total possible partnerships were used within the network. Though the connections among youth sport nonprofit organizations were efficient, the network itself was unbalanced and characterized by numerous structural holes. One organization (ID: 32) represented what Borgatti (2006) would characterize as a negative key player and bridged a significant structural hole within the network. If this organization was removed or decided to

discontinue partnerships with other youth sport nonprofit organizations, the network would fragment even further.

This low level of cohesiveness may be attributable to the competitive rather than collaborative atmosphere among youth sport nonprofit organizations. Reductions in public funding and in-kind donations have forced youth sport nonprofits to rely more on government grants, sponsorships, and service fees to fund their programs (Balduck et al., 2010, 2015; Wicker & Breuer, 2011). In addition, the continued commercialization of youth sport in the United States has increased competition with for-profit organizations over the facilities and equipment necessary to operate programs (Coakley, 2010). When facing these sorts of environmental challenges, it is common for nonprofit organizations to respond by dif- ferentiating themselves from other actors in an attempt to convince providers they deserve resources (Barman, 2002; Chetkovich & Frumkin, 2003). This competition is especially intense between organizations that provide similar services, such as youth sport nonprofit organiza- tions, since they have similar directives and often compete over the same potential sponsors, facilities, and resources (Schiff & Weisbrod, 1991). In addition, with membership fees becoming an increasingly important aspect of rev- enue generation for youth sport nonprofits, competition over participants has increased as well (MacLean et al., 2011). These environmental conditions may be creating competition that perpetuates opportunistic rather than collaborative behavior (Williamson, 1985).

It is also important to consider that youth sport nonprofit organizations may simply be unaware of other actors in the network. During the interview process, it became apparent that many administrators did not know about other youth sport nonprofit organizations in the municipality. Even when the complete roster was pre- sented, interviewees mentioned that it was their first time hearing of most other youth sport nonprofit organizations. This aligns with previous studies suggesting many com- munity organizations are not aware of other prospective partners (Galaskiewicz, 1985). With many youth sport nonprofits operated by volunteers who focus primarily on day-to-day operations, administrators have limited time to familiarize themselves with the broader market in which they operate. Rather than cognitively choosing whom to pursue partnerships with based on resource compatibility

Table 2 Quadratic Assignment Procedure Correlation Matrix of Partnerships

Capacity dimension Human resource Financial Infrastructural Strategic

Human resource —

Financial .178* —

Infrastructural .284** –.006 —

Strategic .240* –.008 .206** —

Note. Measures represent Pearson correlation coefficients.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

156 Jones et al.

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

or value similarities, youth sport nonprofits may simply be operating on what they know. This not only narrows the potential number of partnerships, but also leads to suboptimal decisions that reduce the efficiency of existing partnerships (Galaskiewicz, 1985).

This limited connectivity between youth sport non- profit organizations at the network level influences the negotiation, formation, and management of partnerships at the dyadic level. Since most youth sport nonprofits lack the organizational capacity to offer substantial trade value in partnerships on their own, they often struggle to build the value propositions sought by external partners (Misener & Doherty, 2014). Based on Burt’s (1992) theory of structural holes, this leverage deteriorates even more due to a lack of network cohesion, which allows external actors to bridge the gaps between disconnected youth sport nonprofits. By negotiating with each organi- zation independently, external actors nullify the potential collaborative advantages that could have be gained by “co-creating” value through partnerships (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012). While this may not be an issue for the limited number of large youth sport nonprofits that are able to establish sufficient leverage on their own, it exac- erbates issues of power and dependence for the majority of smaller youth sport nonprofits that are unable to do so. Indeed, previous research has indicated partnerships involving smaller youth sport nonprofit organizations are especially vulnerable to issues of trust, power imbalances, and other inefficiencies (Misener & Doherty, 2013).

