Introduction global pandemic accentuated awareness

The COVID-19 global pandemic accentuated awareness of the need for

governance and leadership, leading to shared resources and philanthropic value for

nonprofit organizations during times of crisis. The National Council of Nonprofits

(NCON) reported that the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) created an

evolving situation with varied impacts worldwide and across the states (NCON,

2021). In a report released November 2021 by the Congressional Research Service,

viral deaths in the United States surpassed the 675,446 deaths from the 1819

Spanish flu, the previously worst U.S. pandemic-related death total on record. The

global economy saw a reduced growth rated of around -3.2%, and global trade was

estimated to have fallen by 5.3% in 2020. The health emergency arising from the

global pandemic has affected the $90 trillion global economy and continues to

grow (Jackson et al., 2021). In a study published by the World Bank, Blake and

Wadhwa (2020) reported that the truly unprecedented COVID-19 crisis poses a

serious threat in the fight against extreme poverty, as an accelerated downturn in

the global economy affects every nation. The negative effects include food

insecurities, higher healthcare costs, classroom closures, fragility and violence,

internet inequalities, a widened gender gap, and a slowdown in business and jobs

affecting all aspects of life (Blake & Wadhwa, 2020).

As defined in this study, COVID-19 is the novel coronavirus virus that

began in late 2019 and led to a healthcare pandemic, as declared by the World

Health Organization on March 11, 2020 (Sachin et al., 2020). Since March 2020,

more than 30 association offices, foundations, and other groups have released

COVID-19 impact reports through the Delaware Alliance for Nonprofit

Advancement (DANA, 2020). Of the 900 nonprofit organizations reported by the

DANA to be in the state of Delaware, 245 responded to a survey to understand the

impact of COVID-19 on services and operations. The survey results revealed that

60% of those who responded estimated over $21 million in lost revenue, with most

revenue lost to program and fundraising venues. The loss of revenue was followed

by a disruption in services to clients and communities and increased sustained

volunteer absences (DANA, 2020, p. 7). Nonprofit organizations also faced an

increase in the demand for services and supplies from clients and communities and

at the same time were expected to create clean and safe work environments with

reduced resources and funding (NCON, 2021).

In December 2020, the Florida Nonprofit Alliance’s (FNA) Closing Out the

Year: COVID-19 Effects on Florida Nonprofits in 2020 affirmed findings from the

DANA report. McDermott (2020) reported 1,154 organizations participated in a

survey from October 21 to November 10, 2020, representing a diverse sector of

Florida’s nonprofit community. The findings of this report showed that many

organizations were small and run by volunteers, and the authors identified the loss

of revenue (64%) and concern with future funding (59%) as significant concerns.

Additionally, 52% of nonprofit organizations experienced volunteer

absences, creating staff and volunteer burnout, exhaustion, and stress. McDermott

(2020) reported that 71% of nonprofits experienced a decrease in unrestricted

revenue in 2020 and described that “nonprofits are looking to individuals in the

short term to help raise money to keep their organizations open and functioning” (p.

13). A survey sponsored by the Arkansas Community Foundation, the

University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, and the University of

Arkansas Little Rock was administered to Arkansas nonprofit organizations

between June 22 and July 10, 2020. The results showed that “most [nonprofit]

organizations in the state have experienced significant service disruption, including

complete program cancellations, and many have had difficulty getting needed

supplies [resources]” (Driver et al., 2020, p. 2). The survey population included 316

Arkansas nonprofit organizations intersecting with 11 different program and service

areas in all 75 Arkansas counties. Clary (2020) concluded from a qualitative study

of five nonprofit organizations in Sharp County, Arkansas that a lack of shared

resources and philanthropic value directly correlated to a nonprofit leader’s ability

to convene stakeholders and collaborate.

The findings from the four studies portrayed a dismal outlook for nonprofit

organizations struggling to acquire needed resources and philanthropic value

necessary to meet the growing challenges of program and service delivery

throughout the global pandemic. Nathanson and Boyer (2020) stated, “the

coronavirus crisis could be even more catastrophic for [nonprofit organizations]

than the Great Recession” (para. 6). They further contended the rapidity of the

economic decline “has people understandably concerned about the potential hit to

their businesses and personal finances. In turn, they are likely to forego charitable

contributions as a way of cutting expenses and preserving capital” (Nathanson &

Boyer, 2020, para. 6). In an article for the Nonprofit Quarterly, Levine (2020)

expounded on Nathanson’s and Boyer’s commentary:

As NPQ has noted in our recent series on the Great Recession, by and large

the nonprofit sector came out of the recession stronger than it had entered it.

But recovery from COVID-19’s impact may not be so easy. The global

economic system has been shaken to its core. “Millions of people have lost

their jobs,” write Boyer and Nathanson, “and many companies will not see

the other side of this crisis.” (para. 4)

The impact of the global pandemic has had far-reaching implications for

nonprofit organizations. The influence of COVID-19 disrupted nonprofit

organizations’ ability to deliver programs and services. Finances dwindled,

volunteers became scarce, and the staff experienced increased exhaustion and stress

(Clary, 2020). The disruption illustrated an awareness of the need for shared

resources and philanthropic value to serve communities better and fulfill

organizational mission. Levey (2020) projected that revenue shortages related to

COVID-19 could lead to nearly four in 10 nonprofit closures over the next 3 years.

And yet, it may be possible for governance and convening leadership to increase

resources and philanthropic value during times of national and global crisis. The

purpose of this study was to explore how principles of commons governance,

nonprofit commons governance assumptions, and convening leadership contribute

to shared resources and philanthropic value through collaboration in nonprofit

organizations during a global pandemic.

Commons governance principles (Ostrom, 1990), nonprofit and voluntary

action commons governance assumptions (Lohmann, 1992), and convening

leadership (Clary, 2021) provided the theoretical context of study to explore shared

resources and philanthropic value in nonprofit organizations. Ostrom’s (1990)

commons governance principles include clearly defined boundaries, collective

choice arrangements, monitoring, and conflict-resolution sanctions. Lohmann’s

(1992) nonprofit and voluntary action governance assumptions are social action,

authenticity, continuity, intrinsic valuation, and ordinary language. Lastly, Clary’s

(2021) convening leadership framework reflects five attributes of the convenor as

explored through the convenor's core beliefs, values, and attitudes; stakeholder

diversity; creative co-learning and co-creating; and congruity of stakeholders. In

2009, Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for

investigative research on economic governance. This scholar investigated how

“human groups craft, implement, and adapt complex institutional arrangements in

their practical efforts to address common problems and realize shared aspirations”

(Cole & McGinnis, 2014, p. 1). Ostrom (1990) argued that Hardin’s (1968) Tragedy

of the Commons was a misnomer since commoners could manage commons

property. Hardin theorized privatization or government were necessary to manage

commons property. Later, Ostrom classified her analysis of the commons and

commons property as common-pool resource (Zückert, 2012). The above terms

commons property and common-pool resource are discussed more fully in Chapter

2 of this study. Lohmann’s (1992) work, paralleling Ostrom’s, considered an

adaptive version of commons governance in nonprofit and voluntary action

organizations. Bushouse et al. (2016) contributed further to the work of

Ostrom and Lohmann, validating the benefit of Ostrom’s contribution to nonprofit

and voluntary action studies through commons governance. Clary’s (2021)

convening leadership framework considers the role of the convenor on the

commons. Whereas the role of the convenor is to initiate larger stakeholder

collaboratives to solve complex societal and global problems. Limited research is

available, however, on the convenor in commons literature (Thompson, 2021).

Additionally, research on how commons governance and convening leadership

contribute to the greater fulfillment of an organization’s mission during times of

global pandemics is nonexistent.

Lohmann (1992) and Ostrom (1990) studied how governance contributed to

the management of resources, concurring that there was a need to incorporate the

principles found in commons governance in nonprofit organizations. In the current

study, the researcher explored how governance contributes to shared resources and

philanthropic value for nonprofit organizations. This was conducted to bridge a gap

in the research on how to operationalize the principles of commons governance,

nonprofit and voluntary action commons governance assumptions, and convening

leadership in nonprofit organizations. Lohmann (1992) suggested that a more

academic approach to the study of commons governance in nonprofit organizations

is needed. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative study was to discover how

commons governance identified by Ostrom (1990), nonprofit and voluntary action

commons governance assumptions as posited by Lohmann (1992), and convening

leadership (Clary, 2021) contribute to the furtherance of a nonprofit organization’s

mission through collaboration. To better understand the relationship between the

variables, the researcher conducted in-depth interviews with nonprofit leaders

within the Arkansas Community Foundation, St. James Missionary Baptist Church

Community Outreach, the Hub of Ouachita Court, Walmart, and Walmart

Foundation.

Statement of the Problem

The problem was that nonprofit organizations that operate independently

without knowledge of effective governance principles and convening leadership

through collective-action collaboration have less shared resources and philanthropic

value to fulfill their organization’s mission (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a, 2012b;

Hayman, 2016; Idemudia, 2008; Jamali & Keshishian, 2009; Marek et al., 2015;

Murphy & Bendell, 1999). Researchers have shown collaboration to be an effective

and powerful route in addressing economic, social, and environmental challenges

(Koschmann et al., 2012). In addition, collective-action collaboration is an equally

effective approach in tackling complex social and global issues (Novelli, 2021),

important public purposes (Guo & Acar, 2005), and sustainability challenges (van

Hille et al., 2018); however, there are systemic challenges associated with

collaboratives (Koschmann et al., 2012). Murphy and Bendell (1999) posited that

collaboratives are often shrouded in conflict and concluded that there was a “need

for more inclusive and accountable models of society, governance, problem

solving, standard settings, regulation, and community development” (p. 33). Jamali

and Keshishian (2009) established that collaboratives operate with limited

knowledge of shared boundaries; information; and exposure to cultures, structures,

and processes, contributing to less-than-optimal outcomes in the partnership.

Bryson et al. (2006) theorized that cross-sector collaboration can exacerbate the

very problem being solved. Lastly, gridlock (Selsky & Parker, 2005), nonattainment

of goals (Idemudia, 2008), and partners with siloed goals and approaches contribute

to challenges in nonprofit organizational collaboration.

In a study on value creation in collaboration, Austin and Seitanidi (2012a)

identified a lack of a common language and collaboration processes as critical

factors in creating value when attempting to develop collaborative partnerships.

These authors claimed that “greater knowledge of the processes for and extent of

value creation in general and co-creation more specifically are required for needed

theoretical advancement and practitioner guidance” (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a, p.

728). Marek et al. (2015) posited that studies examining the connection between

how nonprofit partnerships function and perform effectively remain relatively

scarce. Samali et al. (2016) argued that a fundamental understanding of how and

why nonprofits collaborate is missing in collaboration discussions. Hayman (2016)

claimed that the delivery of preproven interventions (e.g., programs and services)

resulted in programmatic staff and executives who operationalize organizational

management as linear. At the same time, this short-term approach leaves no room

for innovation, collaboration, or convening leadership. Hayman also reported,

“Charities on the whole don’t collaborate but the fundamental reason for this is not

just a lack of will and much more that the economy they are a part of won’t let

them breathe enough to do so” (para. 10).

Moreover, Atouba and Shumate (2020) explored the roles of partner

selection, trust, and communication in nonprofit partnerships. Future research was

noted to be relational value, including collaborative leadership, conflict-resolution,

and effective project management. The problem was that nonprofit organizations

that operate independently without knowledge of effective governance principles

and convening leadership through collective-action collaboration have less shared

resources and philanthropic value to fulfill their organization’s mission (Austin &

Seitanidi, 2012a; Hayman, 2016; Idemudia, 2008; Jamali & Keshishian, 2009;

Marek et al., 2015; Murphy & Bendell, 1999). The aim of this study was to explore

collaboration, the role of governance, and convening leadership in the collaborative

process and to determine how they contribute to shared resources and philanthropic

value in fulfilling the organization’s mission.

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how principles of

commons governance (Ostrom, 1990), nonprofit commons governance (Lohmann,

1992), and convening leadership (Clary, 2021) are operationalized to contribute to

increased shared resources and philanthropic value in nonprofit organizations

through collaboration. To accomplish this, the researcher considered the

governance structure of nonprofit organizations to explore four of the eight

commons governance design principles of Ostrom (1990) and five basic

assumptions for nonprofit and voluntary action organizations (Lohmann, 1992)

within four Arkansas-based 501(c)(3) organizations. These included the Arkansas

Community Foundation, St. James Missionary Baptist Church Community

Outreach, the Hub of Ouachita County, Walmart, and the Walmart Foundation. The

Arkansas Community Foundation provides grants to improve neighborhoods,

towns, and the State of Arkansas (Arkansas Community Foundation, n.d.).

Similarly, Walmart and the Walmart Foundation provide grants creating

opportunities for business and philanthropy to collaboratively transform systems

and realize better outcomes (Walmart, n.d.). According to their website, St. James

Missionary Baptist Church Community Outreach focuses on “alleviating hunger,

homelessness, and poverty in Northwest Arkansas and throughout the surrounding

state through community partnerships and our own Community Food Pantry” (St.

James Missionary Baptist Church Community Outreach, n.d., para. 1). The fourth

nonprofit organization in the study, the Hub of Ouachita County, collaborates to

bring resources to area nonprofit organizations whereby strengthening the ability of

the nonprofit community to work together without duplication of services, and

freedom from competition (Hub of Ouachita County, n.d.).

As noted earlier, there are system challenges associated with collaboratives

(Koschmann et al., 2012) that often contribute to limited results (Jamali &

Keshishian, 2009; Murphy & Bendell, 1999; Turcotte & Pasquero, 2001). In a

study of collaborative partnerships between business and NGOs, Jamali and

Keshishian (2009), attributed their limited results in part to knowledge sharing,

information symmetry, culture, structures, processes, and a common set of values.

Moreover, Gazley and Guo (2020) considered the problem of collaboration to be

found in the lack of attention to governance processes, theoretical and empirical

evidence, leadership collaboration, knowledge about collaborative failure, and

lastly, a lack of comparative studies. Therefore, in this dissertation, the researcher

explored an effective approach to solving complex societal problems by applying

the design principles of commons governance and nonprofit and voluntary action

commons governance assumptions to four nonprofit organizations in the state of

Arkansas. Additionally, convening leadership was explored as an integral

component of successful governance, leading to shared resources and philanthropic

value.

Research Questions

The research questions were designed to understand better how commons

principles (Ostrom, 1990), nonprofit and voluntary action commons governance

assumptions (Lohmann, 1992), and convening leadership (Clary, 2021) contribute

to shared resources and philanthropic value through collaboration.

RQ1: What is the need for nonprofit and voluntary action organizations to

collaborate?

RQ2: What are the barriers or challenges in collective-action collaboration?

RQ3: What do commons governance principles and assumptions look like

in nonprofit and voluntary action collaboratives? (Lohmann, 1992;

Ostrom, 1990)

RQ4: How does the convenor contribute to collective-action collaboration?

(Clary, 2021)

RQ5: What is the need for shared resources and philanthropic value in

nonprofit and voluntary action collaboratives?

Significance of the Research

The findings of this study provide a better understanding of how commons

governance, commons governance assumptions, and convening leadership

contribute to shared resources and philanthropic value though collaboration in

nonprofit organizations and voluntary action associations to meet societal and

global complex issues. Ostrom et al. (1999) contended, “Although the number and

importance of commons problems at local or regional scales will not decrease, the

need for effective approaches to commons problems that are global in scale will

certainly increase” (p. 278). The complexity of societal issues spans the globe, as

scholars and practitioners seek effective solutions to complex issues. The current

researcher explored a practical approach to solving complex societal problems by

applying the design principles of commons governance to four nonprofit

organizations and voluntary action in the state of Arkansas. More purposefully,

collaboration and convening leadership were explored as integral components of

successful commons governance. The findings of this study have significant

implications for cross-sector practitioners. In the United States, 1.6 million

taxexempt organizations encompass 501(c) designations from churches and cultural

centers to food banks and disaster relief organizations (The Independent Sector,

n.d.). In Arkansas, there are 12,083 nonprofit organizations that comprise 8,174

501(c)(3) public charities, which includes some religious organizations; 422 501(c)

(3) private and public foundations; and 3,487 other 501(c) nonprofit organizations.

