Module 4: Group Discussion (Collaborative Governance)

34

CHAPTER 2

Initiating Collaborative Governance The System Context, Drivers, and Regime Formation

The secret of getting ahead is getting started. —Mark Twain

Getting started can be the most difficult challenge for collaborative governance. As with all collective action problems, it is difficult to stimulate individuals to act beyond their immediate self-interest and work together on shared problems. It is particularly difficult to stimulate heterogeneous groups of people to work in concert across organizational and sectoral divides (Thomas 2003; Ostrom 1998; Schlager 1995). Given this challenging context, how do collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) emerge and form? What conditions and factors influence their creation and development?

In this chapter we discuss the surrounding system context—that is, the broader set of conditions that influence the formation and performance of CGRs—as well as the essential drivers that work together to initiate this collaboration. We then offer a short case illustration of the National Collaborative for Higher Education Policy, which demonstrates the role of the system context and drivers in CGR formation. We conclude with a brief chapter summary.

The System Context

Cross-boundary collaboration does not occur in a vacuum. Like nearly everything in the organizational world, CGRs emerge and evolve within a complex system context (shown in ) that consists offigure 2.1 numerous, layered, and interrelated conditions—political, legal, economic, social, cultural, and environmental (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). This broad and dynamic context creates opportunities and constraints that directly affect CGRs at the outset and shape their contours as they evolve. Specifically, the context not only influences the initiation of CGRs but also affects the dynamics and performance of CGRs over time. For example, once collaboration has been started, expected events (e.g., an election, the passage of legislation, or the enactment of a regulation) and unexpected events (e.g., an extreme weather event or the resignation of a significant leader) can open up new possibilities or pose unanticipated challenges. This ongoing temporal nature led us to depict the system context in the integrative framework as a three-dimensional space surrounding the CGR and its outcomes and adaptation, rather than as a separate set of starting conditions.

It is important to analyze this dynamic system context to develop a fuller understanding of the practicality, viability, and sustainability of CGRs. Some conditions pose risks that may discourage an emergent CGR early in the process, whereas other conditions, if unidentified, may derail the CGR down the line. For example, without a robust understanding of the system context, potential participants may take certain conditions as “givens”—as things that cannot be changed—and consequently may determine that collaboration is undesirable or infeasible. Alternatively, participants may accept the conditions at the outset and proceed accordingly, allowing those givens to shape their collective purpose, target goals, and shared theory of change—only to discover that the conditions change, greatly affecting their work. In either case, a comprehensive understanding of the system context could have better informed the participants about the opportunities for and constraints on cross-boundary collaboration.

Not only does the system context shape the overall nature of the CGR; the CGR’s collaborative actions and the consequent outcomes of those actions can also affect the system context (see ). Indeed,chapter 4

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 . G e o r g e t o w n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS AN: 1149601 ; Kirk Emerson, Tina Nabatchi.; Collaborative Governance Regimes Account: s3652670.main.eds

35

one of the core rationales for embarking on collaborative governance is to influence the surrounding set of conditions that create, aggravate, or sustain a problem. Efforts to foster changes in these surrounding conditions are inherently long term and complex, and no effort will be successful unless the participants are clear about the conditions targeted for change.

In short, CGR initiators and participants should have a robust understanding of the many conditions in the surrounding system context, and they should move from ignoring or treating these conditions as “givens” to treating them as issues that can and should be monitored and addressed over time. Researchers have identified several external conditions that may influence the nature and prospects of CGRs (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008; Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Thomson and Perry 2006; Wood and Gray 1991). Here, we present six of the most salient conditions, but we recognize that this is not an exhaustive enumeration.

First, are particularly central, providing the baseline problem orpublic resource or service conditions opportunity around which CGRs form. Public resource conditions include the state of depletion, pollution, or extraction potential of environmental and natural resources. Human-made resource conditions refer to the inadequacy, deterioration, or risk to public health or safety of physical infrastructure, such as potable water supplies, transportation systems, and public housing. Public service conditions encompass the quality, extent, and distribution of public health and human services, public education, welfare assistance, the public regulation of financial services, and so forth. The breadth and variety of these resource and service conditions are considerable, and CGRs generally emerge in response to concerns about them. In particular, these and other related conditions might be targeted for improvement, expansion, or limitation through collaborative action (e.g., Ostrom 1990; Provan, Fish, and Sydow 2007).