This highlights the potential utility of stronger and more formalized partnerships between youth sport non- profits. While the benefits of cross- and multisectoral partnerships are undoubtedly salient (Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Misener & Doherty, 2013), within-sector collabora- tions may prove even more useful and practical for youth sport nonprofits, particularly smaller organizations. Based on the principles of RDT, partnerships between youth sport nonprofits would expand and diversify their col- lective pool of resources. This would not only increase the accessibility of key resources, but also reduce their dependence on external actors for access. Moreover, formalized partnerships between youth sport nonprofits could help “co-create” collective political, economic, and social value that could be deployed in negotiations with external actors. This would improve the joint value proposition of youth sport nonprofits in cross-sector or cross-industry negotiations and help alleviate issues of trust, power, and dependence that typically develop during the formative stages of partnerships. From a TCE perspective, within-sector partnerships may also provide the most effective means of reducing transaction costs, since many youth sport nonprofits have similar operational processes that could be shared or combined. Considering the aforementioned trends in market-based social policies, and the growing reliance on nonprofit organizations to deliver youth sport opportunities, under- standing how to efficiently use partnerships is likely to become increasingly important for contemporary youth sport nonprofit managers.

Before concluding with a discussion of one network structure that could help facilitate more effective partner- ships between youth sport nonprofits, the limitations of this study must be acknowledged. First, the boundary specified for this study excluded organizations registered outside the municipality of interest. Although organiza- tions located within close proximity to this boundary may have influenced the relations observed in this study, they were not included. Second, this study only analyzed partnerships between youth sport nonprofit organiza- tions, yet connections with external organizations may have influenced the formation and configuration of these partnerships. Third, 4 of the 36 organizations in the network could not be reached, so analysis is based on incomplete network data. However, Wasserman and Faust (1995) indicate a response rate over 75% drasti- cally limits the impact of missing data on whole network analysis, and the response rate for this study significantly exceeded that threshold. In addition, the 4 organizations that could not be reached were not nominated by any of the 32 participating organizations, indicating their influ- ence on the network was likely marginal. Fourth, youth sport nonprofits comprise a range of developmental, recreational, and competitively focused organizations that ascribe different values to sport (Coalter, 2010), yet these differences were not accounted for in the current study. Although the network boundary reflected a specific focus on organizations that promote sport-based youth development, there may have been philosophical differ- ences between organizations that inhibited partnerships. Finally, the boundary defined for this particular network was confined within a single municipality, which raises issues related to the generalizability and transferability to other contexts. However, the results elucidate features of partnerships that may be applicable to other environmen- tal and organizational contexts as well, and the potential implications of these features to managers of youth sport nonprofit organizations are equally salient.

Conclusion Building, managing, and maintaining interorganizational partnerships is becoming an increasingly important com- ponent of nonprofit management. When used effectively, partnerships can help nonprofit organizations gain access to resources, reduce transaction costs, and build organi- zational capacity. Yet they are currently underutilized by many youth sport nonprofit organizations, and even those utilizing partnerships often report difficulties managing and sustaining them. Previous research has focused on key features of dyadic relations, such as communica- tion, trust, and mutual values, which collectively impact partner relations. In addition, characteristics of the actors themselves, such as organizational capacities, have also been highlighted as important factors influencing effec- tive partnerships. This study contributes to the current literature by analyzing the structural characteristics of a youth sport nonprofit network. Most notably, the results indicate a lack of cohesiveness among youth

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

Collaborative Advantages 157

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

sport nonprofits may be creating structural disadvantages that limit the potential effectiveness of partnerships, particularly for smaller organizations. Improving the cohesiveness and structure of the whole network could help alleviate key dyadic issues currently inhibiting partnership formation and effectiveness.

However, it must be noted that building and main- taining effective partnerships is extremely difficult for managers and administrators of these organizations. The unstable resource and funding environment in which many youth sport nonprofit organizations operate creates intense competition between actors. Although building denser networks of interorganizational partnerships can help reduce competition by establishing shared norms, expectations, and mutual trust (Coleman, 1988), these types of strategies are generally more effective in indus- tries with stable resource environments (Brass, Galaskie- wicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004). Moreover, dense networks characterized by locally redundant ties do not necessarily provide the best return on investment for organizations, as they provide little access to new information and resources (Granovetter, 1985). This is especially impor- tant for youth sport nonprofit organizations, as many do not have the capacity necessary to build and sustain many partnerships. Indeed, managers and administrators of most youth sport nonprofit organizations must focus on maintaining day-to-day operations and do not have the available time or resources necessary to strategi- cally scan the market for potential partners. To truly be effective, youth sport nonprofit organizations need to formalize network structures in a way that allows them to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of partner- ships simultaneously.