The implications of the findings would benefit stakeholders, practitioners, and

scholars interested in the voluntary, independent, and the third sector community of

nonprofit organizations.

Conceptual Framework

This study was based on three conceptual frameworks: commons

governance (Ostrom, 1990), nonprofit and voluntary action commons governance

(Lohmann, 1992), and convening leadership (Clary, 2021).

Commons Governance

Ostrom’s (1990) groundbreaking work on governing the commons led to the

identification of eight design principles illustrated by long-enduring common pool

resource (CRP) institutions. Design principles, according to Ostrom, denote an

element or condition that accounts for the success and sustainability, generation to

generation, in governing the commons (Ostrom, 1990). The principles are (a)

clearly defined boundaries, (b) congruence between appropriation and provision

rules and local conditions, (c) collective choice arrangements, (d) monitoring, (e)

graduated sanctions, (f) conflict-resolution mechanisms, (g) minimal recognition of

rights to organize, and (h) for larger systems, nested enterprises (p. 90). In this

study, the researcher explored four of Ostrom’s principles: clearly defined

boundaries, collective choice, monitoring, and conflict-resolution mechanisms.

Nonprofit Commons Governance

Correspondingly, seminal thought-leader Lohmann (1992) hypothesized

commons governance could be applied to the work of nonprofit organizations and

voluntary action when contextualized through a values-driven normative model of

common goods. Hess (2008) validated the importance of Lohmann’s (1989, 1992,

1995, 2001) work in “equating the nonprofit [third sector] sector with the commons

was quite influential and made important inroads in understanding the collaborative

nature of philanthropy” (p. 3). Lohmann (1992) identified four value principles that

correlated to the commons: (a) proportion, (b) contextualism, (c) conservation, and

(d) prudence. Furthermore, Lohmann considered nine basic assumptions applicable

to nonprofit organizations and voluntary action: are (a) social action, (b) affluence,

(h) intrinsic valuation, and (i) ordinary language. In this study, the researcher

examined five of Lohmann’s nine assumptions, which were interchangeably

referred to as principles in this study. Social action, authenticity, continuity,

intrinsic valuation, and ordinary language were explored to better understand how

to operationalize nonprofit governance and leadership through commons

governance and nonprofit principles and assumptions.

Convening Leadership

Although complex in nature, collaboration and collaborative processes can

be better understood through a collaborative continuum recognizing the dynamics

involved in collaboration and collective action (Cheng, 2019). At the

intersectionality of a collaborative is the individual or individuals who work toward

solving complex social problems—the convenor. A convenor is essential for

successful collaborative action (Carlson, 2006) and increasingly more important to

solve the complex societal and global issues nonprofit organizations address today.

The dimensions of convening leadership posited by Clary (2021) include

collaboration of stakeholders; core beliefs, values, and attitudes; culturally diverse;

creative co-learning and co-creating; and congruity of stakeholders. In this study,

the researcher explored how three frameworks, commons governance, nonprofit

commons governance, and convening leadership contributed to shared resources

and philanthropic value for nonprofit organizations and voluntary action

associations.

Methodology

Creswell’s (2015) qualitative methodology approach was used to guide this

research. Qualitative research is conducted to describe trends and explain the

relationship among variables found in the literature. Moreover, a qualitative

methodology often includes a three-step process: (a) collecting data for analysis by

seeking answers to broad questions from the participants, (b) analyzing the

information collected from participants using descriptions and themes, and (c)

interpreting the meaning of the information. Research questions were open-ended,

with general questions that the researcher would like answered during the study

(Creswell, 2015). Purposeful sampling, a qualitative method of intentionally

selecting participants and sites to understand better the central phenomenon, was

chosen for this study (Creswell, 2015). The Arkansas Community Foundation, St.

James Missionary Baptist Church, the Hub of Ouachita County, Walmart, and

Walmart Foundation were selected to understand the phenomenon further. The

participants were representative of the organizations’ executive director,

collaborative program director, or board of directors.

As modeled on Phase 2 of the research design of Puppo (2021), who

interviewed a broad array of community stakeholders with the intent of discovering

common themes within their varied perspectives, data were collected using indepth

interviews. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), qualitative research is

emergent by nature, and it is both inductive and deductive. The interview questions

were derived deductively from an extensive literature review of commons

governance, nonprofit and voluntary action commons governance, and convening

leadership. The goal of the literature review was to reach bibliographical saturation,

such that it would be reasonable to conclude that any additional resources would

have minimal effect on the understanding of the theoretical constructs (Henson et

al., 2020). While the preferred method of data collection would have been inperson,

in-depth interviews, the current social distancing restrictions, and precautions

undertaken by varying organizations and individuals due to COVID-19 required

flexibility and the use of web conferencing technology such as Zoom. The

interviews were fully recorded, and a transcription service was employed for data

analysis purposes (Patton, 2014). The transcription service added to the already

existing challenges of in-depth interviewing, such as truthful and incomplete

responses; however, the interview process was structured to maximize interviewee

responses through open-ended interview questions, uninterrupted responses,

probing follow-up questions using the interviewee’s own words, exploring through

dialogue, and conducting follow-up interviews if necessary (Padgett, 2017).

Qualitative research studies have varied numbers of participants ranging from as

little as one in narrative research and three to 10 in phenomenology to 30 in

grounded theory (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). While distinct from

phenomenological research, the design of in-depth interviews is closely aligned to

phenomenology. Following the guidance of Creswell and Creswell (2018) and

Boyd (2001), as well as the methodologies of Williamson (2016) and Puppo (2021),

the researcher anticipated that between five to 10 participants would be required to

reach data saturation.

The qualitative data analysis process always begins inductively as the

qualitative researcher engages the data collected (Padgett, 2017). MAXQDA

software was used to analyze the data. The codebook of expected codes from the

literature review (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) was used to begin the coding

process. Additionally, the data analysis process was conducted following the

fivestep process outlined by Creswell and Creswell (2018). Validity and reliability

are essential components of the qualitative data analysis process (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018). Following the guidelines of Creswell and Creswell (2018),

validity was ensured through triangulation and member checking to determine the

accuracy of the findings. Reliability was determined by checking transcripts for

errors and continually comparing data with the codes to make sure that the coding

aligned with the original definitions of the codes.

Scope and Limitations

The current researcher explored how commons governance principles and

assumptions and convening leadership contribute to the attainment of shared

resources and philanthropic value to meet societal and global complex issues

through collaboration. The scope of the study had several limitations. The study’s

scope included four nonprofit and voluntary action organizations located within one

state, which was a limitation, as a national study would have been more robust.

Next, many of the literature review studies on commons governance were

conducted in other countries. It is difficult, therefore, to generalize the findings in

those studies to the operationalization of nonprofit and voluntary action

organizations in the United States.

Additionally, limited literature exists on convening leadership in the

commons (Lobo et al., 2016; Thompson, 2021). Lastly, Clary (2021) may have a

biased view of convening leadership as the author of the study and the convening

leadership framework. The view of the researcher may be an additional limitation.

Definition of Terms

Basic Assumptions About Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Lohmann (1992) attributed nine basic assumptions upon which the theory of

the commons is premised. Some of the assumptions are explicit alternatives to

commonly employed assumptions set forth about the nonprofit and voluntary sector

—and, as such, may be controversial. Others are straightforward and

noncontroversial. In this dissertation, the researcher used assumptions and

principles interchangeably when referring to nonprofit and voluntary action

governance.

Collaboration

For this study, the definition of collaboration was a “process through which

parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their

differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited visions of

what is possible” (Gray, 1989, p. 5).

Commoning

Commoning is a complex social and psychological process in which

commoners engage when they are establishing and managing commons

(Thompson, 2014, p. i).

Commons

Bauwens et al. (2019) defined the commons as “a social system for the long

term stewardship of resources that preserves shared values and community

identity” (p. 9). Thompson (2014) further stated, “generally conceived of as shared

resources, communities that create, use, and or manage them social protocols that

govern their usage, and a sense of mutuality, commons include natural resources

and well as created resources such as knowledge and information” (p. i).

Commons Leadership

Commons leadership is the role of the leader in convening stakeholders in

the work of the commons or commoning (Clary, 2021).

Convening Leadership

Convening leadership is the ability to bring together, mobilize, and lead

stakeholders toward the common good in solving complex societal and global

issues (Clary, 2021).

Convenor

The collaborative leadership network defines a convenor as an individual or

group responsible for bringing people together to address an issue, problem,

or opportunity. In the context of collaborative leadership, it usually involves

convening representatives from multiple sectors for a multimeeting process,

typically on complex issues. A convenor, or group of convenors working

together, might invite public officials, business professionals, or leaders of

community or nonprofit organizations to participate. Convenors use their

influence and authority to call people together to collaborate. (Collaborative

Leaders Network, n.d., para.2)

Design Principles Commons Governance (Ostrom, 1990)

Design principles denote an element or condition that accounts for the

success and sustainability, generation to generation, in governing the commons

(Ostrom, 1990).

Nonprofit

As defined by the Business Dictionary, a nonprofit organization is an

organization whose primary goal is to help the community. Nonprofit also refers to

organizations that are eligible for exemption from federal income taxation under

Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, plus the closely related social welfare

organizations eligible for exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the regulation

(Salamon & Newhouse, 2019, p. 7).

Nonprofit Leaders

Nonprofit leaders (NPLs) are typified as the executive director (ED), chief

executive officer (CEO), or another member of the leadership team. These leaders

are responsible for strategically directing the organization while overseeing most

management tasks in pursuit of the organization’s mission (Kearns et al., 2015;

Osula & Ng, 2014).

Stakeholders

A stakeholder is “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by

the achievement of an organization’s objectives” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 854).

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic accentuated the need for shared resources and

increased philanthropic value through governance and convening leadership in

nonprofit organizations to fulfill the organization’s mission. The state of Delaware

conducted the first evidence-based research report in March 2020, with 245

respondents from a population of 900 nonprofit organizations within the state of

Delaware. The findings indicated that organizations canceled events, philanthropic

giving dipped, and staff and volunteer absences made the delivery of products and

services challenging. Furthermore, a disruption in the supplies for service delivery

contributed to staff anxiety and stress. In this study, the researcher examined the

principles of commons governance (Ostrom, 1990), nonprofit commons

governance (Lohmann, 1992), and convening leadership (Clary, 2021) to

understand better how commons governance and convening leadership contribute

to shared resources and philanthropic value through collaboration for nonprofit

organizations.

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how commons

governance (Ostrom, 1990), nonprofit and voluntary action commons governance

assumptions (Lohmann, 1992), and convening leadership (Clary, 2021) contribute

to shared resources and philanthropic giving through collaboration.

Nonprofit Organizations

Americans self-organize at every turn for social justice. Ranging from the

abolitionist societies of the early 19th century to the Tea Party organizations of the

early 21st century, Americans rally to meet the needs of others or take up causes to

right an injustice (Never, 2016). Alexis de Tocqueville (2003) noted that Americans

have a fundamental belief in the democratic ideal whereby all ideas have potential

merit, with organizational forms following to fulfill these ideas. Although de

Tocqueville captured the essence how nonprofit organizations may form, what

distinguishes a nonprofit organization from other organizations is how assets are

distributed. Earnings cannot be distributed to controlling interest parties,

shareholders, or private owners (Johnson, 2011). A formidable sector, nonprofit

organizations play an intricate role in economic and social services delivery in the

United States.

Never (2016), citing 2015 data from the National Center for Charitable

Statistics, posited that the number of nonprofit organizations (inclusive of public

charities and other 501(c) organizations) grew by 45% from 1995 to 2015,

representing 1.18 million registered nonprofit public charities in the United States.

In that same period, public charities increased from 576,133 organizations to

1,182,187, or a 105% increase (p. 82). In 2019, the Urban Institute: National Center

for Charitable Statistics reported an increase of the number of nonprofit

organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United

States to be 1.54 million, representing an increase of 4.5 % from 2006. In that same

year (2019), the nonprofit sector contributed approximately $1.047.2 trillion to the

U.S. economy, or 5.6 % of the gross domestic product (GDP). The report further

clarified that public charities registered as IRS, 501(c)(3) public charities accounted

for just under two thirds of the nonprofit sector’s total assets of $3.79 trillion

(NCCS Team, 2020, para. 2). Furthermore, Giving USA (2019) reported that in

2018, giving from individuals, foundations, and businesses totaled $427.71 billion,

with an estimated 25.1 % of U.S. adults that volunteered in 2017. The volunteer

hours in 2017 had an estimated value of $195 billion (NCCS Team, 2020, para. 2).

Moreover, in 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported nonprofits

accounted for 12.3 million jobs or 10.2% of private-sector employment. It is worth

repeating that nonprofit organizations in the United States have become a

formidable sector in the American fabric of life’s economic and social supply chain

(Never, 2016).

The pace at which the nonprofit sector and its organizations reinvent

themselves and change depends on a multifaceted mix of internal and external

dynamics (Norris-Tirrell, 2014; Renz, 2016). In the late 1880s, a settlement housing

model addressed urban poverty (Norris-Tirrell, 2014), which created solutions to

social problems with social science knowledge, compassion, and expertise (Hall,

2016). The growing population of the United States and an increased need for

human services, changed the role and expectations of nonprofit organizations.

Further, disease, war, economic swings, and natural disasters also brought an

opportunity for expanded social services programs through nonprofit organizations

(Norris-Tirrell, 2014). Van Slyke et al. (2002) detailed the evolutionary shift

between government and nonprofit organizations beginning with

President Eisenhower in 1955. Eisenhower’s policy called for less reliance on the

government for goods and services demanded by citizens and more reliance on the

private sector. The Public Assistance Amendments of 1962 and 1967 followed due

to the War on Poverty and the Great Society programs of the Kennedy and Johnson

administrations, which created widespread contracting between government and

nongovernmental agencies. Current President Biden signed an executive order on

February 14, 2021, to reestablish a White House Office of Faith-Based and

Neighborhood Partnerships within the President’s Executive Office, strengthening

the nonprofit sector and its partnership with the federal government (Biden, 2021).

The reestablished office was to enlist, equip, enable, empower, and expand the

work of community-serving organizations, both faith-based and secular. In a

separate fact sheet on the reestablishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based

and Neighborhood Partnerships the global pandemic, a severe economic downturn,

systematic racism, climate crisis, and polarization were cited as reasons to look to

civil society partnership to meet such challenges. The state of the country created

another opportunity to expand the program and services in the social delivery

systems of nonprofit organizations. In the United States, nonprofit organizations

are valuable partners and conduits in the federal government’s delivery of programs

and services to meet the growing needs of people in America (Abramson, 2020;

Feiock & Andrew, 2006).

The nonprofit sector and institutional constructs are a robust industry in the

United States, encompassing terms like the third sector, the civil society, the

independent sector, and the social sector (Renz, 2016; Valentinov, 2011). Moreover,

in many parts of the world, nonprofit organizations are referred to as

nongovernmental organizations or NGOs (Renz, 2016). Community-based

organizations (CBOs) are also descriptive of nonprofit organizations. Notably,

many CBOs provide programs and services providing social services as their

primary mission (Smith, 2010). Hall (2016) maintained the nonprofit sector

referred to entities classified in section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954. One such entity, voluntary associations, consists of a

broader term to capture the range of organizations in section 501(c) of the IRS

code. According to Hall, voluntary associations encompassed political parties, trade

associations, and mutual benefit associations. The degree of tax benefit to the donor

was varied depending on the entity. V. Ostrom (1991) considered voluntary

association in commons work to be autonomous based on the authority and ability

of individuals to contract with one another where whole property is shared in the

assets of that voluntary association. Ostrom also argued that religious institutions

and the press were autonomous and recognized these institutions as voluntary

associations.