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

36

Figure 2.1 The System Context

Second, emerging from legislative, administrative, regulatory, and judicialpolicy and legal frameworks systems enable and constrain not only public decision making and private action but also the work of CGRs (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Scott and Meyer 1991; DiMaggio and Powell 1983). These institutional frameworks include the substantive laws, rules, regulations, mandates, executive orders, policy guidance memorandums, and other legal requirements that relate to the management of public resources and services, as well as to the procedural provisions that affect opportunities for cross-boundary collaboration. For example, collaborative endeavors can be facilitated and/or hindered by state open meeting laws, state administrative procedures acts, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the federal Administrative Procedure Act, among other local ordinances and state and federal laws and regulations (see Bingham 2008, 2010; Bingham, Nabatchi, and O’Leary 2005). Moreover, and as discussed below, effective collaborative action is connected to, if not embedded in, the many existing public policy and legal frameworks that facilitate and circumscribe it.

Third, —such as income and education levels, communitysocioeconomic and cultural characteristics health, and ethnic and racial diversity—create the fabric of the public that is interested in, or affected by, the issue at hand (e.g., Sabatier et al. 2005). The importance of socioeconomic and cultural characteristics is at least twofold. First, these characteristics may contribute to the quality of, or problems with, public resource and service conditions. For example, high levels of poverty or low levels of public health in a community might require the expansion or integration of resources and services. Second, they reflect the pool of public talent that may be tapped, the financial and information resources that may be accessed, and the level of complexity that must be addressed in collaborative problem solving. For example, a community with limited internal expertise or financial resources may need to connect with a larger network of better-resourced communities to access assistance, or a well-endowed state may not choose to draw on federal incentives to address a public service issue in a particular manner.

Fourth, can help or hinder CGR efforts. Networks have been defined asnetwork characteristics “structures of interdependence involving multiple organizations or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal subordinate of the others in some larger hierarchical arrangement” (O’Toole 1997, 45). In the context of CGRs, networks can be thought of in two ways: (1) as the preexisting complex of overlapping social and organizational networks of which individual collaborators are already a part; and

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

37

(2) as the existing network that connects collaborators, or what scholars refer to as the degree of structural embeddedness (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti 1997; Ring and Van de Ven 1994).

Particular network characteristics of interest include their density and strength of relationships or ties. Networks are dense when there are more direct links between a greater number of organizations, and they are sparse when there are fewer direct links between organizations. The strength of ties within networks is operationalized by the frequency of interactions between members. Ties are weak when there are few interactions, and they are strong when there are many interactions (e.g., Granovetter 1973). The denser the network and stronger the ties, the more likely networked organizations are to have the social capital needed to effectively communicate and share information and other resources. Moreover, groups and organizations that already communicate and share information are more likely to collaborate in the future (Selin and Chavez 1995).

Fifth, exist both formally and informally within and across allpolitical dynamics and power relations sectors and will affect the formation, continuation, and performance of CGRs. Power is rarely distributed evenly, and the patterns of influence and control create conditions that not only shape public perceptions but also shape the individual perceptions and inclinations of potential collaboration participants as they decide whether to pursue their goals through a CGR. Political dynamics and power relations have many sources, such as specific organizational control mechanisms, financial resources and responsibilities, funding processes, and organizational standard operating procedures. These political and power conditions are critical in providing or limiting access to and support from public decision makers. Moreover, extreme imbalances in power between stakeholders can make collaboration particularly difficult (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008; Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Huxham and Vangen 2005).

Sixth and finally, between key actors and organizations is another importantthe history of conflict condition in the system context. Conflict affects the levels of trust between salient organizations (which are potential CGR participants); and trust, another dimension of social capital, affects the potential for bringing people together to collaborate (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008; Radin 1996; Thomson and Perry 2006). Past conflicts can pose challenges for building future working relationships and may inhibit a CGR’s startup or, at a minimum, may require attention, if not repair, before moving forward.

Together, public resource or service conditions, policy and legal frameworks, socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, network characteristics, political dynamics and power relations, and the history of conflict, among other factors in the broad system context, shape the prospects for and challenges of initiating and sustaining CGRs. They also affect the evolution of CGRs over time. However, despite their importance, the conditions in the surrounding system context do not in and of themselves lead to the formation of a CGR. These conditions are merely influences, not causal factors. They provide the context from which the drivers of CGRs emerge.