One network approach that would help achieve this objective is the introduction of a third-party intermediary to occupy the structural hole between youth sport non- profit organizations (Obstfeld, 2005). Previous research on structural holes has focused primarily on exploi- tive entrepreneurial actors who occupy what Simmel (1950) described as “tertius gaudens” (the third who enjoys) roles. Yet structural holes can also be bridged by “tertius iungens” (the third who unites) actors who leverage their social position to unify surrounding actors, mediate relations, and improve coordination (Obstfeld, 2005). These actors are more commonly referred to as “brokers” and help facilitate the transference of informa- tion and resources between actors in a network (Kirkels & Duysters, 2010). Youth sport nonprofit organizations could benefit tremendously from the integration of a broker, as they could bridge the structural holes between them, provide information on the broader network, and offer support in negotiations with external actors. They are also conducive to facilitating cooperative activities across multiple organizations (Human & Provan, 2000), which would help youth sport nonprofit organizations reduce transaction costs and develop more integrated activities to promote developmental outcomes (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011). Most importantly, brokers facilitate the type of “weak ties” between youth sport nonprofits

that provide access to multiple connections without the costs of maintaining them directly (Granovetter, 1985). In fact, this efficiency has made them popular in net- works of small and medium sized organizations in other industries, which would otherwise not have the resources to manage multiple partnerships themselves (Kirkels & Duysters, 2010).

While “broker-like” organizations are evident in other sport contexts, such as sport councils in Europe and Canada (McDonald, 2005; Misener & Doherty, 2012), they are not as prominent in the United States. More research is needed to understand the potential role of these organizations in the American sport context, and how they may influence the effectiveness and efficiency of partnerships involving youth sport nonprofits. While previous research has elucidated the unique opportuni- ties and challenges associated with integrating brokers into other American industries (Bryan & Brown, 2015; Gazley, 2010; Gazley & Brudney, 2007; Lavie & Rosen- kopf, 2006), there has been limited attention to the poten- tial of this structure in the sport context. Similarly, while studies of collaborative governance in other contexts has uncovered key managerial needs for success (e.g., leadership and trust in national and state sport systems) (O’Boyle & Shilbury, 2016; Shilbury & Ferkins, 2015), more work is needed to understand how these concepts may be applied in the American sport context, with its unique cultural, political, and economic conditions. Considering the growing importance of within-sector collaborations to nonprofit organizations (Guo & Acar, 2005) and the increasing reliance on nonprofit organiza- tions to provide youth sport opportunities, brokers could play an important role in the management of youth sport nonprofit organizations in the United States.

References

Adegbesan, J.A., & Higgins, M.J. (2011). The intra-alliance division of value created through collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 187–211. doi:10.1002/smj.872

Allison, M. (2001). Sports clubs in Scotland. Edinburgh, UK: SportScotland.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 18, 543–571. doi:10.1093/jopart/ mum032

Austin, J.E. (2010). From organization to organization: On creating value. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(Suppl. 1), 13–15. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0787-z

Austin, J.E., & Seitanidi, M.M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between non-profits and businesses: I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758. doi:10.1177/0899764012450777

Babiak, K. (2003). Examining partnerships in amateur sport: The case of a Canadian national sport centre (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

158 Jones et al.

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2009). Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 117–143. doi:10.1177/0899764008316054

Balduck, A.L., Lucidarme, S., Marlier, M., & Willem, A. (2015). Organizational capacity and organizational ambition in non-profit and voluntary sports clubs. Voluntas, 26, 2023–2043. doi:10.1007/s11266-014-9502-x

Balduck, A., Van Rossem, A., & Buelens, M. (2010). Identifying competencies of volunteer board members of community sports clubs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 213–235. doi:10.1177/0899764009334306

Barman, E.A. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of non-profit organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80(4), 1191–1222. doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0020

Barringer, B.R., & Harrison, J.S. (2000). Walking a tight- rope: Creating value through interorganizational rela- tionships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403. doi:10.1177/014920630002600302

Borgatti, S.P. (2006). Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(1), 21–34. doi:10.1007/s10588-006-7084-x

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Johnson, J.C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London, UK: Sage.

Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817. doi:10.2307/20159624

Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2002). Government-non-profit partnership: A defining framework. Public Administration and Develop- ment, 22, 19–30. doi:10.1002/pad.203

Bryan, T.K., & Brown, C.H. (2015). The individual, group, organizational, and community outcomes of capacity- building programs in human service non-profit organiza- tions: Implications for theory and practice. Human Service Organizations, Management, Leadership & Governance, 39, 426–443. doi:10.1080/23303131.2015.1063555

Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Byers, T. (2013). Using critical realism: A new perspective on control of volunteers in sport clubs. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13(1), 5–31. doi:10.1080/16184 742.2012.744765

Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M.J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167–199.

Casey, M., Payne, W., & Eime, R. (2009). Partnership and capacity-building strategies in community sports and recreation programs. Managing Leisure, 14, 167–176. doi:10.1080/13606710902944938

Chaskin, R.J. (2001). Building community capacity. Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291–323. doi:10.1177/10780870122184876

Chetkovich, C., & Frumkin, P. (2003). Balancing margin and mission: Non-profit competition in charitable versus fee-based programs. Administration & Society, 35(5), 564–596. doi:10.1177/0095399703256162

Coakley, J. (2010). The “logic” of specialization. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(8), 16–25. doi:10.1080/07303084.2010.10598520

Coalter, F. (2010). The politics of sport-for-development. Limited focus programmes and broad gauge problems? Interna- tional Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45, 295–314. doi:10.1177/1012690210366791

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95– S120. doi:10.1086/228943

Cook, K.S., & Emerson, R.M. (1984). Exchange networks and the analysis of complex organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 3, 1–30.

Cousens, L., Barnes, M., Stevens, J., Mallen, C., & Bradish, C. (2006). “Who’s your partner? Who’s your ally?” Exploring the characteristics of public, private, and voluntary recre- ation linkages. Journal of Park and Recreation Administra- tion, 24, 32–55.

Cuskelly, G., Taylor, T., Hoye, R., & Darcy, S. (2006). Volunteer management practices and volunteer retentions: A human resource management approach. Sport Management Review, 9, 141–163. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(06)70023-7

De Vita, C.J., & Fleming, C. (2001). Building capacity in non- profit organizations. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Doherty, A., Misener, K., & Cuskelly, G. (2014). Toward a mul- tidimensional framework of capacity in community sport clubs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2S), 124S–142S. doi:10.1177/0899764013509892

Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 115–130. doi:10.1177/0899764002311005

Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41. doi:10.2307/2089716

Frisby, W., Thibault, L., & Kikulis, L. (2004). The organiza- tional dynamics of under-managed partnerships in lei- sure service departments. Leisure Studies, 23, 109–126. doi:10.1080/0261436042000224482

Frumkin, P., & Andre-Clark, A. (2000). When missions, markets, and politics collide: Values and strategy in the non-profit human services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(Suppl. 1), 141–163. doi:10.1177/0899764000291S007

Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Social organization of an urban grants economy. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Dowell, M. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based non-profits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 337–380.

Galaskiewicz, J., & Krohn, K.R. (1984). Positions, roles, and dependencies in a community interorganizational system. The Sociological Quarterly, 25, 527–550. doi:10.1111/ j.1533-8525.1984.tb00208.x

Gazley, B. (2010). Why not partner with local government? Non- profit managerial perceptions of collaborative disadvantage. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 51–76. doi:10.1177/0899764008327196

Gazley, B., & Brudney, J.L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-non-profit partnership. Non- profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389–415. doi:10.1177/0899764006295997

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: A theory of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510. doi:10.1086/228311

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

Collaborative Advantages 159

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Manage- ment Journal, 19, 293–317. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097- 0266(199804)19:4<293::AID-SMJ982>3.0.CO;2-M

Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among non-profit organizations: Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340–361. doi:10.1177/0899764005275411