The nonprofit sector continues to evolve. It is vast, reaching, complex,

influential, and remains a key partner in addressing global and societal issues (Jain,

2020; Natal & Brichter, 2012). As a result, many scholars have supported the idea

of a movement to define the all-encompassing nonprofit organizations and

voluntary action association nonprofit sector as a commons (Bushouse, 2017; Hess,

2008; Lohmann, 1992). Regardless of the name, third sector, civil society,

independent sector, community-based organization, or NGOs, nonprofit

organizations and voluntary action associations are essential to solving complex

global and societal issues and include community organizations, cooperatives,

advocacy groups, service organizations, political parties, schools, charitable

organizations, and professional groups (Crosby, 1996). In this paper, nonprofit

organizations refer to and encompass all the above, and the governance of these

organizations was explored further through principles of commons governance

(Ostrom, 1990) and assumptions of nonprofit organizations and voluntary action

governance (Lohmann, 1992).

Shared Resources

According to Johnson (2011), the nonprofit organization’s mission is the

heart of the organization. Furthermore, Johnson contended that a clear

understanding of the mission should direct board members in the use of resources

to further the organization’s mission. In a time of fiscal crisis for nonprofit

organizations, however, many boards and nonprofit leaders are seeking new ways

to address the challenges of limited resources (Moynihan & Smith, 2014). The

fiscal crisis is being driven in part by reductions in state and local government

revenue and collections (Moynihan & Smith, 2014; Weber Sattler, 2006). A decline

in state and local government revenue is expected to continue for 50 years

(Moynihan & Smith, 2014). In a study of convening and social entrepreneurship,

Weber Sattler (2006) identified government budget deficits and a need for resources

decreased an organization’s capacity to fulfill their mission. Collaboration of

nonprofit organizations is a pathway to shared resources where resources may take

the form of funding or personnel (Proulx et al., 2014), space and nonemployee

overhead (Takagi, 2018), or shared programming.

A plethora of research has shown fierce competition among nonprofit

organizations to procure resources and philanthropic gifts (Ashley & Young, 2014;

Faulk, 2014; Harrison & Thornton, 2014; Seaman et al., 2014). Competition among

nonprofit organizations is not new and can revolve around revenue sources,

physical capital, clients, labor, or land. Increasingly so, nonprofit organizations also

compete for prestige and political power are resources nonprofit organization

compete (Ashley & Young, 2014).

The competitive nature of nonprofit organizations to acquire resources and

philanthropic value has led researchers to question the proliferation of nonprofit

organizations, leading to reduced levels of charitable giving (Harrison & Thornton,

2014); inequity in the distribution of resources (Seaman et al., 2014); the role of

government funding, the second-largest revenue source for nonprofit organizations

(Ashley & Young, 2014); the dilution of finite amounts of charitable funding;

inefficient fundraising; and the duplication of services (Faulk, 2014). Laurett and

Ferreira (2018) argued that the increase in nonprofit organizations and the rising

levels of competition are trends of the industry. Maier et al. (2016) maintained that

these trends contribute to the need for nonprofit organizations to adapt from

traditional methods of collecting resources and a need to change management’s

approach to continue providing services.

Research after the Great Recession (2007–2009) has shown the need for

nonprofit organizations to change their approach to management (Never, 2016).

Renz (2016) noted a continued higher demand for services, coupled with a

significant decline in government funding, a slow rebound in philanthropic support,

and a lack of internal resources contributed to nonprofits’ struggle to rebound

following the recession. Five years after the recession safety nets remain frayed,

stress levels are significant, with no relief in sight (Renz, 2016). Smith (2010)

reported that, following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, executive directors of nonprofit

organizations identified securing funding support, creating new approaches to

problems, and responding to the needs of client requests among the top coping

strategies for nonprofit organizations. Additionally, Smith cited that nonprofit

organizations needed a “clear chain of command when key people are not available,

a focus on mission consistency, and the need for continuity of service agreements in

a disaster” (p. 104). The research of Never (2016), Renz (2016), and Smith (2010)

signaled the need to understand how nonprofit organizations operationalize their

mission during times of crisis. Further research is needed to understand better how

nonprofit organizations secure funding, create new approaches to problem solving,

and respond to clients’ needs. Additional areas of study include the chain of

command, mission consistency, and continuity of service or collaborative

agreements in place during crises. The author of this dissertation explored how four

nonprofit organizations in Arkansas responded to the global COVID-19 pandemic

in securing funding, creating new problem-solving approaches, and responding to

clients’ needs. More specifically, the current exploration of the chain of command,

mission consistency, and collaborative agreements provided a better understanding

of how commons governance is operationalized in nonprofit organizations.

Philanthropic Value

Philanthropic value in this paper is the intrinsic value that a donor ascribes

to the social action of a nonprofit organization or voluntary action association. This

paper sought to understand how intrinsic value to the donor of four Arkansas

nonprofit organizations changed during the first year following the global pandemic

of COVID-19 and, if so, were governance and convening leadership leading factors

to the change? Overall, philanthropy in the United States has witnessed increased

turbulence if not decline. Volunteering is down (Nesbit et al., 2018), workplace

donations are down (Shaker et al., 2017), and, while United Way giving remains at

high levels, donations to the charity have steadily declined since

2007. The Nonprofit Quarterly reports that American’s are not giving at the level

they had in past years, resulting in a steady decline of charitable contributions.

In the state of Arkansas, a report in 2018 produced by the MDC on the state

of philanthropy in the state highlighted that the persistently poor, people of color,

and women continued to fall between the cracks, affecting education, health,

employment, and, indirectly, economic security. The implications presented to

Arkansas Impact Philanthropy (AIP) recommended alignment of resources and

leveraging its collective power to invest in well-being across the state (MDC, 2018,

p. 2). A final analysis in the report addressed access to federal funding to address

the issues facing Arkansas and the well-being of its population. The 2020 census

further reported three factors affecting philanthropy in the state of Arkansas, an

undercount of Arkansas’s population resulting in reduced federal funding,

marginalized voice and political power in rural areas and communities of color, and

lack of research to inform decision making.

A decrease in shared resources and philanthropic giving has increased the

importance of an organizations philanthropic value against the backdrop of the

changing face of philanthropic giving in America. In the 1980s, information

technology and globalization was attributed to the change in philanthropic giving

(Hall, 2016). Hall characterized the “new billionaires” as predominantly younger

men, active business leaders, activists, and result-oriented individuals who wanted

to yield measurable impacts. Additionally, Hall asserted that as the source of wealth

was global, the young financiers began to consider global problems of hunger,

disease, the environment, and economic development. The philanthropic landscape

varied between foundations. For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

focused on the global front of health, financial services for the poor, and

agricultural development. In the United States, the foundation focused on funding

schools, libraries, and scholarships (Hall, 2016). While financier George Soros

interests included poverty elimination and the political development of democratic

societies in Central and Eastern Europe (Hall, 2016). Google’s founders Sergey

Brin and Lawrence Page created a for-profit foundation exemplified as a social

enterprise combining business and social change. A definitive shift occurred in

philanthropy during this era, in that the focus of philanthropy changed from

advanced industrial nations supporting developing nations to a flow of aid and

influence in a broad area of multidirectional initiatives (Hall, 2016).

Duquette (2020) proposed American (e.g., United States of America)

charitable giving is at a critical juncture, with COVID-19 presenting an economic

contradiction likely to reduce giving. The reduced giving trend from the economic

downturn of COVID-19 can be a factor in changing philanthropic giving in the

United States. Solutions to the changing dynamics of philanthropy come from

institutions, researchers, and practitioners. For instance, the Milken Institute

challenged philanthropists to think beyond their own networks and pool of known

or well-established organizations, recognizing the solution to solving complex

societal and global problems may lie with new grantees (Biggs, 2021). Political

scientist Berry (2020) argued for expanding nonprofit advocacy with regulatory

changes to clarify the rules of advocacy for 501(c)(3) nonprofits. In contrast,

Seaman et al. (2014) endorsed consolidation and collaboration in the nonprofit

sector and contended the benefit to nonprofit organizations would be significant.

Seaman cited reduced costs, an increase in realized assets, larger markets,

mitigating competition, and greater political influence would be realized through

consolidation and collaboration. Therefore, theoretical, and empirical research is

needed to better understand how governance contributes to the philanthropic value

of an organization.

The Commons

Defining the Commons

An all-encompassing definition for the commons has not been agreed upon

by scholars; however, there are elements of the definition that most scholars do

agree upon. The commons is a social system where shared resources are managed

and shared by a group of people. Bauwens et al. (2019) defined the commons as “a

social system for the long term stewardship of resources that preserves shared

values and community identity” (p. 9). Thompson (2014) stated, “generally

conceived of as shared resources, communities that create, use, and/or manage

them social protocols that govern their usage, and a sense of mutuality, commons

include natural resources and well as created resources such as knowledge and

information” (p. i). Moreover, Hess and Ostrom (2007) argued that a commons is

“a general term that refers to a resource shared by a group of people that is subject

to social dilemmas” (p. 3). Never et al. (2020) extrapolated that resource sharing

requiring collective action and the presence of a social dilemma embodied the

definition of the commons. In addition, Berge and van Laerhoven (2011) contented

any natural or manmade resource defined a commons if that resource could be held

and used in common.

Hardin’s (1968) seminal work on the Tragedy of the Commons proposed a

sheepherder allegory to illumine an open/free system where a sheepherder could

increase the need for a commonly pooled resource (CRP) until saturation of the

resource was reached and the resource depleted. Hardin drew from biological and

economic theories in the development of his theory based on population growth

exceeding environmental resources (Frischmann et al., 2019). Hardin’s “tragedy of

the commons” postulated that when growth exceeded resources, the work of the

commons would fall into ruin. Ruin, Hardin asserted, “is the destination towards

which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in

the freedom of the commons” (p. 3). Without regulation or privatization of the

commons, individuals would abuse the shared resource as the freedom to use the

shared resource was without boundary. Hardin (1968) speculated this unlimited use

of the resource would lead the way to ruin for all. Hardin’s theory was based on

rational choice theory. The rational choice theory is based on the belief that people,

usually selfish, choose a course of action that is most in line with their personal

preferences and maximizes their own resource use (Burke, 2001). As such, Hardin

(1968) advocated for privatization and regulation to manage the commons.

The research of Elinor Ostrom provided alternatives to rational choice. The

first female to receive a Nobel Prize in Economics, Ostrom (1990), considered

Hardin’s (1968) tragedy of the commons model as an open-access model and not

that of a commons (De Angelis & Harvie, 2014). Ostrom viewed the open seas and

the atmosphere as having no limits with open access regimes; therefore, there was

no limit on who was authorized to use them (De Angelis & Harvie, 2014). Ostrom

(1990) theorized that local property could be successfully managed by local

commons without any regulation by central authorities or privatization and thus

conceptualized the commons as social systems. Jumbe (2006), an IASC colleague

of Ostrom’s, submitted that such management within the confines of a set of

institutions or rules would protect the resources from abuse or overuse from

overuse by people who do not respect the resources’ fragility or limits. CPRs

provide one example of common property regimes. Caffentzis (2005) categorized

money, personal belongings, literary texts, and even children as communalized

property. According to Caffentzis, the 15th century Taborites formed the first

community as commoners deposited all personal belongings into large open chests.

An act such as displayed by the Taborites, is an example of common pool

resources. Caffeentzis further contended that based on the history of common

property regimes, it was difficult to make a distinction between private property

goods and common property goods. Additionally, Ostrom et al. (1999)

hypothesized that “although the number and importance of commons problems at

local or regional scales will not decrease, the need for effective approaches to

commons problems that are global in scale will certainly increase” (p. 278).

Commons Governance Principles

The seminal work of the commons (Hardin, 1968) saw a re-emergence in

the study of commons and the common good in 2009 when Elinor Ostrom was

awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Ostrom (2010) received this

award for her research and analysis on economic governance, most notably, in the

commons (De Angelis & Harvie, 2014). Ostrom (1990) took an institutional

approach to the study of self-organization and self-governance in common pooled

resource situations (p. 1). In doing so, she countered Hardin’s (1968) assessment in

Tragedy of the Commons of central regulation, of privatization, and of regulation by

limiting the use of natural resources to ensure long-term economic viability.

Ostrom’s (1990) groundbreaking work on governing the commons led to the

identification of eight design principles as illustrated by long-enduring common

pool resource (CRP) institutions. The term common pool resource “refers to a

natural or man-made resource system that is sufficiently large as to make it costly

(but not impossible) to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from

its use” (Ostrom, 1990, p. 30).

Building on the work of Hardin (1968), Ostrom (1990), and Lohmann

(1992), Hess (2008) coined the term new commons (NC). This term differentiated

traditional common-pool resources and common property regimes from new

commons. The term, according to Hess, denoted issues of social crisis, deprivation,

and the sustainability of a variety of shared resources. Hess referred to the new

commons as commons where preexisting rules or clear institutional arrangements

of shared resources had not been recognized. The tragedy of the commons captured

by Hardin in an allegory of sheep grazing in a pasture, argued without governance

arrangements, the resources would be over-exploited by commoners [users of the

graze land] who would deplete the resource, destroying it in its entirety (McGinnis,

2011).

In this study, the researcher explored how traditional commons governance

(Ostrom, 1990) and nonprofit commons governance (Lohmann, 1992), or new

commons as coined by Hess (2008) contribute to shared resources and

philanthropic value. Lohmann’s (2016) research focused on governance, voluntary

action, and association offered that the collective work of the Ostrom’s and

colleagues contributed to the interdisciplinary institutional theory, largely

compatible with the third sector model.

The term third sector connotates something broader than the study of

nonprofit organizations or civil society (Hall, 2016; Lohmann, 2016; Renz, 2016;

Valentinov, 2011). As defined in this study, nonprofit organizations encompass

voluntary action and associations, as well as organizations identified as being a part

of the third sector, and civil society organizations. Ostrom (1990) studied variables

related to self-organization, the capability of individuals to self-organize, and how

CPR problems could be solved without external assistance. The work of Ostrom,

her husband Vincent, and colleagues led to the development of the institutional

analysis and development (IAD) framework. In a study of the IAD framework,

McGinnis (2011) argued that there was an increase in sustainable governance when

more of the principles were operationalized within a commons. Ostrom’s (2011)

IAD framework considered factors of social behavior, the rules, physical and

material conditions, and the attributes of the community. A general language the

IAD was used to analyze and test these factors, and how they affected the structure,

individual incentives, and the outcomes.

McGinnis (2011) posited that the IAD framework helped those new to

commons governance understand the interaction and design of the parts of an

action situation and how they fit together as a whole (p. 169). Design principles,

according to Ostrom (1990), denote an element or condition that accounts for the

success and sustainability, generation to generation, in governing the commons.

The principles as identified were (a) clearly defined boundaries; (b) congruence

between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions; (c) collectivechoice

arrangements; (d) monitoring; (e) graduated sanctions; (f) conflict-resolution

mechanisms; (g) minimal recognition of rights to organize; and (h) for larger

systems, nested enterprises (Ostrom, 1990, p. 90). In this study, the researcher

explored four of the IAD principles of commons governance as identified by

Ostrom: clearly defined boundaries, collective choice, monitoring, and

conflictresolution mechanisms.