The Drivers

Researchers broadly recognize that the “conditions present at the outset of collaboration can either facilitate or discourage cooperation between stake-holders and between agencies and stakeholders” (Ansell and Gash 2008, 550). But what propels the initiation of CGRs? We have identified four important drivers without which, we posit, the call for collaboration would likely go unheeded and collaborative governance would not unfold: (1) uncertainty, (2) interdependence, (3) consequential incentives, and (4) initiating leadership (see ). We explore each of these in turn.figure 2.2

Uncertainty

For many public policy issues, the underlying challenges and possible solutions are known, clear, and agreed upon; however, for other policy concerns, claims about what is true and what is false are unknown, ambiguous, or disputed (Lindley 2006). These unknowns are captured in the first driver, uncertainty, which refers to situations of doubt, ambiguity, limited information, and instability related to current and future conditions, events, resource availability, or decisions by other actors. Drawing on work by Emery

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

38

and Trist (1965), Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006, 45) refer to this condition as “turbulence,” noting that such complex situations necessitate—or, as we would say, “drive”—organizations “to decrease uncertainty and increase organizational stability.”

The potential sources of uncertainty are numerous. Uncertainty is a main feature of “wicked” societal problems (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004; Rittel and Webber 1973). As we discussed in the introduction, wicked problems create uncertainty, in large part because there is no agreement on what the problem is. Indeed, how to formulate the problem the problem. It is more than just the lack of one simple solution;is rather, there are competing and unknown solutions that further heighten the uncertainty about the problem. Uncertainty can also arise from partially observable and/or stochastic environments, along with ignorance and/or apathy. Regardless of its source, uncertainty can drive groups to reduce, diffuse, and share risk through collaboration. It can also foster creativity and innovation.

Uncertainty, of course, can also drive groups to compete. Collective uncertainty about societal problems can generate controversy and adversarialism—as, for example, with climate change or immigration policy. A polarizing political environment merely fans the flames of uncertainty, as with the debate over national policies such as health care reform and reproductive rights. If the public and those representing its diverse interests were endowed with perfect information about a problem and its solution, they would be able to act independently to pursue their interests or respond to risk (Bentrup 2001). One key to turning the response to uncertainty from competition to cooperation is the acknowledgment of the second driver: interdependence.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

39

Figure 2.2 Drivers for the Formation of a Collaborative Governance regime

Interdependence

Collaboration often occurs because individuals and organizations cannot accomplish an important objective alone (Gray 1989; Thomson and Perry 2006). In a world of shrinking resources and growing interconnected problems, interdependence—the necessity of mutual reliance for accomplishing goals— is an almost constant state. Interdependence becomes an essential driver for CGRs after previous attempts to go it alone prove unsuccessful. Simply put, we often “fail into collaboration” (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006).

When a public authority, jurisdiction, service/resource provider, community group, or nongovernmental organization does not succeed in addressing a key public issue or need through its internal organization and with its own resources, then reaching out to other agencies or sectors (or responding to others’ overtures) may become necessary. And necessity, as we are told, is the mother of invention. Necessity can lead to innovation, risk taking, and sometimes strange bedfellows, when it requires working with previous competitors and others outside one’s organization, sector, or network.

Game theory suggests that when players have shared information and repeated opportunities to exchange or interact, they will recognize their interdependence and seek ways out of the cooperators’ dilemma (Lichbach 1996). Thus, the mere existence of interdependence is not enough to drive collaboration. Rather, people are motivated to collaborate only when interdependencies are recognized by key actors. Moreover, the motivation to address interdependencies is enhanced by the presence of the third driver: consequential incentives.

Consequential Incentives

People need enticements to collaborate, and when these enticements are seen as being connected to important outcomes, the motivation to collaborate increases. Hence the importance of consequential incentives—which refer to internal issues, resource needs, interests, or opportunities, or to external situational or institutional crises, threats, or opportunities that must be addressed to mitigate salient risk or

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

40

advance desired conditions for key stakeholders and the broader public. Ansell and Gash (2008) incorporate incentives to participation as a starting condition in their contingency model for collaborative governance, and several other scholars have conducted research that informs our understanding of incentives (e.g., Gray 1989; Gunton and Day 2003; Imperial 2005; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Not all incentives will be sufficiently prominent to drive the formation of a CGR. To promote collaboration across boundaries, potential participants must be aware of the incentive and understand that giving it attention and working together may have positive effects, whereas inattention and failure to work together may have negative effects. Ultimately, this broad awareness helps create the motivating pressure that induces individuals to come together to act.

Consequential incentives can take many forms. An incentive may be a matter of mandate. For example, a new law or regulation requiring collaboration between diverse stakeholder groups might be enacted. An incentive may be of a temporal nature. For example, a policy window may open or an administrative or judicial deadline may require a timely response. An incentive may emerge from a dramatic triggering event or a new set of indisputable facts that makes clear the scope or intensity of the negative consequences of inaction (Selin and Chavez 1995). For example, an extreme weather event or other natural disaster may heighten emergency responders’ awareness of the need for more collaboration on the ground.