Hall, M.H., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., Brock, K., de Wit, M., & Embuldeniya, D. (2003). The capacity to serve: A qualita- tive study of the challenges facing Canada’s non-profit and voluntary organizations. Toronto, ON: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

Harrigan, K.R. (1988). Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 141–158. doi:10.1002/ smj.4250090205

Hartmann, D., & Kwauk, C. (2011). Sport and develop- ment: An overview, critique, and reconstruction. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(3), 284–305. doi:10.1177/0193723511416986

Hawkins, P.H. (2014). Diversity for non-profits: Mission drift or mission fulfillment? Journal of Diversity Management, 9(1), 41–50. doi:10.19030/jdm.v9i1.8621

Hayhurst, L.M., & Frisby, W. (2010). Inevitable tensions: Swiss and Canadian sport for development NGO per- spectives on partnerships with high performance sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(1), 75–96. doi:10.1080/16184740903554140

Head, B.W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implica- tions for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739. doi:10.1177/0095399713481601

Hillman, A.J., Withers, M.C., & Collins, B.J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. doi:10.1177/0149206309343469

Human, S.E., & Provan, K.G. (2000). Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm networks: A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 327–365. doi:10.2307/2667074

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S.E. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London, UK: Routledge.

Isett, K.R., Mergel, I.A., LeRoux, K., Mischen, P.A., & Ret- hemeyer, K.R. (2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 1), i157–i173. doi:10.1093/jopart/ muq061

Isett, K.R., & Provan, K.G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational relationships in a network of publicly funded non-profit agencies. Journal of Public Administra- tion: Research and Theory, 15(1), 149–165. doi:10.1093/ jopart/mui008

Jarillo, J.C. (1988). On strategic networks. Strategic Manage- ment Journal, 9(1), 31–41. doi:10.1002/smj.4250090104

Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organiza- tions. London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849209915

Kirkels, Y., & Duysters, G. (2010). Brokerage in SME net- works. Research Policy, 39(3), 375–385. doi:10.1016/j. respol.2010.01.005

Laumann, E.O., Marsden, P.V., & Prensky, D. (1983). The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In R. Burt & M.J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis: Structural methodology for empirical social research (pp. 18–34). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818. doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2006.22083085

Lee, C., & Nowell, B. (2015). A framework for assessing the performance of non-profit organizations. The American Journal of Evaluation, 36(3), 299–319. doi:10.1177/ 1098214014545828

Lindsey, I. (2006). Local partnerships in the United Kingdom for the new opportunities for PE and sport programme: A policy network analysis. Euro- pean Sport Management Quarterly, 6(2), 167–184. doi:10.1080/16184740600955053

MacLean, J., Cousens, L., & Barnes, M. (2011). Look who’s linked with whom: A case study of one community basketball network. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 562–575. doi:10.1123/jsm.25.6.562

Maitland, I., Bryson, J., & Van De Ven, A.H. (1985). Sociolo- gists, economists, and opportunism. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 10, 59–65.

Malatesta, D., & Smith, C.R. (2014). Lessons from resource dependence theory for contemporary public and non-profit management. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 14–25. doi:10.1111/puar.12181

Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R.A.W. (1992). Policy communities and issue networks: Beyond typology. In D. Marsh & R.A.W. Rhodes (Eds.), Policy networks in British government (pp. 249–268). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198278528.003.0011

Marsh, D., & Smith, M. (2000). Understanding policy net- works: Towards a dialectical approach. Political Studies, 48, 4–21. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00247

McDonald, I. (2005). Theorising partnerships: Governance, communicative action and sport policy. Journal of Social Policy, 34(4), 579–600. doi:10.1017/S0047279405009165

Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2009). A case study of organi- zational capacity in community sport. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 457–482. doi:10.1123/jsm.23.4.457

Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2012). Connecting the community through sport club partnerships. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4, 243–255. doi:10.1080/1940 6940.2012.674962

Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2013). Understanding capacity through the processes and outcomes of interorganizational relationships in non-profit community sport organizations. Sport Management Review, 16, 135–147. doi:10.1016/j. smr.2012.07.003

Misener, K., & Doherty, A. (2014). In support of sport: Examining the relationship between community sport organizations and sponsors. Sport Management Review, 17, 493–506. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2013.12.002

O’Boyle, I., & Shilbury, D. (2016). Exploring issues of trust in collaborative sport governance. Journal of Sport Manage- ment, 30, 52–69. doi:10.1123/JSM.2015-0175

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

160 Jones et al.

JSM Vol. 31, No. 2, 2017

Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orienta- tion, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.