Clearly Defined Boundaries. McGinnis (2011) concurred with Ostrom’s

(1990) assessment that boundaries are both biophysical and social and are clearly

defined. De Angelis and Harvie (2014) stated, “legitimate users must be clearly

separated from non-users; the common pool resource must be clearly separated (or

distinguished) from its wider environment” (p. 285). Ostrom (2010), in her later

research, identified boundary rules in institutional action situations to be such that

they specified how actors are chosen to enter or leave a situation. At multiple levels

of analysis, clearly defined boundaries considered the factors involved in to access

to the resource. Ostrom (2010) factored ownership of the resource, whether an

entry fee, paid fee, or lottery winning provided access to the resource. The cultural

multiplicity of ethnicity, race, caste, gender, or family was also considered.

Moreover, who owned the resources was a factor. The current researcher sought to

understand better how clearly defined boundaries contribute to shared resources

and philanthropic value in nonprofit organizations.

Collective Choice. Collective choice was identified by Ostrom (1990) as

social behavior based on the decisions of the representatives [collaborative

partners] (Forsyth & Johnson, 2014). The institutionalization of collective choice

operates at three levels: an operational level, a collective choice level, and a

constitutional level (Herzberg, 2015, p. 101). The operational level contains the

day-to-day activities such as harvesting, or monitoring, or making maintenance

decisions within a collective system. The collective choice level set the policies that

govern the operational level. The rules set at the collective choice level structure

daily interactions such as how to monitor or how to set up the rule for accessing. At

the constitutional choice level, who is involved is established and the rules to be

used at the collective choice level are laid out (Herzberg, 2015).

De Angelis and Harvie (2014) extrapolated from Ostrom’s work that

“individuals affected by the resource regime must be able to participate in making

and modifying its rules” (p. 285). The group then establishes processes to enable

the most affected individuals to participate in making the rules (McGinnis, 2011, p.

180). McGinnis considered collective choice to be processes whereby collective

decision-making, a consequence of constitutional choice processes, occurred in

institutions. In Ostrom’s IAD framework, constitutional choice was viewed as the

process by which collective choice procedures were defined (McGinnis, 2011, p.

173). Hardin (1968) viewed government regulation and privatization as solutions

reliant on collective action by the government to constrain the tragedy of the

commons (Frischmann et al., 2019). Whereas Lohmann (1992) considered

collective choice in nonprofit and voluntary action associations to be a term that

guided collected action through rules established by collective action users. Ostrom

(1990) questioned how collaborative partners could understand nuances associated

in making collective action decisions citing examples of a user’s understanding, for

instance, in harvesting technologies, forestry machinery, or fishing nets. And yet,

collective action was identified as an important consideration in establishing

principles in governing the commons. Therefore, the current researcher examined

collective choice in nonprofit organizations.

Monitoring. Monitoring takes place at the operational level of the

institutionalization of the resource to be governed (Herzberg, 2015). A two-way

process, in a collective action system, the users of the resource monitor one another

in the appropriation of the use of the resource and the condition of the resource (De

Angelis & Harvie, 2014). Monitoring is a common practice in systems like the

media, police, or auditors and consists of many units in a public economy

monitoring the activities of other units (McGinnis, 2011).

Bushouse (2011) studied governance structures using the IAD to understand

the variation in service delivery of club goods. At the constitutional choice level of

an institution, Bushouse argued that there are two types of power to affect the rules

at the collective-choice level: the number of principals at the decision-making level

and the proximity of monitoring and enforcing of those rules. Bushouse stated that

the rules-in-use is dependent on monitoring and enforcement of the rules; whereby,

internal monitoring is conducted by the principals and external monitoring comes

from entities separate from the collective. Bushouse asserted that monitoring varied

for each governance structure and the IAD framework was not sufficient to account

for the variation in service delivery across the for-profit, nonprofit, and public

provider sectors. The study explored how commons governance and convening

leadership contribute to shared resources and philanthropic value. Specifically, a

segment of the research explored if the nonprofit organizations in the study had a

monitoring system for internal and external shared resources.

Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms. The institutional analysis and

development framework (IAD) developed by Ostrom (1990) included

conflictresolution mechanisms. As Dietz et al. (2003) noted in an article on the

struggle of governance on the commons, sharp differences in power and value

across interested parties made conflict inherent in environmental choices. When

disputes inevitably rise among the different units in a public economy, it is

important to have mechanisms or processes in place to help the disputing parties

come to some resolution (Ostrom, 1990). In governing the commons, dispute

measures or mechanism need to be available quickly and affordably as conflict

arose (De Angelis & Harvie, 2014; McGinnis, 2011; Ostrom, 1990). McGinnis

(2011) identified dispute measures to be the court system, arbitrators, government

agencies, or other specialized mechanisms established for this purpose (McGinnis,

2011).

Dietz et al. (2003) captured the complexity of governance on the commons

and the need for conflict-resolution mechanisms in a study of fish hatcheries. The

results of their study drew attention to the global loss of more than 90% of the

predatory fish population, due to industrialization of the fishing industry, an

increased population, and advanced technologies. The findings showed a 10%

additional increase in loss of predatory fish over a 15-year span of industrialized

exploitation. To address the complexity of governance as disputes arose, Dietz et al.

identified governmental approaches to complement managerial ones: ballots,

polling, formal legal proceedings to address adversarial processes, negotiation, and

structure input from participants as conflict-resolution measurements. As conflict is

inevitable in collaboratives, the current researcher explored the type of

measurements nonprofit organizations in the state of Arkansas use to resolve

conflicts.

The IAD framework consisted of nine principles for governing the work of

the commons. Research and findings on the efficacy of these principles is varied.

Berge and van Laerhoven (2011) argued that the design principles’ generated rules

are relevant and useful in a diversity of context. Forsyth and Johnson (2014)

considered the design principles to offer a model of decentralization for the

governance of local resources. They also argued that the individualistic approach of

Ostrom (1990) and colleagues removed important aspects of the context of cultural

diversity in the work of the commons. Johnson (2011) criticized Ostrom’s work,

likening her approach to common property regime as a cookie-cutter style

prescribing both the nature of the problem and the solution. In an editorial on

governing the commons for 2 decades, Berge and van Laerhoven (2011) considered

the sustainability of global ecosystems like the oceans through governance. In the

current study, the researcher explored four of the design principles (see Table 1) to

understand how commons governance is operationalized in nonprofit organizations

and voluntary action associations based in the United States.

Table 1

Four Principles of Commons Governance (Ostrom, 1990)

Commons Governance Framework (Ostrom, 1990)

Clearly Defined

Boundaries

Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units

from the CPR must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the

CPR itself (Ostrom, 1990, p. 91).

Collective-Choice

Arrangements

Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in

modifying the operational rules (Ostrom, 1990, p. 93).

Conflict-Resolution

Mechanisms Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local

arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between

appropriators and officials (Ostrom, 1990, p. 100).

Monitoring

Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriator

behavior, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators

(Ostrom, 1990, p. 94).

Note. Table 1 represents a partial list of commons governance principles.

Summary

Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) seminal work emerged as the forerunner of

commons governance for common pooled resources. Along with Victor Ostrom and

a team of colleagues at the Indiana University, the design principles or the IAD

have withstood research scrutiny and testing to remain formidable in determining

the long-term sustainability of success in the commons. Aside from Lohmann

(1992), however, limited research has been conducted to test the principles in

nonprofit organizations where a shared resource might be a food distribution

system or shared office space. Therefore, little is known on how the principles of

commons governance are operationalized in nonprofit organizations in the United

States and more specifically, Arkansas. The current researcher explored clearly

defined boundaries, collective choice, monitoring, and conflict-resolution

mechanisms, four of the eight design principles identified by Ostrom (1990) for

governance on the commons asking the question, “In what ways did clearly defined

boundaries, collective choice, monitoring, and conflict resolution contribute to

shared resources and philanthropic giving during the first year of COVID-19

through nonprofit organization governance and convening leadership?”

Nonprofit Governance

Defining Nonprofit Governance

There are many factors to be considered in the governance of a nonprofit

organization where the nature of governance is determined mainly on the form of

the entity. The current researcher looked at 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations,

typically governed by a board of directors and voluntary action associations,

informally governed by volunteers. The control and management of a nonprofit

organization are two such factors to be considered in nonprofit governance

(Hopkins & Gross, 2016). Additionally, McGinnis (2011) considered governance to

be process driven as the rules and norms of the organization are formed. The

process is iterative, in that the rules in the governance of the organization influence

the policies of the organization and the policies are open to review and revision.

McGinnis exerted self-governance to be the ability of commons and organizations

to actively engage in determining the rules and processes of self- organization,

whereas Bushouse (2011) considered governance to be at the constitutional-choice

level of decision-making as determined by the organization's governance structure.

Bushouse further contended the power to make the rules was directly connected to

the governance structure.

Bushouse (2011) applied the institutional analysis and development (IAD)

framework to identify six governance structures in the for-profit, nonprofit, and

public providers service sectors. In the study of club goods, Bushouse posited that

constitutional, collective, and operational consistency across the rules connected the

sectors to outcomes. The variance of factors in nonprofit governance illustrates the

need to better understand how governance contributes to shared resources and

philanthropic value in fulfilling the mission of nonprofit organizations.

Johnson (2011) maintained that there is a division of power between the

board of directors and the executive director in nonprofit organizations with a

primary function of the board of directors to provide governance for the

organization. By doing so, the board safeguards the public’s trust for the

organization. Hopkins and Gross (2016) stated that the board of directors is

responsible for the oversight of the organization’s mission, tax-exempt status,

resources, budget, executive director, and overseeing the organization’s

management. The philanthropic responsibility of the board would be to support

fundraising activities of the organization. To fulfill its responsibilities, the board of

directors creates the governing policies and procedures that are implemented by the

executive director and staff. In this manner, the strategic direction set by the board

of directors is managed by the staff. Johnson advocated the use of position

descriptions to separate governance from management for officers, board, staff, and

volunteers. To better understand how the separation of governance and

management contributes to shared resources and philanthropic value and the ability

of an organization to fulfill its mission, the current researcher explored five

dimensions of nonprofit governance assumptions as proposed by Lohmann (1992).

Nonprofit Commons Governance Assumptions

The second framework in this dissertation was that of nonprofit

organizations and voluntary action commons governance (Lohmann, 1992).

Lohmann offered a set of first principles for charitable organizations and voluntary

action associations. A broad category of social organizations, Lohmann referred to

these organizations as a commons and compared the commons to social democracy

based on de Tocqueville’s science of association. Further, Lohmann (2016) linked

the multivariate approach of the institutional analysis development framework

(Ostrom, 1990) to nine basic assumptions for nonprofit organizations and voluntary

action associations. For Lohmann (1992), commons governance principles

(Ostrom, 1990) applied naturally to the third sector because the third sector was

governed by rules, participated in collective-action decision making, held in

common shared resources, and self-governed.

Lohmann (1992) asserted a new theoretical approach to the application of

commons governance through nine basic assumptions, upon which the theory of the

commons is premised in the nonprofit commons: (a) social action, (b) affluence, (c)

authenticity, (d) continuity, (e) rationality, (f) near-universality, (g) autonomy, (h)

intrinsic valuation, and (i) ordinary language. The current researcher explored

social action, authenticity, continuity, intrinsic valuation, and ordinary language,

five assumptions of nonprofit organizations and voluntary action commons

governance.

Social Action. Lohmann (1992) combined the words social (Schutz, 1970)

and action (Weber, 1968) to connotate a substantively meaningful life based on

preconceived projects, acting out of subjective meaning to the individual. In

philanthropy, social action is an action for the good of humanity, charity as action

for the good of others, and altruism as the interest of others (Billis, 1991). Billis

theorized that the action undertaken by nonprofit organizations and voluntary

action associations would materialize in social action as predictable, recurring

patterns. In this study, the researcher explored how social action was

operationalized in nonprofit organizations based in the state of Arkansas during the

first year of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Authenticity. Authenticity in the nonprofit commons assumes the actors are

authentic—that is, the actors are what they appear to be and what they inform

others they are (Lohmann, 1992). Lohmann based the assumption of authenticity on

the code of moral conduct, professional oaths, and ethical reporting with data and

results found in empirical practices in the commons. Lohmann applied the same

assumption of authenticity on the benefactory as the recipient of the shared

resource or philanthropic value. The litmus test for authenticity was determined

based on whether an organization organized and distributed the shared resource or

philanthropic value to the intended benefactors. Being perceived as authentic is

critical to organizations seeking to provide solutions to social problems and

challenges. Therefore, the current researcher explored authenticity and how four

nonprofit organizations in Arkansas are perceived in collaborative efforts to be

authentic. If proven to be authentic, the researcher aimed to identify in which ways

espousing values of moral conduct, professional codes, and ethical reporting were

evident in governing the organizations.

Continuity. Lohmann (1992) presented continuity as an invisible force

learned intergenerationally or experienced through tradition where action is

appropriate as it is reasonable, predictive, or productive of desired consequences (p.

51). Lohmann associated consistent lifestyle choices and the experience of others in

nonprofit and voluntary action to be characteristic of the past, present, and future,

promoting a sense of connectedness and continuity. In nonprofit organizations,

continuity can be observed in time-honored traditions, events, and repetitive

activities that can be caught and taught by actors in the organization. Lohmann

theorized that intergenerational recruitment is a significant consideration in the

decision-making of many commons. The assumption of continuity is an essential

factor in nonprofit governance in commons work. In this study, the researcher

explored how nonprofit organizations maintained continuity in recruiting new

members in the first year of a global COVID-19 pandemic and the delivery of

programs and services and determined whether that continuity led to shared

resources and philanthropic value.

Intrinsic Valuation. Lohmann’s (1992) intrinsic valuation assumption is

based on Mead’s qualitative social research, symbolic interactionism, and

ethnomethodology. Thus, intrinsic valuation is evaluated on the values arising from

within. In the commons, intrinsic valuation requires rules, and standards are

recognized and used by members. Therefore, this dissertation explored the rules

and regulations in the governance of nonprofit organizations in Arkansas that

contribute to shared resources and philanthropic value in collaboratives.

Ordinary Language. Ordinary language assumes that philanthropic,

charitable, and altruistic actors recognize and understand the language of the

commons (Lohmann, 1992). Therefore, the current researcher sought to understand

better how ordinary language contributes to shared resources and philanthropic

value through governance.

Summary

As shown in Table 2, this researcher explored whether social action,

authenticity, continuity, intrinsic valuation, and ordinary language, as discussed in

Lohmann’s (1992) assumptions on the commons, are integral to governance on the

commons in nonprofit organizations and voluntary action. More specifically, the

researcher identified in what ways social action, authenticity, continuity, intrinsic

valuation, and ordinary language contributed to shared resources and philanthropic

value during the first year of COVID-19.

Table 2

Five Assumptions of Nonprofit and Voluntary Action Commons Governance

Nonprofit and Voluntary Action Governance Framework (Lohmann, 1992)

Social Action Thus, a basic assumption of the theory of the commons is that

nonprofit services and unproductive laborers are composed of social

action, or “substantively meaningful experience emanating from our

spontaneous life based upon preconceived projects” (Lohmann, 1992,

pp. 47–48).

Authenticity

The theory of the commons also assumes that actors operating in

nonprofit and voluntary settings are authentic, that is they are what

they appear to be to informed others also operating in the same

context (Etzioni, 2014) (Lohmann, 1992, p. 49).

Continuity

Because individuals involved in many types of commons will be of

different chronological ages, decisions of on-going groups, will as a

consequence, inevitably take on an intergenerational character, as old

members die and new ones are born or socialized into the group

(Lohmann, 1992, p. 51).

Intrinsic Valuation The proper basis for evaluating an autonomous common world is on

the basis of values arising within it (Lohmann, 1992, p. 53).

Ordinary Language This ordinary language assumption mandates that language regularly

in use by charitable, philanthropic, and altruistic actors may also be

employed in theories of their actions (Lohmann, 1992, p. 54).

Note. Table 2 is a partial list of the dimensions of governance framework (Lohmann, 1992).