Not all consequential incentives are negative. For example, a grant or other funding opportunity may emerge that requires the development of a collaborative initiative. The positive rewards of collaboration can themselves be consequential. The enticement of monetary compensation or reputational gains from participation in a CGR may be an important inducement, as might be the potential revenues or indirect benefits of a problem solved through collaboration. Garnering more negotiating power at the table may be enough incentive to join a collaborative endeavor. Finally, the consequences of participating in a CGRnot initiative can also matter. For example, exclusion from sharing joint gains, the lost opportunity to influence a public decision, or the potential negative perceptions of others may incentivize collaboration.

More important than the particular form of the incentive is its consequential nature. The incentive must have the properties that make people want to capture ensuing benefits or avoid ensuing losses. However, even with important and significant consequential incentives, a fourth driver, initiating leadership, must also be present before a CGR can be launched.

Initiating Leadership

The importance of leadership to cross-boundary collaboration is widely appreciated by both practitioners and academics (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008; Bingham and O’Leary 2008; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Collaboration both demands and cultivates opportunities for multiple kinds of leadership over the course of an endeavor (Carlson 2007). Thus, leadership is an essential driver and can be a significant outgrowth of collaboration (see ).chapter 3

Here we focus on one specific type of leadership—initiating leadership— which is the final and perhaps most essential driver for the formation of CGRs. Initiating leadership refers to the presence and actions of a person or core group that stimulates interest in and instigates preliminary discussions about creating a collaborative endeavor. Initiating leaders appreciate the challenges of the system context and recognize the presence and pressure of the other three drivers: the uncertainty of future conditions, the interdependencies between actors, and the consequences of (in)action. Perhaps most important, initiating leaders must then generate and supply the “motivational force” for participants to come together. In essence, initiating leaders act much like a conductor who assembles and directs musicians who may have never played together before.

Initiating leaders may emerge from a variety of organizations or groups (Koontz et al. 2004). For example, they may come from one or more government agencies, elected or political offices, or nongovernmental organizations or civic groups. They may also come from the private sector or be an influential member of the public. Regardless of their organizational home, initiating leaders, by virtue of their personal stature and reputation, attract key stakeholders either directly or indirectly through others. Thus, in pursuing a collaborative effort, initiating leaders tend to have dense professional and social networks, tend to be known by key individuals, and tend to be seen as sufficiently credible and

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

41

trustworthy. They are able to exercise their formal or informal authority and strategic vision to create the climate and opportunity for cooperation and to frame the central issue(s) in a sufficiently broad and inclusive manner (Gray 1989). Effective initiating leaders are viewed as committed to collaborative problem solving, as willing to not advocate for one particular solution, and as reliably impartial with respect to other participants’ preferences (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Selin and Chavez 1995). In addition, access to sufficient upfront resources (e.g., staff or meeting location) and the ability to absorb the initial transaction costs of convening or sponsoring a CGR can strengthen the work of initiating leaders (Schneider et al. 2003).

These four drivers—uncertainty, interdependence, consequential incentives, and initiating leadership—work to various degrees and in various combinations to propel the creation of CGRs. In earlier work, we proposed that the presence of one or more of these drivers was necessary for a CGR to begin, and that the more drivers that were present and recognized by participants, the more likely it was that a CGR would be initiated (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012). We also now see these drivers as being strongly interconnected. For example, the idea of collaborating with others typically emerges in response to incomplete information (uncertainty) concerning a problem or issue that cannot be addressed by actors working alone (interdependence). But uncertainty and interdependence may not be enough to drive collaboration without some pressure to act to avoid accruing losses or forgoing benefits (consequential incentives). Even in light of these consequential incentives, CGRs may not take off unless someone can bring together the relevant parties (initiating leadership). The inverse also holds: Initiating leaders will not be able to convene others unless they have some level of appreciation for (and can convince the potential collaborators about) the realities of uncertainty, interdependence, and consequential incentives and how these issues affect participants’ interests. In short, we have extended our proposition about drivers beyond the notion that only one might suffice toward a more complex understanding about how they work in different combinations in relation to the formative type of CGR, an idea we discuss further in .chapter 8

Finally, it is important to recognize the changing nature of CGR drivers. In some cases, all four drivers will be present and visible simultaneously. In other cases, the drivers may not be present at the same moment or to the same extent. They may emerge, recede, or evolve over time and in response to each other, as well as to changing conditions in the system context. For example, initiating leaders may recognize the need for consequential incentives and take action to develop them. Or interdependencies may grow and gain attention as uncertainty increases about conditions in the system context. Or uncertainty may motivate a person to take a leadership role in trying to convene others. Viewed this way, all four drivers are likely to be present to some degree at the outset and may well evolve and reinforce one another to create the impetus necessary to bring key collaborators together.