Paarlberg, L., & Varda, D. (2009). Community carrying capac- ity: A network perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 597–613. doi:10.1177/0899764009333829

Paynter, S., & Berner, M. (2014). Organizational capacity of non-profit social service agencies. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 37(1), 111–145.

Peng, T.J., & Kellogg, J.L. (2003). Partners, resources, and man- agement mechanisms of inter-organizational collaborative ties in non-profit organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 3(1/2), 291–298.

Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1987). Understanding organiza- tional wage structures: A resource dependence approach. Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 437–455. doi:10.2307/256008

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Popp, J.K., Milward, H.B., MacKean, G., Casebeer, A., & Lindstrom, R. (2014). Inter-organizational networks: A review of the literature to inform practice. Collaborating Across Boundaries Series: IBM Center for The Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessof- government.org/sites/default/files/Inter-Organizational%20 Networks_0.pdf.

Provan, K.G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516. doi:10.1177/0149206307302554

Provan, K.G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 18, 229–252. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum015

Raab, J., & Kenis, P.N. (2009). Heading toward a society of networks. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3), 198–210.

Raab, J., Mannak, R.S., & Cambré, B. (2015). Combining struc- ture, governance, and context: A configurational approach to network effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 25, 479–511. doi:10.1093/jopart/ mut039

Robertson, P.J., & Choi, T. (2012). Deliberation, consensus, and stakeholder satisfaction: A simulation of collaborative governance. Public Management Review, 14, 83–103. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2011.589619

Salamon, L.M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Schiff, J., & Weisbrod, B. (1991). Competition between for-profit and non-profit organizations in commercial markets. Annals

of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 619–640. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8292.1991.tb01370.x

Seippel, O. (2006). Sport and social capital. Acta Sociologica, 49(2), 169–183. doi:10.1177/0001699306064771

Selsky, J.W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partner- ships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849–873. doi:10.1177/0149206305279601

Sharpe, E.K. (2006). Resources at the grassroots of recreation: Organizational capacity and the quality of experience in a community sport organization. Leisure Sciences, 28, 385–401. doi:10.1080/01490400600745894

Shaw, S., & Allen, J. (2006). “It basically is a fairly loose arrangement . . . and that works out fine, really.” Analysing the dynamics of an interorganizational partnership. Sport Management Review, 9, 203–228. doi:10.1016/S1441- 3523(06)70026-2

Shilbury, D., & Ferkins, L. (2015). Exploring the utility of collaborative governance in a national sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 380–397. doi:10.1123/ jsm.2014-0139

Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Thibault, L., Frisby, W., & Kikulis, L. (1999). Interorga- nizational linkages in the delivery of local leisure services in Canada: Responding to economic, political and social pressures. Managing Leisure, 4, 125–141. doi:10.1080/136067199375805

Vail, S.E. (2007). Community development and sports par- ticipation. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 571–596. doi:10.1123/jsm.21.4.571

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1995). Social network analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2011). Scarcity of resources in German non-profit sport clubs. Sport Management Review, 14, 188–201. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2010.09.001

Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2013). Understanding the importance of organizational resources to explain organizational prob- lems: Evidence from non-profit sport clubs in Germany. Voluntas, 24, 461–484. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9272-2

Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and anti-trust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.

Williamson, O.E. (1985). The economic institutions of capital- ism: Firms, markets, and relational contracting. New York, NY: Free Press.

Williamson, O.E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296. doi:10.2307/2393356

D ow

nl oa

de d

by E

bs co

P ub

li sh

in g

ae ll

sw or

th @

eb sc

o. co

m o

n 03

/2 8/

17 , V

ol um

e 31

, A rt

ic le

N um

be r

2

Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.