The Convenor and Convening

Framing Convening Leadership

A convenor is essential for successful collaborative action (Carlson, 2006),

and increasingly more so to solve the complex societal and global issues nonprofit

organizations address today. Carlson looked at convening as a powerful tool in

which leaders created a space for stakeholders to problem solve through

collaboration. Carlson made a distinction between a leader's management and their

ability to build consensus. Neal et al. (2010) drew from the definition of the word

convene to define convening as “the art of gathering and “holding” people, in a safe

and generative space, for the sake of authentic engagement” (p. 304). In the 15th

century, the word convene was the derivative of the two Latin words: venire,

meaning “come,” and con, meaning “together.” Convene as a verb means to come,

to cause, to assemble, or to convoke (Clary, 2021). Assemble, unite, come together,

gather, congregate, and meet are all words synonymous with convening. Clary

(2021) submitted that assembling stakeholders is a significant role for the convenor.

It is in the assembly of the stakeholders’ where commons are formed, governance

occurs, and shared resources are managed.

Westley et al. (2013), in a theory of transformative agency in

socialecological systems, argued leadership per se may be passe as the focus of

change transfers to institutional entrepreneurship. Leadership in these authors’

framework capitalizes on the concept of actors and actor groups incorporating

words such as stewards, knowledge carriers, leaders, interpreters, sense makers,

networks, visionaries, experimenters, followers, reinforcers, and facilitators where

transformation takes place through the efforts of several actors. According to

Westley et al., institutional entrepreneurship, a concept developed by DiMaggio

(1988), describes the work of convenors looking to bring transformational change

to institutions.

Westley et al. (2013) contended that the focus on institutional

entrepreneurship was better suited to emergence and change in adaptive systems

and noted that to refocus on the endeavor itself one must shift from the concept of

leader to that of entrepreneur [convenor]. What Westley et al. identified as

institutional entrepreneurship, Clary (2021) maintained was the role of a convenor

and convening leadership. According to Svendsen and Laberge (2005), convenors

help build independent relationships to create a “stakeholders’ network,” which

they define as “a web of groups, organizations and/or organizations who come

together to address a complex and shared cross-boundary problem, issue, or

opportunity” (p. 92). Additionally, the convenor helps collaborative members find

solutions and innovations through the energy, resources, and intelligence of its

members (Svendsen & Laberge, 2005).

A convenor can be an organization or someone who steps into a leadership

role as a coalition convenor (Kemp, 2020). Moreover, a convenor may take the

form of a collaboration of convening representatives from multiple sectors

(Colburn, n.d.). Block (2008) maintained that there is an art to convening

stakeholders and that convening leadership is essential. In the context of a

decentralized solution to the problem of cooperation, Lobo et al. (2016) affirmed

Ostrom’s (1990, 2000) argument that individuals can develop institutions that

guarantee optimal cooperative solutions without the need for enforcement from

leaders and proposed mutual monitoring as discussed in the previous section.

Moreover, according to Ostrom, a leader may evolve from the group and can be the

initial stimulant in presenting alternative ways of organizing. Van Belle (1996)

argued that leadership can be instrumental in overcoming the difficulties found in

the pursuit of public goods thus providing an efficient and effective solution to

collective action [collaboration] problems.

Glowacki and von Rueden (2015) found leadership to be effective in

smallscale societies with high efficacy in domains of collective action. Moreover, a

leader’s prior experience, age-related knowledge of the situation, body size, and

social placement contribute to the effectiveness of the leader. In a study on

leadership in social movements, Morris and Staggenborg (2004) suggested that

leaders inspire commitment, are strategic decision-makers, influence collective

outcomes, and create and recognize opportunities. Leaders in the global community

were suggested by Crosby (1996) to be individuals who build global community or

civil society in the world by creating organizations and exchange programs.

Leadership inspires and mobilizes others to take collective action in pursuit of the

common good (Crosby, 1996; Crosby & Bryson, 2010). Block (2008) offered that

leadership in community building encompasses intentionality, convening, valuing

relatedness, and presenting choices. Further, Block (2008) also described leaders as

those who set the stage for institutional and civic engagement. In this regard, the

leader not only designs the blueprint for the engagement but also provides the

roadmap on how to arrive at the destination (Block, 2008). Collaborative

governance offers an opportunity for the many roles of leadership on the commons

(Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Bryson et al., 2006). Emerson et al. (2011), based on

the work of Agranoff and McGuire (2003), Bryson et al. (2006), and Carlson

(2006), outlined leadership roles including sponsor, convenor, facilitator, mediator,

public advocate, and others. The cultivation of commons leadership is essential to

create sustainability and provide a competitive advantage to the organization

(Franzgen, 2020, p. 37). Fundamentally, collaborations do not rise spontaneously;

someone must initiate them (Bertels, 2006). Clary’s (2021) convening leadership

framework features five dimensions, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Convening Leadership Framework

Convening Leadership Framework (Clary, 2021)

Collaboration of

Stakeholders

Convenors will necessarily have to learn how to facilitate

collaboration of larger stakeholder networks (Clary, 2021, p. 199).

Core Beliefs, Values, and

Attitudes

Convenors will want to understand how the beliefs values, and

attitudes of all stakeholder’s factor into the operationalization of

commons governance (Clary, 2021, p. 200)

Culturally Diverse Convenors will need to develop a keen understanding of cultural

differences, develop a global mindset, and be able to facilitate

collaboration by highlighting diversity as a positive trait (Clary, 2021,

p. 200).

Creative Co-Learning and

Co-Creating

Convenors need to facilitate a creative co-learning and co-creating

environment to assist stakeholders to think outside of the box and

derive a new approach to a major challenge (Clary, 2021, p. 200).

Congruity of

Stakeholders Convenors need strong negotiation skills to meet challenges

associated with collaborative stakeholder networks (Clary, 2021, p.

202).

Convening Leadership

Clary (2021) contended that an individual who convenes stakeholders to

solve societal and global challenges collaboratively in a developed stakeholder

network characterizes convening leadership. Additionally, convening leadership is

operationalized in collective-action collaboration through five principles

collaboration of stakeholders, core beliefs, values, and attitudes; culturally

diversity; creative co-learning and co-creating; and congruity of stakeholders

(Clary, 2021). In this study, the researcher further explored how Clary’s (2021)

principles of convening leadership contribute to shared resources and philanthropic

value in nonprofit organizations.

Collaboration of Stakeholders. Collaboration in recent years has been

increasing (Guo & Acar, 2005), so much so that collaboration has become a

phenomenon giving way to the organizational modality of this century (Austin &

Seitanidi, 2012b). The phenomenon of collaboration crosses continents and sectors.

In the largest study of CEOs on the topic of sustainability, 766 United Nations

Global Compact (UNGC) members were interviewed amidst the face of rising

global competition, technological change, and a serious economic downturn.

Industry collaboration and multistakeholder partnership was viewed by 78% of the

CEOs to be a critical element in their approach to sustainability (Lacy, et al., 2010).

For instance, India’s Companies Act 2013, article 135 mandates companies who

meet a specific criterion are required to spend 2% or more of their average profit on

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. (Jain, 2020). The Act generated

$7 billion in 2019, necessitating collaboration between nonprofit organizations and

businesses; however, companies seldom have the capacity or infrastructure to

pursue social goals (Jain, 2020). In 2016–17, 1895 CSR projects were implemented

in India showing the effectiveness of business and NPO partnerships in executing

this critical social mission.

Today, elements of collaboration are fundamental in political, legal,

socioeconomic, and environmental sectors (Emerson et al., 2011). Bingham (2009)

argued that collaboration founded in democracy could be strengthened with a

revised legal infrastructure. Nonprofit collaboration bolsters organizational

efficiency and effectiveness and drives a broader social and system change (Samali

et al., 2016). Gazley and Guo (2020) identified antecedents, processes, and

outcomes as three variables on collaborative activity. In contrast, Emerson et al.

(2011) showed that external conditions such as politics, environment, or regulations

may impact the efficacy of a collaboration. In a study on value creation in

stakeholder networks, Schneider and Sachs (2017) added that prior prominent

social identities can bring discord to stakeholder relationships impacting value

creation. Schneider and Sachs further argued understanding value and its creation is

distinct to each group based on trust and cooperation. Although this section has

captured the essence of collaboration and identified some barriers to collaboration,

the purpose of this study was to better understand how to facilitate collaboration of

stakeholders through convening leadership that contributes to shared resources and

philanthropic value in nonprofit organizations.

Core Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes. According to Jain (2020), at the

organizational level, values define the ethical character of organizations, whereas

the core values give an organization timeless character. The implications of Jain’s

research on the nonprofit organization and business collaborations showed that as

collaborations are operationalized, organizational values should be considered.

When the stakeholders consider and adopt the values, coalescing around the values

can lead to the longevity of the partnership (Tsasis, 2009). Osula and Ng (2014)

conducted a study of leadership theory trends for nonprofit leaders, arguing that the

accountability necessary to build stakeholder trust required increased skill

competencies, collaboration, visionary leadership, and character associated with the

leader’s values and ethics. Ajzen (2005) successfully argued that the more abstract

a value, affect, or belief, the less it guides behaviors or attitudes toward a specific

event or situation. Based on cognitive values, the leader’s personal character can

effectively lead others toward the common goal (Jacobs & Buijs, 2011; Osula &

Ng, 2014).

A study of stakeholder attitudes in water management interventions argued

stakeholder attitudes derived from their place of meaning. Jacobs and Buijs (2011)

found that an early discussion of place meanings could contribute to successful

collaboration. According to Cheng et al. (2003) places “inform who we are and

therefore how we are to behave; in short, to be somewhere is to be someone. More

importantly, places are also imbued with socially constructed (and often politically

defined) expectations of appropriate behavior” (p. 90). Cheng et al. offered that

place encompassed social and political processes based on the research of Canter

(1977), biophysical attributes and processes (Relph, 1976), and social and cultural

meetings (Sack, 1992). In another study, Chen (2015) studied the attitude of

tourism stakeholders toward practices of sustainability in the arctic. Chen explored

three stakeholder groups: tourism businesses, local residents, and tourists in Arctic

destinations. This author’s findings showed that it is imperative when implementing

sustainability concepts for tourism development that all voices in the collaborative

network are integrated and heard. While varied in response, the stakeholder

attitudes brought clarity to how tourists, tourism business owners, and residents

viewed tourism and environmental sustainability. Limited research is available on

how core beliefs, values, and attitudes contribute to shared resources and

philanthropic value. Therefore, in the current dissertation, the researcher explored

this phenomenon through in-depth interviews to better understand how convening

leadership can bring clarity to the voice of collaborative stakeholder voices.

Culturally Diverse. Natal and Brichter (2012) analyzed the partnership

between a nonprofit organization and a local government in Mexico to understand

how societal diversity led to participative forms of decision-making to address the

concerns of diverse and well-organized groups of citizens. Natal and Brichter found

that the partnership between local government and nonprofit organizations had the

potential to be more inclusive in the decision-making process, to reduce the cost of

policymaking transactions, and to encourage economic development. Additionally,

Natal and Brichter discovered differences in socio-economic groups in terms of

culture, language, and influence could be neutralized when cultural diversity was

considered. The study by Natal and Brichter provided a parallel to the role of the

convenor in commons work. The research of Emerson et al. (2011) illustrated how

the disparity of resources among participants can become a barrier to engagement

due to cross-cultural settings such as language, customs, and culture.

In a study on frontstage and backstage institutional convening, Mair and

Hehenberger (2014) referred to convening as bringing together dissimilar actors

with different motives and interests. These scholars discovered that diversification

in the stakeholders as acted out in convening events and activities resulted in

mutualistic coexistence. In the conclusions of their study, they highlighted cultural

diversity as a positive trait. This study explored how the convenor presents

culturally diverse collaboration that leads to shared resources and philanthropic

value.

Creative Co-Learning and Co-Creating. Dietz et al. (2003) considered

how sharp differences in power and values among stakeholders could result in

conflict in commons governance. Dietz et al. submitted that if the conflict did not

bring demise to the group, conflict could lead to learning and change. When

alternative strategies were presented, stakeholder groups' changing perspectives,

interests, and philosophies could conclude with consensus and less conflict (Dietz

et al., 2003). Ansell and Gash (2012) identified that the role of the convenor was to

encourage, enable, and facilitate stakeholders to work together effectively. Van

Hille et al. (2018) emphasized the importance of convenors to adopt alternative

influencing strategies to bring about change in collaboratives. Based on research by

Gray (1989) and Wood and Gray (1991), van Hille et al. (2018) argued that a

convenor's lack of formal power was the catalyst for the need for alternative

strategies. Assisting with reframing problems that lead to stalemate and intractable

conflict is a critical role for collaborative leaders (Crosby & Bryson, 2010).

Collaborative leaders can help reframe problems by assisting stakeholders

understand underlying assumptions and beliefs and identifying alternative framings

(Feyerherm, 1994).

Research shows governance is complex in collaboratives. There is limited

research, however, on the convenor’s role in leading collaborations in nonprofit

organizations. Therefore, this dissertation explored how convenors facilitate

creative co-learning and co-creating environments and the elements of the

environment to move through and overcome significant challenges in collaboration.

Congruity of Stakeholders. Aarons et al. (2014) studied collaboration,

negotiation, and coalescence for interagency-collaborative in healthcare teams.

They hypothesized shared, and competing interests, agendas, and negotiations

added to the complexity of collaboration. Their research, based on Campbell and

Mark (2006) and De Dreu et al. (2000), showed that diverse views of stakeholders

could result in joint outcomes when negotiation considered problem-solving

techniques, the social complexion of the stakeholders, and less egotistical delivery.

The research of Hoefer and Sliva (2014) showed that a lack of negotiation skills

was a gap in nonprofit leadership development, whereas Sankaran et al. (2010)

contended effective communication skills could strengthen negotiation skills.

Zohar (2015) defined negotiation as “a way to resolve conflicts or

disagreements or divide resources among two or more parties, carried out willingly

by free choice” (p. 1). Zohar studied leadership skills to have in times of crisis.

Stakeholders may experience conflict in collaboration (Aarons et al., 2014;

Bingham, 2009; Franzgen, 2020; Natal & Brichter, 2012), resulting in a need for a

skilled negotiator to help stakeholders find common ground. Ostrom (1990) posed

that conflict resolution mechanisms should be identified and implemented during

the collaboration process. The current researcher explored how four nonprofit

organizations approach negotiation in times of conflict in collaborations, and the

results are presented in Chapter 4. Additionally, the researcher explored how a

skilled convenor can bring congruity to stakeholders through negotiation that

contributes to shared resources and philanthropic value.

Five research questions framed the study and informed the development of

the in-depth interview questions. The dimensions of the three frameworks explored

in this research provided structure for the interview questions developed more fully

in Chapter 3. Table 4 illustrates the relationship between the research questions and

the interview questions. A qualitative approach provides a research design to

explore the trends and explain the relationship among the variables found in the

literature.

Table 4

Research Questions and Interview Questions

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ1: What is the need for nonprofit and

voluntary action organizations to collaborate?

Interview questions will explore collaboration in

nonprofit organizations and voluntary action

associations.

RQ2: What are the barriers or challenges in

Interview questions will explore the benefits,

collective-action collaboration? barriers, and challenges in governance and

leadership when collaborating with stakeholder

groups.

RQ3: What do commons governance

principles and assumptions look like in

nonprofit and voluntary action

collaboratives (Lohmann, 1992; Ostrom,

1990).

Interview questions will explore commons

governance principles (Ostrom, 1990), clearly

defined boundaries, collective-choice agreements,

monitoring, and conflict-resolution mechanisms,

nonprofit commons governance principles

(Lohmann, 1992), social action, authenticity,

continuity, intrinsic valuation, and ordinary

language.

RQ4: How does the convenor contribute to

collective-action collaboration (Clary, 2021).

Interview questions will explore convening

leadership (Clary, 2021), collaboration of

stakeholders, core beliefs, values, and attitudes,

culturally diverse, creative co-learning and

cocreating, and congruity of stakeholders.