Initiating Collaborative Governance Regimes

Once the essential drivers emerge out of the system context, how do CGRs actually get started? There are many avenues by which CGRs form, depending in large part on the assessments and actions of the initiating leaders and their organizational setting and the relationships that are relevant to the issue at hand.

The organizational setting of the initiating leadership plays a significant role in the formation of CGRs and forms the basis for our CGR typology presented in . In some cases, CGRs will arisechapter 8 organically at the grassroots level, where the initiating leaders form the nucleus of participants directly affected by the situation and organize to address a shared problem. In our typology, we call these self-initiated CGRs. Over time, this nucleus may grow to become more inclusive of diverse interests or integrated with other sources of official or informal authority and influence. Examples of self-initiated CGRs include Western rangeland cooperatives, like the Malpai Borderlands Group (www

) and the Altar Valley Conservation Alliance (.malpaiborderlandsgroup.org www.altarvalleyconservation ), as well as many local watershed associations (e.g., see Margerum 2011; Weber 2003)..org

In other cases, CGRs are encouraged from above, at the “grasstops” level, where initiating leaders draw on inducements (or, in some cases, mandates) to incentivize collaboration at another level (Donahue and Zeckhauser 2011). We call these externally directed CGRs. For example, since 2001, the Collaborative Forest Restoration program of the US Forest Service has provided grants to groups in New Mexico to

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

42

foster the collaborative, science-based restoration of critical forests. The eligibility requirement for these grants stipulates that applicants must “include a diverse and balanced group of stake-holders as well as appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, County, and Municipal government representatives” (CFRP 2014).

In still other cases, initiating leaders may work through boundary-spanning organizations to convene and incentivize voluntary collaboration between participants by brokering initial gatherings and managing early rounds of collaboration dynamics. We call these independently convened CGRs. These boundary-spanning organizations are often activated by the standing and commitment of the initiating leaders, as well as by funding opportunities. They may assist the leaders in assessing the system context and in recommending appropriate first steps to engaging participants in prospective collaborative efforts. For example, the William D. Ruckelshaus Center at the University of Washington often serves in this boundary-spanning role by convening multiple parties in voluntary collaborative approaches for policy development and dispute resolution ( ). In we further develophttp://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu chapter 8 these three formative types of CGRs (self-initiated, independently convened, and externally directed) and explore how the types vary in their path-dependent development.

Regardless of the organizational setting for collaboration, CGR formation starts with the assembling of participants by the initiating leaders. In some cases, participants are required to participate in the CGR. Mandated participation is especially common in grasstop, externally directed CGRs because the initiating leaders have the formal power to command and instruct parties to work together. In other cases, however, participants come to the table voluntarily—by choice—as is typically the case in self-initiated CGRs. Independently convened CGRs may have both voluntary and mandated participation. Gaining voluntary participation is challenging and often dependent on the informal power and relationship capital of the initiating leaders.

In any case, the task of assembling participants can be made easier if the initiating leaders do the homework necessary to create an attractive forum for collaboration. Specifically, the initiating leaders need to think about who the “right” participants are, and why they will want to come together. To do so, leaders should determine who will view collaboration as a means to influence decision making and who is likely to share a vision of what could be accomplished collectively. Moreover, the leaders should assess the costs and benefits for participants in terms of transaction costs, power sharing, resources, time, and effort. In addition, the leaders should address issues of participant representation not only to assure balanced voices, public buy-in, and legitimacy but also to generate a useful diversity of perspectives and ideas, which can lead to a deeper and more thoughtful and comprehensive consideration of issues and potential solutions. In many ways, these appraisals return the initiating leaders to the assessment of drivers for collaboration, particularly in terms of incentivizing collaboration.

Such incentives can be enhanced through the invitation process. Getting the involvement of those with credibility and legitimacy, those who bring the needed talents and resources, and those who are team players can help encourage others to come to the table. Direct and personal invitations that speak to shared concerns or values and the importance of collaboration can be critical to such efforts. Building the norms of trust and reciprocity up front as participants come to the table can help with collaboration dynamics, the processes through which participants engage, build motivation, and develop the capacity for joint action (see ). In turn, this is likely to improve both process and productivity performance (see ).chapter 3 chapter 9 In the next section we show the importance of the surrounding system context and the essential drivers with a short case illustration concerning the formation of a CGR to address higher education policy.

Case Illustration: The National Collaborative for Higher Education Policy

The National Collaborative for Higher Education Policy was launched in 2003 by the Education Commission of the States, the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, and the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE). The goal of the National Collaborative was to help states improve their higher education performance by assisting with the examination of state higher education policies and the development of broad agreement about statewide

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

43

priorities for improvement. This case provides an excellent illustration of the multifaceted and complex nature of the conditions in the surrounding system context, as well as the drivers needed for the initiation of a CGR.

The NCPPHE, an independent policy research organization, was established in 1998 to promote public policies that enhance Americans’ opportunities to pursue and achieve high-quality education and training beyond high school ( ). Recognizing the lack of a commonwww.highereducation.org/about/about.shtml national framework for evaluating and comparing the fifty US states’ higher education performance, the NCPPHE decided to launch a long-term evaluation project, Measuring Up, to assess and evaluate systems of higher education in each of the states. Specifically, the evaluation project sought to grade each state on how well it prepared students to participate in an accessible and affordable system of higher education that meets their educational needs and prepares them to contribute to the larger society. Data were compiled and analyzed for five categories of performance: preparation, participation, affordability, completion, and benefits. These five categories were selected because they have a crucial impact on opportunity and are highly susceptible to being influenced by state policy (Callan, Doyle, and Finney 2001).

The project’s first report, ,Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education asserted that “higher education’s benefits are unevenly and often unfairly distributed; they simply do not reflect the distribution of talent across our country. Despite the major accomplishments of higher education in America, geography, wealth, income, and ethnicity still play far too great a role in determining the opportunities that Americans have to prepare for, enroll in, afford, and complete college” (Callan, Doyle, and Finney 2001, 12).

The second report, , updated each state’s performance and compared the 2000 andMeasuring Up 2002 2002 results. The report concluded that opportunities for higher education were at a standstill for the nation as a whole. Together, these reports provided the background data that led to the formation of the National Collaborative for Higher Education Policy.

The System Context for Higher Education

As noted earlier in the chapter, CGRs emerge and evolve within a complex system context that consists of numerous, layered, and interrelated conditions. Here, we briefly analyze the system context affecting higher education in the fifty US states.

In terms of public resource or service conditions, the 2000 and 2002 Measuring Up reports demonstrated a wide variety of problems with higher education in the United States. Although those reports give specific data for specific states, it is useful to highlight summary results. The 2000 report concluded: “The state where one lives makes a big difference in one’s opportunity for education and, ultimately, in one’s life chances. And it isn’t simply a matter of how prosperous the state is: only about 25 percent of the variations in state performance on the indicators used for grading are attributable to state wealth. This means that 75 percent of the difference in performance is related to other factors, such as state policy and leadership. Improvement is clearly possible for every state” (Callan, Doyle, and Finney 2001, 16).

The 2002 Measuring Up report compared states’ results on five performance areas. The report found that states made the most progress in preparing students for college-level education; however, only four states improved on all measures of preparation, and students in many states still did not have the opportunity to take challenging high school courses that could prepare them for college. The report also found that only seven states improved their performance on all measures of participation, and that only eleven states improved their performance on all measures of affordability. Moreover, though five states improved their performance on all measures of the timely completion of certificates and degrees, the completion of degrees at four-year colleges and universities remained low, even among the top-performing states. In sum, these findings suggested that despite modest improvements in some states, the benefits of higher education were not accessible to all Americans.

These findings were especially troubling in light of research showing that the United States is falling behind other countries in terms of developing a skilled and knowledgeable workforce. For example, a 2003 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development comparison of thirty nations found that the

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

44

United States (1) ranked behind the top five countries in the percentage of twenty- to twenty-four-year-olds with a high school credential; (2) slipped to fifth in the percentage of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds enrolled in college; (3) ranked in the bottom half of countries on the proportion of students who complete college certificate or degree programs; (4) ranked among the top nations in the educational attainment of older adults (age thirty-five to sixty-four); but (5) dropped to a tie for seventh in the educational attainment of younger adults (age twenty-five to thirty-four) (Davies 2006). Additional data analysis by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems revealed:

The educational pipeline that runs from the start of high school through the completion of college leaks considerably in every state and large numbers of students drop out at key transition points along the way. On average across the nation, for every 100 students who are in the ninth grade, less than half will enroll in college within four years and only about one-fifth will earn a two-year degree (within three years of enrolling in college) or a four-year degree (within six years of enrolling in college). In some states, the losses are more significant in high school; in other states, college going rates are low; and in still others, college students do not persist to earn certificates or degrees (Davies 2006, 3–4).