RQ5: What is the need for shared resources

and philanthropic value in nonprofit and

voluntary action collaboratives?

Interview questions will explore how

collaboration contributes to shared resources and

philanthropic value.

Summary

Gazley and Guo (2020) submitted that as nonprofit organizations are

increasingly called upon to collaborate to tackle our time's most challenging social

problems, scholars and practitioners must generate evidence-based knowledge from

the existing literature and use it effectively in future work. Ostrom’s (1990)

institutional analysis and development (IAD), the first of three frameworks of this

dissertation, identifies nine governance principles that may account for the success

and sustainability of common-pooled resources if amply applied. Lohmann (1992),

building from the research of Ostrom, applied the principles of commons

governance to nonprofit organizations and voluntary action. Lohmann presented the

eight dimensions as assumptions. In this study, the researcher used assumptions and

principles interchangeably when referring to nonprofit and voluntary action

governance. Lohmann, the second framework, included eight principles of

nonprofit and voluntary action. Five of Lohmann’s assumptions were explored in

the study to understand better how governance and leadership contribute to shared

resources and philanthropic value in nonprofit commons. The third framework

proposed by Clary (2021) addresses the role of the leader in convening stakeholders

in the work of the commons or commoning (Bauwens et al., 2019; Dietz et al.,

2003; Hardin, 1968).

Through this study, the researcher sought to contribute to the existing

literature by studying commons governance, nonprofit commons governance, and

convening leadership to understand better how a model for collaboration based on

governance and leadership contributes to shared resources and philanthropic value.

The researcher investigated nine dimensions of commons governance and nonprofit

commons governance in this study. Additionally, five dimensions of convening

leadership were explored. The researcher expected to discover that commons

governance and convening leadership contribute to shared resources and

philanthropic value in nonprofit organizations and voluntary action associations.

Chapter 3 – Methodology

The qualitative methodological approaches suggested by Creswell (2015)

and Creswell and Creswell (2018) were used to guide the current research.

Researchers employ qualitative methods to describe trends and explain the

relationship between variables. A qualitative methodology often includes a

threestep process. First, the researcher collects data for analysis by seeking answers

to broad questions from the participants. Second, the researcher analyzes the

information collected from participants using descriptions, codes, categories, and

themes. Third, the researcher interprets the meaning of the information. The current

research questions were open-ended, with general interview questions that the

researcher aimed to answer through the study. The Arkansas Community

Foundation, St. James Missionary Baptist Church, the Hub of Ouachita County,

Walmart, and the Walmart Foundation were selected to understand the phenomenon

further. The participants were required to be the organizations’ executive director,

collaborative program director, or a member of the board of directors.

Research and Interview Questions

To explore whether and how governance and leadership contribute to

shared resources and philanthropic value for nonprofit organizations through

collaboration, five research questions provided the framework for 20 interview

questions, as shown in Table 5. As familiarity with the terms associated with

commons governance, nonprofit commons governance, convening leadership, and

collaboration may vary among interviewees, the definition of the term was included

in the IQs. Additionally, a list of the terms used in the IQs and the questions was

provided to the interviewees before the interview. Table 5 illustrates the association

between the RQs and IQs, and Table 6 includes the definitions of the terms.

Table 5

Association Between the RQs and IQs

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ1: What is the need for

nonprofit and voluntary

action organizations to

collaborate?

IQ1: What does collaboration look like in your program,

collaboration, or organization? Who are the stakeholders? How do

you identify the stakeholders? For what purposes do you

collaborate?

RQ2: What are the barriers or

challenges in collectiveaction

collaboration?

IQ2: As you think about collaborative efforts, what are the

benefits of collaboration?

IQ3: What have you observed as barriers or challenges in

collaboration?

RQ3: What do commons

governance principles and

assumptions look like in

nonprofit and voluntary

action collaboratives

(Lohmann, 1992; Ostrom,

1990)?

IQ4: How do stakeholders (or your organization) collectively

determine how the group will be governed?

IQ5: How do stakeholders (or your organization) access shared

resources? Who makes this determination?

IQ6: How do stakeholders (or your organization) monitor the use

of shared resources among stakeholders?

IQ7: How do stakeholders (or your organization) manage

conflict?

IQ8: Social action is an action taken for the good of humanity,

charity as an action for the good of others, and or altruism as the

interest in others. How would you describe social action in your

program, collaboration, or organization?

IQ9: Authenticity implies stakeholders are what they appear to be

and say and that shared resources they receive reach the client.

How does your organization communicate authenticity to

collaborative stakeholders?

IQ10: Continuity is an invisible force learned intergenerationally

or experienced through tradition where the action of the

stakeholder is reasonable, predictive, or productive of desired

outcomes. In nonprofit organizations, recruiting board members

or stakeholders to open positions within a program, collaboration,

or organization (e.g., paid or volunteer) would illustrate

continuity. How does your organization integrate, teach, or

maintain continuity in recruiting new stakeholders?

IQ11: Intrinsic valuation in nonprofit governance refers to the

rules, standards, or values that stakeholders recognize and use.

What rules, standards, or values are recognized and used in your

organization? How do these rules, standards, or values contribute

to shared resources or philanthropic value?

IQ12: Ordinary language suggests a common language is

adopted, used, and recognized by stakeholders. For instance,

terms like fiduciary responsibility, endowment, community

investment, or unrestricted funds might be considered common

language in philanthropy. What does ordinary language look like

in your program, collaboration, or organization, and how is that

language communicated to collaborative stakeholders?

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ4: How does the convenor

contribute to collective-action

collaboration (Clary, 2021)?

IQ13: What have you observed as three best practices of a

convenor?

IQ14: What has been your experience in how a convenor’s core

beliefs, values, and attitudes influence collaborative efforts?

IQ15: What has been your experience in how a convenor brings

together socio-economic groups with differences in culture,

customs, language, influence, and disparity of resources? IQ16:

How does a convenor facilitate collaboration among

stakeholders?

IQ17: What have you observed as a technique a convenor would

use to reframe a problem to help stakeholders find common

ground during times of conflict?

RQ5: What is the need for

shared resources and

philanthropic value in

nonprofit and voluntary action

collaboratives?

IQ18: How have you observed the need for increased (if at all)

shared resources and philanthropic value in collaborations since

COVID-19?

IQ19: How have you observed (if at all) governance and

convening leadership contribute to shared resources and

philanthropic value in collaborations?

IQ20: How have you observed (if at all) collaboration contributes

to shared resources and philanthropic value?

Table 6

Definition of Terms Used in the Interview Questions

Term Definition

Authenticity Authenticity implies stakeholders are what they

appear to be and say and that shared resources

they receive reach the client.

Collaboration

Collaboration is a formalized, joint-working

arrangement between organizations that remain

legally autonomous while engaging in

ongoing, coordinated collective action to

achieve outcomes that none of them could

achieve on their own.

Continuity Continuity is an invisible force learned

intergenerationally or experienced through

tradition where the action of the stakeholder is

reasonable, predictive, or productive of desired

outcomes.

Convening Leadership

Convening leadership is attributed to the

convenor as the individual or entity responsible

for bringing stakeholders together to manage a

shared resource, address an issue, problem, or

opportunity.

Term Definition

Governance Governance is an element or condition that

contributes to the success or failure of the

collaborative and can include the social,

economic, or political structures or rational

principles that govern the nonprofit

organization.

Intrinsic Valuation Intrinsic valuation in nonprofit governance is

the rules and standards or values recognized

and used by stakeholders.

Ordinary Language Ordinary language suggests there is a common

language that is adopted, used, and recognized

by stakeholders. For instance, terms like

fiduciary responsibility, endowment,

community investment, or unrestricted funds

might be considered common language in

philanthropy.

Shared Resources and Philanthropic Value Shared resources and philanthropic value can

be funding, personnel, office space,

programming, or a commodity like food,

whereas philanthropic value is linked to the

social action of a nonprofit organization and

encompasses voluntary giving, service, or

association.

Social Action Social Action is an action taken for the good of

humanity, charity as an action for the good of

others, and or altruism as the interest in others.

Stakeholders Stakeholders are “any group or individual who

can affect or is affected by the achievement of

an organization’s [collective-action

collaboration] objectives” (Mitchell et al.,

1997, p. 854). Commons are formed in the

assembly of stakeholders, governance occurs,

and shared resources are managed.

Additionally, the researcher developed an interview protocol to facilitate the

interview (see Appendix A).

Analysis of the Organizations

The nonprofit organizations participating in this study engaged in collective

action collaborations with other nonprofit organizations, government agencies,

community groups, or for-profit organizations. They were also convening

organizations and, in some instances, the granting funder of the organizations’

direct services. The initial organizations were identified by working with the

Arkansas Community Foundation (ARCF) program director, with the criteria for

participation predicated upon the participant's position in the organization and

knowledge of how the organization is governed. After an initial introduction by

ARCF to the executive director or program director of each organization, the

researcher initiated a follow-up conversation to determine their interest in

participating in the study.

While the study was not a case study, an analysis of each organization as

though framed in a case study provided the background for each organization in

order to understand the contextual significance that each organization brought to

the study. A case study is the exploration of a program, event, activity, process, or

one or more individuals (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this study, the researcher

explored one program offered through each of the four nonprofit organizations as

experienced and observed by the individuals in each organization. Additionally, the

collected demographic information collected allowed for interpretive implications

of the study results in terms of organizational and programmatic similarities and

differences. Finally, the organizations self-selected from which contextual lens

participants responded during the interview process.

Data Collection

The interview questions provided inquiry through in-depth interviews into

the essence of commons governance and convening leadership. The researcher

derived the IQs deductively from an extensive literature review of commons

governance, nonprofit and voluntary action commons governance, and convening

leadership. More specifically, the questions were formulated to explore whether

commons governance and convening leadership contribute to increased shared

resources and philanthropic value in nonprofit organizations through collaboration.

Based on Phase 2 of the research design of Puppo (2021), who interviewed

a broad array of community stakeholders with the intent of discovering common

themes within their varied perspectives, the researcher collected data using initial

in-depth interviews with follow-up interviews as necessary. According to Creswell

and Creswell (2018), qualitative research is emergent by nature. It is both inductive

and deductive. The goal of the literature review was to reach bibliographical

saturation in order to conclude that any additional resources would have minimal

effect on the understanding of the theoretical constructs (Henson et al., 2020). The

research and interview questions were constructed through a thorough literature

review. Although the preferred method of data collection would have been

inperson, in-depth interviews, social distancing restrictions and precautions

undertaken by varying organizations and individuals due to COVID-19 necessitated

flexibility, such that web conferencing technology such as Zoom was required. The

interviews were fully recorded, and a transcription service was used for data

analysis purposes (Patton, 2014). A transcription service added to the already

existing challenges of in-depth interviewing, such as truthful and incomplete

responses; however, the interview process was structured to maximize interviewee

responses through open-ended interview questions, uninterrupted responses,

probing follow-up questions using the interviewee’s own words, exploring through

dialogue, and conducting follow-up interviews if necessary (Padgett, 2017).

Qualitative research studies have varied numbers of participants ranging

from as little as one in narrative research and three to 10 in phenomenology to 30 in

grounded theory (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Although distinct from

phenomenological research, the design of in-depth interviews is closely aligned

with phenomenology. Following the guidance of Creswell and Creswell (2018) and

Boyd (2001), as well as the methodologies of Williamson (2016) and Puppo (2021),

the current researcher determined that this study required five to 10 participants to

reach data saturation. The participants were executive directors, board members, or

collaborative program director from four organizations. The researcher anticipated

that the executive director could designate individuals from within the organization

to participate in the study who met the research population's desired profile. The

researcher strove to balance perspectives from each organization, given the logical

constraints that may result from imbalanced participation.

Southeastern University (SEU) has a stringent review process for research

involving human subjects. To conduct research using human subjects, researchers

under the auspices of Southeastern University must agree and adhere to the

protocols found in the Request for IRB Review of Research Involving Human

Subjects set forth by SEU before the commencement of research. The rights of the

participants must be considered and protected. The researcher submitted the IRB

application as shown in Appendix B.

The participants received an Informed Consent Form (see Appendix C).

This form provided details about the research scope, the protocols for participation,

the purpose of the research, the confidentiality considerations of participants, and

the participant’s rights (Creswell, 2015). The participants were asked to sign, date,

and return the form before the interviews commenced. Furthermore, each

participant understood that they did not have to respond to any question. Moreover,

participants were able to leave the study at any time for any reason. A copy of the

executed form was provided to participants for their records. Additionally,

participants were notified that the interview would be audio- and video-recorded

and asked to sign an Audio and Video Recording Consent Form, as shown in

Appendix D. The form was returned to participants before conducting the research.

All forms of communication, including emails, notes, audio file recordings, and

transcriptions, were kept on the researcher’s personal computer. The researcher kept

the personal computer password-protected and stored the computer in a locked

office at her home. All participant names were replaced with pseudonyms during

the research data analyses, with all data scheduled to be destroyed 5 years after the

study has been completed. Video or audiotapes were transcribed and destroyed

within 30 days of the interview.

Data Analysis

The qualitative data analysis process always begins inductively as the

qualitative researcher engages with the collected data (Padgett, 2017). Creswell and

Creswell (2018) correlated data analysis to peeling back the layers of an onion. The

data were segmented and taken apart through the overall data analysis process in

this scenario. The process includes using simultaneous procedures where data

collection and writing up the findings are conducted concurrently, or the researcher

analyzes an earlier interview while a second or third interview takes place.

Winnowing the data in the overall process occurs as the researcher aggregates the

data into a small number of themes. The data are so “dense and rich, all of the

information cannot be used in a qualitative study” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p.

192); therefore, the researcher winnows the data.

Additionally, using a qualitative data computer program for assistance aids

the researcher in data analysis. In this study, MAXQDA software was used to

analyze the data. The codebook of expected codes from the literature review

(Creswell & Creswell, 2018) was used to begin the coding process. The data

analysis process followed the five-step process outlined by Creswell and Creswell

(2018). The five-step process requires “sequential steps to be followed, from the

specific to the general, and involving multiple levels of analysis” (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018, p. 193). As presented by Creswell and Creswell, the five steps are

(a) organizing and preparing the data for analysis, (b) reading or looking at all the

data, (c) coding the data, (d) generating a description and themes, and (e)

determining how to represent the data in the description and themes.

Validity and reliability are essential components of the qualitative data

analysis process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative validity occurs as the

researcher verifies the accuracy of research findings using varying procedures.

Qualitative reliability is reflected in the researcher’s consistent approach across

different researchers and projects. In qualitative research, it is essential for the

researcher, the participant, and the study reader to deem the findings accurate. The

accuracy of the findings provides validity to the research and is one of the strengths

of qualitative research and can be examined through validity strategies (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018). Based on the strategies posited by Creswell and Creswell (2018),

validity was ensured through triangulation, member checking, and clarifying the

researcher's bias. The researcher triangulated the responses from participants to

build a coherent justification for themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In addition,

the researcher validated the accuracy of the findings “by taking the final report or

specific descriptions or themes back to participants and determining whether the

participants felt they were accurate” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 200). Lastly,

the researcher self-reflected on the findings based on the researcher’s background

in nonprofit management. Creswell and Creswell posited that reflexivity is a core

characteristic of qualitative research. To ensure qualitative reliability, the researcher

checked transcripts for errors and continually compared data with the codes to

ensure that the coding aligned with the original definitions of the codes. The

researcher also documented the protocols used for data analysis with memos about

the codes and their definitions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Scope and Limitations

Through this study, the researcher explored how commons governance and

convening leadership contribute to shared resources and philanthropic value in

nonprofit organizations to meet societal and global challenges through

collaboration. The scope of the study had several limitations. The study’s scope

included four nonprofit and voluntary action organizations located within one state,

which may be a limitation, as a national study would be more robust. Next, many of

the literature review studies on commons governance were conducted in other

countries. It is difficult to generalize the findings in those studies to the

operationalization of nonprofit and voluntary action organizations in the United

States.