These and other data led some to suggest that “educational achievement in the United States has stagnated over the last two decades” and that if the issue is not addressed soon, “the educational advancement of other nations compared with the United States may change both the way we live and the freedoms we enjoy” (Davies 2006, 1).

Although these data reveal declines in and real challenges for higher education as a public resource and service, the policy and legal frameworks are also problematic: “States are the primary public policy units for all education within our federal system, from public school systems to colleges and universities” (Callan, Doyle, and Finney 2001, 12). States control public schools, shape the organizational structures of public institutions of higher education, and influence the relationships between public schools and institutions of higher education. Moreover, states provide most of the direct support to and oversight of public higher education institutions and also support both public and private institutions through student financial aid, tax exemptions, and sometimes direct appropriations. Thus, though federal initiatives are not without meaning, “only the states have the means and broad responsibility for assuring opportunity for education and training beyond high school” (Callan, Doyle, and Finney 2001, 12).

The different policies of the fifty states have been influential in shaping the preparation of the collective American workforce; however, this patchwork approach to higher education has created challenges for developing systems and policy approaches that advance the United States as a whole. These challenges have been exacerbated by the fact that historically states have relied on a regulatory approach to higher education policymaking and budgeting, and now must move forward with new policies that are “responsive to increased demands for more and better higher education at a time of limited institutional adaptability and of severely constrained resources” (Callan, Doyle, and Finney 2001, 18).

Creating such policies is difficult given various political dynamics and power relations within state governments and higher education institutions. Certainly, elected politicians, from governors to state legislators to local officials, need to work together to address the problems of higher education. However, these elected officials must also work with the presidents, chancellors, provosts, and governing board members of public and private higher education institutions. Although these relationships vary from state to state, it is highly likely that all the states have at least some degree of conflict in the higher education arena. This conflict might be generated from historic relations, and could, at the very least, emerge from the realities of institutional and resource constraints. Conflicts may be either mitigated or exacerbated to the extent that education networks are in place in a particular state, by the socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of the state, and/or by the degree to which those characteristics are changing.

Drivers for Higher Education Collaboration

In this case, the surrounding system context was rife with conditions that raised the profile of higher education challenges. Despite these problems, the Measuring Up reports themselves were insufficient for propelling the creation of a CGR to address the issue. It was not until all four drivers emerged that a CGR was formed.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

45

Uncertainty was clearly present and was particularly articulated in concerns about the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy. For example, Gordon Davies (2006, 1), the director of the National Collaborative for Higher Education Policy, wrote:

In meeting the challenges of globalization we in the United States need to mobilize our resources and adapt our public policies so that we do not fall behind other developed and developing nations in educating our population. As the global economy has developed and other nations have assumed primacy in traditional manufacturing sectors, most states in the US have had to reshape their economies. Now that several Asian nations have developed strong capacity in high-technology industries, the effort to compete effectively in this sector has become urgent for many states as well. Yielding the advantage of a skilled and knowledgeable workforce to China and India, two emerging economic giants, or to other nations would be a strategic error with economic and social consequences.

Interdependence was also present and had several dimensions. First, the United States cannot compete in the global economy by changing the higher education systems of only one or handful of states. Rather, competitiveness must be assessed across the nation as a whole, which means that all the states needed to work on this issue. Although individual states certainly had variance in policies, a comprehensive framework that guided individual state action, particularly in relation to common needs across states, was required (Davies 2006).

Second, states generally lacked the expertise to move forward on policy change and needed to work with others. As Callan, Doyle, and Finney (2001, 19) note, “State leaders have little experience in organizing policymaking along the lines suggested here, much less in designing appropriate public policy and funding approaches for a more student-centered and market-driven environment. And there is little experience with the articulation of broad, operational public priorities for overall state performance; with designing and linking cohesive policies and accountability to priorities; or with sustaining these efforts politically.” This meant that states had to develop ideas and learn best practices from each other.

Finally, there were interdependencies within the states themselves. No one person or organization could tackle the challenges of higher education alone. Within each state, government, education, and civic leaders had to work together to improve the higher education system.

Consequential incentives were also present and were strongly related to the challenges posed by inaction. For example, Davies (2006, 7) asserted, “We need to begin the hard work of maintaining the most responsible citizenry and the most skilled and knowledgeable workforce in the world. How we work together over the next few years will determine how our grandchildren live in the mid-21st century.” For many, it was clear that unless political and educational leaders brought both their will and skill to developing a public agenda for higher education, appropriate and meaningful objectives would never be defined, let alone achieved.

Finally, there was initiating leadership for the National Collaborative for Higher Education Policy. Actors from the NCPPHE began the convening effort by reaching out to the Education Commission of the States and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Together, these three nonprofit organizations gained support for their work from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

With this core leadership team in place, the National Collaborative reached out to states that were interested in developing new public agendas for higher education that addressed the needs of state residents and their communities. Five states—Missouri, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia—joined in the effort to develop sustainable public agendas for higher education. In addition, the National Collaborative worked informally with seven other states—Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Tennessee. With these state partners, the National Collaborative shifted from a single CGR to a series of nested CGRs. In this nested arrangement, one could also work to identify and examine the system contexts and drivers for the state-level regimes.

In sum, this case demonstrates the importance of understanding the system context and drivers for initiating a CGR. If the groundwork had not been done on understanding the challenges in the context of US higher education, then the initiating leaders would not have been able to make a strong case about uncertainty, interdependence, and consequential incentives. Moreover, without these drivers, the National Collaborative for Higher Education would never have been formed.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

46

Summary

In this chapter, we focused on the formation of CGRs. Specifically, we noted that the formation of a CGR (and, later, its performance) is influenced by the broader set of conditions in the surrounding system context. Some of the most salient elements of this context include public resource or service conditions, policy and legal frameworks, socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, network characteristics, political dynamics and power relations, and the history of conflict. From these and other conditions in the system context emerge four drivers of CGRs: uncertainty, interdependence, consequential incentives, and initiating leadership. We suggested that various degrees and combinations of these four drivers increase the likelihood of forming a CGR.

Next, we discussed the steps needed to actually create a CGR—such as inviting, assembling, and incentivizing potential participants—and noted that the organizational setting of initiating leaders plays an important role in CGR formation. We also introduced the three main formative types of CGRs—self-initiated, independently convened, and externally directed—which we discuss in detail in

. Finally, we illustrated the system context and drivers of CGRs with a case about the Nationalchapter 8 Collaborative for Higher Education. In the next chapter we examine collaboration dynamics.

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

47

CHAPTER 3

Collaboration Dynamics Principled Engagement, Shared Motivation, and the Capacity for Joint Action

Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success. —henry Ford

In , we described how collaborative governance regimes (CGRs) emerge and function within achapter 2 system context and are energized by a combination of essential drivers. CGRs may arise slowly or precipitously, intentionally or organically, and with or without third-party or bridging institutions. But then what? How does a CGR get off the ground and start moving? How do participants progress from start-up to action?

In this chapter, we describe the central components and elements of CGRs—the collaboration dynamics of principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action. We then provide a short case illustration written by Tanya Heikkila and Andrea Gerlak that reveals the collaboration dynamics within one CGR, the Everglades Restoration Task Force. We conclude with a chapter summary.

Conceptualizing Collaboration Dynamics

The process of effective collaboration has been studied from various disciplinary lenses, through which researchers have observed numerous positive outcomes, such as improved clarity on key issues and concerns; better integration of relevant knowledge into deliberations; better-quality decisions; more effective management of differences and conflicts; enhanced trust and mutual respect between the involved parties; increased social, operational, and decision-making capacity; and greater perceived legitimacy both within and outside the collaboration (Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Emerson et al. 2009; Fung 2006; Leach and Sabatier 2005; Milward and Provan 2000). In general, there are two approaches to conceptualizing collaborative processes. One approach portrays collaboration as a linear sequence of cognitive steps or stages that occur over time, including problem definition, direction setting, and implementation (e.g., Daniels and Walker 2001; Gray 1989; Selin and Chavez 1995). Another approach views collaboration as consisting of progressively cyclical or iterative interactions between participants (Ansell and Gash 2008; Thomson and Perry 2006). We take the latter approach in constructing our integrative framework for collaborative governance.

Specifically, we unpack the processes at play in a CGR through an examination of collaboration dynamics across three components—principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action (see ). Each of these components has several underpinning elements; and each component,figure 3.1 through its progressive and iterative cycling, also works to generate and support the other two. When successful, these dynamics reinforce what has been called a “virtuous cycle” of collaboration (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008; Huxham 2003; Imperial 2005). By distinguishing between principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action but still connecting them, we are able to better specify the behavioral interactions, interpersonal relations, and functional components of collaboration dynamics.

It is important to remember that though we describe collaboration dynamics in this chapter primarily as interactions between participants “at the table,” there are also additional dynamics between each of the participants and those they represent. All participants’ level of engagement in a CGR will be constrained by the demands and limitations of their parent organizations or constituencies. Thus, the components of collaboration dynamics apply directly to the participants but also must extend indirectly to align with and

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/18/2022 12:33 PM via UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use