Moreover, very little literature on convening leadership in the commons

exists (Thompson, 2021). Additionally, the researcher's perspective may present a

limitation, as Clary (2021) may have a biased view of convening leadership and

collaboration as the author of the study and the convening leadership framework

explored in this study. Finally, given the chaotic times in which this dissertation

was written, the participants selected for the study may have chosen not to

participate due to state or federal regulations at the time of data collection.

Additional organizations may need to be identified that meet the intention in

selecting the initial study population.

Summary

The qualitative methodological approaches outlined by Creswell (2015) and

Creswell and Creswell (2018) were used to conduct the research. Qualitative

research describes trends and explains the relationship among variables found in

the literature. Four Arkansas-based nonprofit organizations were selected for the

study, with participants reflective of the organization’s leadership and

knowledgeable about the organization's governance. After a thorough review of

commons governance, nonprofit commons governance, and convening leadership

literature, the researcher identified five RQs and 20 IQs to collect and analyze data.

An in-depth interview approach was used to collect data, and data analysis was

conducted using Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) five-step process. Based on the

qualitative validity strategies posited by Creswell and Creswell, validity was

ensured through triangulation, member checking, and clarifying the researcher's

bias. To provide qualitative reliability, the researcher checked transcripts for errors

and continually compare data with the codes to ensure that the coding aligned with

the original definitions of the codes. The researcher also documented the protocols

used for data analysis with memos about the codes and their definitions (Creswell

& Creswell, 2018). The study's scope and limitations included the study's location,

the researcher’s bias, and limited comparative studies.

Chapter 4 – Findings

The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how to

operationalize principles of commons governance and convening leadership

through collaboration, whereby a nonprofit organization realized an increase in

shared resources and philanthropic value. Research is inconclusive, however,

regarding how to operationalize principles of commons governance and convening

leadership in nonprofit organizations. Lohmann (1992) and Thompson (2021)

posited that a more academic approach to the study of commons governance and

convening leadership is needed. Therefore, the findings of this study contribute to

the body of knowledge on commons governance and convening leadership for

practitioners and scholars of nonprofit organizations.

Using a qualitative research design, the researcher examined how nonprofit

leaders operationalized commons governance principles and assumptions and

convening leadership through collaborative action based on five research questions

and 20 interview questions. The sample population included the executive director,

a program director, and a board member from four nonprofit organizations in the

state of Arkansas. A senior staff member with the Arkansas Community

Foundation identified the four nonprofit organizations based on the study’s

participant criteria. During the preinterview overview of the research project and

processes and again during the interview with the executive directors, it became

apparent that there was a reluctance with the executive directors to involve board

members in the research project. Additionally, one of the initial four organizations

withdrew from the study. The population from three participating organizations

could not meet the sample size to reach data saturation with only one or two

participants from each organization, as the study required between five to 10

participants to reach data saturation.

Data Collection

Additional help from the Arkansas Community Foundation and purposive

and snowball sampling produced seven more participants from seven nonprofit

organizations located in Arkansas. The population and sampling demographics of

the participants and organizations is shown in Table 7. The criteria to participate in

the study were predicated upon the participant's position in the organization and

knowledge of the governance. Overall, 10 participants filling multiple roles within

the organization were interviewed. The participants represent one chairman of the

board, two board members, four executive directors, one nonprofit organization

founder, four program funders, six program directors, one senior pastor, and one

researcher. The 10 organizations participated in collaborative efforts and delivered

or enabled community-based, county, or regional programs and services.

Table 7

Population and Sampling

Participants One Chairman of the Board

One Nonprofit Organization Founder

One Senior Pastor

One Researcher

Two Board Members

Four Executive Directors

Six Program Directors

Organizations Participated in Collaborative Efforts

Delivered or Enabled Community Based, County, or

Regional

Programs and Services

Foundations

Faith-Based

Community-Based

Higher-Education

Convening Organizations 10

Missional Objectives Community Building

Connecting Resources

Fostering Cooperation

Collaborating

Funding

Education

Piloting Programs

Reducing Food Insecurity

Additionally, nine of the 10 organizations were convening organizations.

Missional objectives included community building, connecting resources, fostering

cooperation, collaborating, funding, education, piloting programs, and reducing

food insecurity through programs, resources, education, and advocacy. The

organizations were foundations, faith-based, community-based, and higher

education institutions. No variances occurred in the way that data were collected.

The interviews ranged between 43 and 90 minutes in length, with an average

interview time of 65 minutes. Random numbers from P-1 through P-10 were

assigned to deidentify the participants.

Data Analysis

Upon receiving approval from the SEU IRB, the recruitment process began

by contacting each identified participant. In total, 10 participants contributed to the

research. Data collection consisted of in-depth interviews using Zoom. Step one of

data analysis consisted of transcribing the Zoom-recorded interviews with the

software program Otter.ai. The transcriptions were then exported from Otter.ai to a

Word document and placed on the researcher’s laptop. The researcher saved the

Word documents into a password-protected folder. After printing and reading each

interview, the researcher performed an initial culling of the interview and identified

key terms in designing the code system for data analysis. A codebook was

developed using the key terms, Research Questions 1–5, and Interview Questions

1–20. To provide context for the study, the researcher further developed the code

system to explore an organization’s collaborative partners, examples of convening,

the interviewees’ role or position within the organization, the interviewees' value

system, the service area of the organization, and services provided by the

organization. The codes and interview transcripts associated with Participants 1–10

were uploaded into MAXQDA. As participants’ responses were analyzed in

MAXQDA, new codes were identified.

The coding process for data analysis was rigorous and detailed. The

responses to each interview question (IQ), of which there were 20, were analyzed a

minimum of four times. Using MAXQDA, a code system was developed for the

IQ. The results of the code system were then exported into an Excel spreadsheet,

where the code system was analyzed a second time, generating subcategories. The

subcategories were analyzed a third time and grouped into categories. The fourth

and final time for data analysis occurred as the categories were grouped into

themes. This process was repeated for all 10 interviews, at which point it was

evident that saturation had been reached. Krathwohl (2009) contended that

saturation is achieved when the same instances are found repeatedly, and the

concept is well defined.

As stated in Chapter 3, validity was ensured through triangulation, member

checking, and bracketing the researcher’s bias to determine the accuracy of the

findings. In addition, to validate the accuracy of the results, a final report of the

themes was provided to the participants. No modifications were made to the first

proposed method of triangulation. Additionally, it was written that reliability would

be determined by checking transcripts for errors and continually comparing data

with the codes to ensure that the coding aligned with the original definitions of the

codes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The voice recording of the interview was used

to fact-check the transcribed interviews. The transcribed documents were verified

multiple times to assure that the coded segments aligned with the original definition

of the codes.

Results

To better understand how principles of governance and convening

leadership contribute to shared resources and philanthropic value and how

governance and convening leadership are operationalized in nonprofit organizations

through collaboration, there were five research questions. The questions were as

follows:

RQ1: What is the need for nonprofit and voluntary action organizations to

collaborate?

RQ2: What are the barriers or challenges in collective-action collaboration?

RQ3: What do commons governance principles and assumptions look like

in nonprofit and voluntary action collaboratives? (Lohmann, 1992;

Ostrom, 1990)

RQ4: How does the convenor contribute to collective-action collaboration?

(Clary, 2021)

RQ5: What is the need for shared resources and philanthropic value in

nonprofit and voluntary action collaboratives?

In the remainder of this chapter, the researcher discusses the findings of the five

RQs and the corresponding 20 IQs. The order in which the analysis and findings are

presented in the study is presented in Table 8.

Table 8

Research Analysis and Findings Order as Presented in the Study

RQs Theme IQs Analysis and Findings

RQ1

Collaboration

IQ1

What Does Collaboration Look Like?

RQ2 Barriers and Challenges IQ2–IQ3 Benefits and Barriers

RQ3:

Part A

Governance IQ4–IQ7 Commons Governance (Ostrom, 1990)

RQ3:

Part B

Governance

Assumptions

IQ8–IQ12 Nonprofit Governance Assumptions (Lohmann,

1992)

RQ4 Convenors IQ13–

IQ17

Convening Leadership (Clary, 2021)

RQ5 Mission Fulfillment IQ18–

IQ20

Shared Resources and Philanthropic Value

RQ1: Collaboration

The first research question of this study was: “What is the need for

nonprofit and voluntary action organizations to collaborate?” The participants were

asked one interview question with three follow-up questions designed to understand

the need for collaboration better. The questions were

IQ1: What does collaboration look like in your program, collaboration, or

organization?

a. Who are the stakeholders?

b. How do you identify the stakeholders?

c. For what purposes do you collaborate?

Previous authors have defined collaboration as a process whereby

stakeholders constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that

go beyond their limited visions of possibility (Gray, 1989). Researchers have shown

collaboration to be an effective and powerful route in addressing economic, social,

and environmental challenges (Koschmann et al., 2012). In addition, collective-

action collaboration is an effective approach in tackling complex social and global

issues (Novelli, 2021), important public purposes (Guo & Acar, 2005), and

sustainability challenges (van Hille et al., 2018). In February 2021, current

President Biden signed an executive order to reestablish a White House Office of

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships within the President’s Executive

Office. The executive order strengthened the nonprofit sector and its partnership

with the federal government. The reestablished office was to enlist, equip, enable,

empower, and expand the work of community-serving organizations, both

faithbased and secular, to the extent of the law (Biden, 2021). The presidential

order was signed as the United States of America “grapple[d] with a global

pandemic, a severe economic downturn, the scourge of systematic racism, an

escalating climate crisis, and profound polarization” (Biden, 2021, para. 1, 3).

President Biden’s executive order underscored that in the United States, nonprofit

organizations are valuable partners and conduits in the delivery of programs and

services to meet the growing needs of people in America (Abramson, 2020; Feiock

& Andrew, 2006). To understand better the importance of collaboration within and

across sectors, data from the interviews were analyzed. The results of the first IQ

follow. Notated within the participant comment is a bracketed and italicized

emergent correlating category or theme.

Interview Question 1: Collaboration

Data analysis for IQ1 began in MAXQDA, where eight codes emerged from

103 data segments: collaborative partners (46), governance processes (16),

collaborative efforts (10), access to resources (7), programming (7),

relationshipbuilding (6), philosophy of collaboration (6), and strategic partners (5).

The MAXQDA codes were then exported to an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed

again, resulting in 13 subcategories. The subcategories were further analyzed and

grouped into seven categories: accomplishing strategic objectives (40), stakeholder

relations (25), shared resources (16), core value (11), community building (8),

equity building (2), and forced partnerships (1). From the subcategories, the data

were analyzed further and grouped into three themes: strategic directive (54),

collaborative partnerships (33), and shared resources and philanthropic value (16).

As described by P-10, collaboration was a core value of the organization

[core value]. P-10 offered, “We have a set of five beliefs; one of those five is that

communities working together can solve their own problems [core value].” P-9

underscored that collaboration was extremely important and one of the primary

roles of the organization [strategic directive]. Similarly, P-8 stated, “Collaboration

is everything. I would say in my position, almost everything I do is in some sort of

collaborative.” Coalescing collaborative stakeholders around an organizational

mission was central for P-3 [core value], who stated, “You find individuals

[stakeholders] that have a common passion to achieve a certain organizational

mission, and you come together to achieve that mission.” When the collaboration is

mission-vision driven, the organization realizes strategic alliances contribute to

meeting organizational objectives [strategic directive]. As P-3 explained, “We are

going to go after collaborative partners [stakeholders] that are passionate about the

same topic and bring resources that we might use to help achieve that objective

[collaborative partnerships].” To P-7, collaboration was having a common goal and

working together to meet the task, actions, and strategies of the goal [collaborative

partnerships]. P-1 viewed collaboration as an opportunity for collaborative

stakeholders to engage in the community where engagement led to the accessibility

of new partners [shared resources and philanthropic value].

Follow-Up Questions (IQ1)

The two follow-up questions in IQ1 were, “Who are your stakeholders, and

how do you identify stakeholders?” Notated within the participant comment is a

bracketed and italicized emergent correlating category or theme. The study results

indicated that collaborative stakeholders were found at every level of society and

cut across all sectors. Culling one typology of stakeholder from each of the

participant responses, stakeholders represented funders (P-1), business (P-2),

government agencies (P-3), end-users (P-4), nonprofit organizations (P-5),

association memberships (P-6), school districts (P-7), grantees (P-8), internal

department teams (P-9), and legislators. Other stakeholders identified in the study

included churches; civic organizations; families; volunteers; foundations; board

members; donors; community activists; community leaders; local, county, regional,

and state agencies; federal agency partners; and the communities served.

Three steps emerged regarding how P-3, P-4, and P-9 approached

identifying stakeholders. First, they identified the strategic outcomes

[accomplishing strategic outcomes] of the collaborative effort [collaborative

partnerships] in alignment with the organization's mission and vision [strategic

directive]. Second, they compiled a list of potential stakeholders [stakeholder

relations]. Third, a meeting of the stakeholders was convened, allowing

stakeholders to self-select in becoming a part of the collaborative effort

[stakeholder relations]. An organic approach to identifying stakeholders was voiced

by P-6, who submitted stakeholders come from personal relationships [stakeholder

relations], recalling incidents where a member from the community

would approach her and say, “Oh, I appreciate what you’re doing in our

community. There are so many people in our county that need food and clothing.

Let me help you [equity building].” Networking, where staff members of the

organizations were involved at the community level or served on regional, state,

and national boards, also provided an opportunity to identify stakeholders

[community building and stakeholder relations].

When asked for what purposes they collaborate, the results showed that

collaboration was a way to support each other’s work [accomplishing strategic

objectives]. P-1 spoke of serving on a collective board with like-minded

collaborators to accomplish goals and projects to meet the community's needs

[community building]. P-10 noted an account where the mayor asked him to bring

leaders from the community together [collaborative partnerships] to develop a

disaster plan for the community [community building]. The collaborative spent

several months meeting to develop a plan for this emergent community need

[shared resources and philanthropic value].

In talking about why they collaborate, several participants presented

collaboration as a two-way path [collaborative partnerships]. First, collaboration

contributed to access to shared resources and philanthropic value for the

organization [shared resources and philanthropic value]. Second, collaboration

provided an avenue to share an overabundance of resources with collaborative

partners [shared resources and philanthropic value]. P-5 talked about how they

disseminate donated items to other nonprofit organizations in the community for

distribution to the end-users or clients served [shared resources and philanthropic

value]. Moreover, P-5 referred to their organization as a resource for resources

[collaborative partnerships]. In a monthly collaborative meeting, stakeholders

[collaborative partnerships] discuss who needs what and how to better serve the

needs of the community [strategic directive] through donations received [shared

resources and philanthropic value]. P-5 said, “Everybody in our community

collaborates with each other for the good of our community [community building].”

Another purpose to collaborate was identified by P-10:

For instance, we work together collaboratively on grant writing

[collaborative partnership]. So, we work together [collaborative

partnership] to make sure that every county in the state of Arkansas is

served with those grant funds [shared resources], and that they have the

resources they need to make sure that people have plenty of food

[philanthropic value].

The study showed that collaboration led to shared resources, as articulated

by P-9: “We do not have a lot of resources whether they are financial resources,

human resources, intellectual resources, and things like that. Without sharing

resources, the types of things we are trying to do would be impossible [shared

resources and philanthropic value].” P-7 shared that by collaborating with 10 other

organizations [collaborative partnerships], they served 2,000 clients as opposed to

200 [strategic directive]. Participant P-10 explained,

So, whether it is federal, state, or regional, or very local, in a community,

we feel like knowing who the players are and building those relationships

with them [stakeholder relations], and then living out those relationships in

a way that is beneficial to both sides [strategic directive], is vital to what we

do.

The first research question (RQ1) explored the need for nonprofit

organizations to collaborate. In culling the data, analyzing the data, and by

grouping the data into subcategories and categories, three themes emerged:

strategic directive, collaborative partnerships, and shared resources and

philanthropic value. The implications of these findings are discussed more fully in

Chapter 5.

RQ2: Barriers and Challenges in Collaboration

The second research question (RQ2) was: What are the barriers or

challenges in collective-action collaboration? Two interview questions (IQ2 and

IQ3) were asked of the participants. The questions were:

IQ2: As you think about collaborative efforts, what are the benefits of

collaboration?

IQ3: What have you observed as barriers or challenges in collaboration?

Research has shown collaboration to be an effective and powerful route in

addressing economic, social, and environmental challenges (Koschmann et al.,

2012). In addition, collective-action collaboration is an equally effective approach

in tackling complex social and global issues (Novelli, 2021), important public

purposes (Guo & Acar, 2005), and sustainability challenges (van Hille et al., 2018).

However, systemic challenges are associated with collaboratives (Koschmann et al.,

2012). Murphy and Bendell (1999) posited that collaboratives are often shrouded in

conflict. The research of Jamali and Keshishian (2009) established that

collaboratives operate with limited knowledge structures and processes that

contribute to less-than-optimal outcomes. Bryson et al. (2006) theorized that

crosssector collaboration could exacerbate the very problem being solved. Lastly,

siloed partners and varying approaches to obtaining goals also contribute to

challenges in nonprofit collaboration. Although collaboration is an effective tool in

addressing complex societal and global problems, studies examining the connection

between how nonprofit partnerships function and perform effectively remain

relatively scarce (Marek et al., 2015). Samali et al. (2016) submitted that a

fundamental understanding of how and why nonprofits collaborate is missing in

collaboration discussions. The problem is that nonprofit organizations that operate

independently without knowledge of effective governance principles and convening

leadership through collective-action collaboration have less shared resources and

philanthropic value to fulfill their organization’s mission (Austin & Seitanidi,

2012a, 2012b; Hayman, 2016; Idemudia, 2008; Jamali & Keshishian, 2009; Marek

et al., 2015; Murphy & Bendell, 1999). The purpose of this study was to explore

collaboration, the role of governance, and convening leadership in the collaborative

process and how they contribute to shared resources and philanthropic value in

fulfilling the organization’s mission. A better understanding of the benefits, barriers,

and challenges of collective-action collaboratives and the implications for

practitioners and scholars who practice, teach, or study collective-action

collaboration was needed. To understand better collective-action collaboration, data

from the interviews were analyzed. The results of the second interview question

(IQ2) follow. Notated within the participant comment is a bracketed and italicized

emergent correlating category or theme.

Interview Question 2: Benefits of Collaboration

The data for analyzing IQ2 was first analyzed in MAXQDA, where eight

codes emerged: collaboration (13), relationships (13), access to resources or

funding (11), engagement (10), grounds our work (8), voice (4), access to

volunteers (2), and access to other partners (1). The MAXQDA codes in 67 data

segments were then exported to an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed into 18

subcategories. The subcategories were further analyzed and grouped into eight

categories: shared resources (14), shared goals (13), asset building (11), unifying

(10), program support (7), strategic partners (7), funding (4), and no benefit (1).

From the subcategories, the data were analyzed further and grouped into three

themes: asset building (22), mission fulfillment (24), and shared resources (20).

The second interview question (IQ2) explored participant responses: As you

think about collaborative efforts, what are the benefits of collaboration? Notated

within the participant comment is a bracketed and italicized emergent correlating

category or theme. A statement by P-3 captured the essence of the benefit of

collaboration: “We are always better together [unifying].” The findings showed

collaboration built social capital [asset building] (P-9), provided access to

knowledge [shared resources] where collaboration improved the community [asset

building] (P-5) and provided an environment where trust among collaborators

could be developed [asset building] (P-4). Participants P-3, P-4, P-8, and P-9

viewed collaboration as an incubator where individual strengths and expertise could

rise to the top [asset building]. P-4 said, “Everyone has an experience and an

expertise, and when we collaborate, it creates an opportunity for something new

and different, that perhaps we wouldn’t have been able to do on our own

[unifying].” For P-3, collaboration brought out the best in people [asset building].

The participants spoke of the support they received for their programs

[program support] through collaborative stakeholders [strategic partners] and that

that support was strategic to their mission fulfillment [mission fulfillment].

Participant P-3 posited, “People become engaged in your work [shared goals]. And

because they are engaged, they take ownership [unifying], and it becomes their

work as well [shared goals].” Program support was voiced as a mutual benefit

among collaborative stakeholders [program support] and took on many forms. At

the state level, working through the governor’s office, as a collaborative partner

[strategic partners], the organizational goals of Participant 2 were inserted into the

overall state plan in addressing a societal challenge [mission fulfillment].

Participant 2 recognized a similar benefit where her organization was able to

support the local school district [strategic partners] in a child nutrition program

[shared goals], whereby fulfilling the strategic objectives of her organization

[mission fulfillment]. For Participant 3, a direct benefit of county-wide

collectiveaction collaboration [strategic partners] was the unification of the

stakeholders [unifying], void of any competition [asset building], as the

collaborative partners coalesced around a common project [shared goals].

Another benefit of collective-action collaboration came from strategic

initiatives [shared goals] in which an organization or individual could not solve the

societal challenge alone [program support]. P-8 explained, “So, collaboration is

necessary to build movements of people [strategic partners] who are all working

together [shared goals] on issues that seem intractable sometimes [mission

fulfillment].” For P-2, strategic initiative collaboratives provided a platform for

conversations [asset building] on meeting a family's nutritional needs, whether the

base conversation was about child health, economic development, education, or

environmental issues [mission fulfillment]. Advocacy [mission fulfillment], whether

for shared resources such as food through national partners [shared resources]

(P10), or advocacy as a voice for hunger at the state level [strategic partners], was

a benefit (P-2). Findings showed a benefit of collective-action collaboratives was

mutual support [strategic partners] toward the obtainment of the goals [shared

goals] for the strategic initiative of the collaborative [mission fulfillment].

The findings showed that opportunities to receive funding for programs and

services [program support] (P-2) or to collaborate in grant-writing for funding

[funding] (P-10) were a benefit of collaboration [shared resources]. P-1 offered that

access to potential partners, especially foundations [strategic partners], can occur

in collaboration [funding]. A strength of the collaborative process was the organic

conversations that led to working collaboratively to apply for funds [funding]. P-10

illustrated how a collaborative grant resulted in a refrigeration system that benefited

the entire community [shared resources]. The findings showed that collective-

action collaboratives led to shared resources [shared resources]. Shared resources

[shared resources] were identified as equipment, space, vehicles, expertise, food,

funding, advocacy, knowledge, access to a population base, research support, and

volunteers [P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10]. P-5 spoke of how her

organization might be the recipient of products or the disseminator of the products

[shared resources], depending upon the donated products.

Additionally, the findings showed a duality in pooling resources. P-7

submitted that in pooling resources [shared resources], collaborative stakeholders

could provide more services in the community on a much bigger and more

significant scale [mission fulfillment]. Only one participant, P-6, did not see any

benefit in collective-action collaboration. The organization that P-6 represents is

supported by the community; however, the organization models a siloed nonprofit

organization, illustrative of one of the challenges of nonprofit collaboration.

Interview Question 3: Barriers to Collaboration

The data related to IQ3 were analyzed first in MAXQDA, where 16 codes

emerged from 65 data segments: diversity (10), time considerations (8),

personalities (7), motives (7), capacity (6), lack of funding (5), right people at the

table (4), turf wars (4), building relationships (3), communication (2), hard work

(2), insecurities (2), invisible (2), measuring outcomes (1), nonprofits lack of

sustainability (1), and trust (1). The MAXQDA codes were exported to an Excel

spreadsheet and analyzed into 36 subcategories. The subcategories were analyzed a

third time and grouped into eight categories: challenging work (19), capacity (18),

differences (14), alignment (5), perceptions (5), no barriers (1), very few (1), and

there are so many barriers (1). From the categories, the data were analyzed a fourth

time and grouped into three themes: strategic alignment (19), organizational

capacity (18), and challenging work (24). No barriers (1), very few (1), and there

are so many (1) were identified as outliers.

The third interview question (IQ3) explored participants’ responses to the

question: “What have you observed as barriers or challenges in collaboration”?

Notated within the participant comment is a bracketed and italicized emergent

correlating category or theme. Out of 65 data segments, one participant, P-2, stated

that there were no collaboration barriers or challenges. P-8, however, sighed,

smiled, and said, “There are so many.” P-6, who did not perceive any benefit in

collaboration, articulated frustration in being in a system where the organization's

viability was overlooked [challenging work], and federal regulation required a

membership to receive goods and services at a reduced dollar rate [organizational

capacity]. This rate was often higher than if purchased in a local store

[organizational capacity].

The other remaining participants in the study identified many barriers and

challenges in collaboration. The barriers and challenges subjectively stated were

comments like, “They [convenor or funder] want to be saviors to fix our

community without asking us [direct services provider] to what the real needs are”

(P-2) or “If you do not have the capacity [organizational capacity] to do the audits

or fulfill the reporting requirements required, then you are eliminated as a

collaborative partner” (P-7). The lack of a strong volunteer pool to support the

organization's operations was also expressed by P-7 [challenging work].

We used to have a volunteer named Mark [pseudonym]. He was in his

mideighties and a Purple Heart veteran. Mark had a truck and a trailer to

pick up donated items. Well, Mark died. So, we do not have a truck and a

trailer at our disposal anymore. And the people moving into the area are not

prone to volunteer like they were 10, 15, 20 years ago.

Time constraints further contributed to barriers and challenges in

collaboration (P-9) as collaboration was a slow and time-consuming process (P-8,

P-9). As P-4 stated, collaboration “takes a lot of time to do this work

[organizational capacity].” P-2 acknowledged that while collaboration took a lot of

time, collaborating could lead to organizational capacity through resources,

funding, and other opportunities [organizational capacity]. P4, P-5, and P-8 equally

expressed that a lack of funding to support collaboration efforts proved to be a

barrier [organizational capacity]. Collaborations are often under-resourced,

according to P-8:

There has to be somebody who has the resource and capacity to keep

calling the group together to help synthesize what the group decided and

discussed, to engage one on one with members to make sure that they're

staying in the fold. And enough to buy the lunches that people eat when

they come together for the meeting. And if none of that is resourced, then

very often, it's people who are already exhausted and have a million other

priorities, who have to do that, in addition to everything else, and it just

doesn't get done.

Collaboration is challenging work (P-8). Turf wars added to the difficulty of

the work (P-2, P-10). P-10 said, “We get guarded of our turf [challenging work].

Our human nature allows us to be turf warriors.” Other dimensions that contributed

to the challenges in collaboration were communication with collaborative partners

(P-10), creating trust within the organizations (P-4), expecting project conclusion

results quickly (P-8), second-guessing the motives of collaborative partners (P-3),

and taking time to build the relationships necessary for collaboration (P-1)

[challenging work]. Working with national partners or chains was also viewed as

challenging [challenging work]. P-5 expressed dissatisfaction in working with

national organizations that promise a resource delivery and then do not show up

[organizational capacity]: “I’ve been disappointed with them.” Two other elements

that contributed to the challenging work of collaboration were personality

disparities (P-3, P-8, P-10) and the culture of the organization where there was no

room for change or to try something new (P-7) [challenging work].

Successful collaboration requires strategic alignment within collaborative

partners. The following factors were cited by the participants as barriers and

challenges to collaboration: competing agendas (P-2), board leadership (P-9),

accountability in funding requirements (P-4), and an organization’s culture contrary

to collaboration [differences]. Moreover, getting collaborative partners

[strategically aligned] was also noted to be a barrier or challenge in

collaborativeefforts (P-8, P-9). The comment by P-9 summed up how differences

can waylay the

strategic alignment of collaborative partners: “You can sometimes easily gather

around one banner of a cause. But then, when you start digging, you realize that

everybody looks at it differently [strategic alignment].”

The second research question (RQ2) explored the benefits (IQ2) and the

barriers and challenges (IQ3) in collective-action collaboration. In culling,

analyzing, and grouping the data into categories and subcategories, three themes—

strategic directive, collaborative partnerships, and shared resources and

philanthropic value—emerged in response to IQ2. Additionally, three themes

emerged from the findings in IQ3: strategic alignment, organizational capacity, and

challenging work. The implications from the results are discussed fully in Chapter

Research Question 3A: Commons Governance Principles and Assumptions

This study's third research question (RQ3) was: “What do commons

governance principles and assumptions look like in nonprofit and voluntary action

collaboratives?” (Lohmann, 1992; Ostrom, 1990). Nine interview questions (IQ4–

IQ12) were asked of participants exploring nine principles and assumptions in

Lohmann’s (1992) and Ostrom’s (1990) findings. Interview questions IQ4–IQ7

were asked of participants to explore how commons governance principles were

operationalized in nonprofit organizations.

IQ4: How do the stakeholders (or your organization) collectively

determine how the group will be governed?

IQ5: How do stakeholders (or your organization) access shared

resources? Who makes this determination?

IQ6: How do stakeholders (or your organization) monitor the use of

shared resources among stakeholders?

IQ7: How do stakeholders (or your organization) manage conflict?

Responses from the questions illuminated several factors that determine how

nonprofit organizations and voluntary action associations are governed.

The researcher examined 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, typically

governed by a board of directors and voluntary action associations, informally

governed by volunteers. The control and management of a nonprofit organization

are two such factors to be considered in nonprofit governance (Hopkins & Gross,

2016). Additionally, McGinnis (2011) thought governance to be process-driven, as

the rules and norms of the organization are formed. The process is iterative in that

the rules in the governance of the organization influence the policies of the

organization, and the policies are open to review and revision. McGinnis exerted

self-governance to be the ability of commons and organizations to actively engage

in determining the rules and processes of self-organization, whereas Bushouse

(2011) considered governance to be at the constitutional-choice level of

decisionmaking as determined by the organization's governance structure.

Bushouse further contended that making the rules is directly connected to the

governance structure.

Commons governance considers the social system of communities where

people manage and share resources (Bauwens et al., 2019; Ostrom, 2000;

Thompson, 2014). Bauwens et al. (2019) determined that the commons preserved

the shared values and community identity by stewarding the resources. Hess and

Ostrom (2007) viewed the commons as an answer to social dilemmas, while

Thompson (2014) submitted that social protocols governed the commons. Although

scholars have not agreed upon an all-encompassing definition for the commons,

Never et al. (2020) extrapolated that resource sharing required collective action,

and the presence of a social dilemma embodied the definition of the commons. In

addition, Berge and van Laerhoven (2011) contented that any natural or manmade

resource defined a commons if that resource could be held and used in common.

The seminal work of the commons (Hardin, 1968) saw a re-emergence in

the study of commons and the common good in 2009 when Elinor Ostrom was

awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Ostrom (2010) received this

award for her research and analysis on economic governance, most notably, in the

commons (De Angelis & Harvie, 2014). Ostrom (1990) took an institutional

approach to the study of self-organization and self-governance in common pooled

resource situations (p. 1), whereas Ostrom’s (1990) groundbreaking work on

governing the commons led to the identification of eight design principles as

illustrated by long-enduring common pool resource (CRP) institutions. The

principles as identified were (a) clearly defined boundaries; (b) congruence between

appropriation and provision rules and local conditions; (c) collective-choice

arrangements; (d) monitoring; (e) graduated sanctions; (f) conflict-resolution

mechanisms; (g) minimal recognition of rights to organize; and (h) for larger

systems, nested enterprises (Ostrom, 1990). Aside from the work of Lohmann

(1992), limited research has been conducted to understand how the principles of

commons governance are operationalized in nonprofit organizations and voluntary

associations in the United States and, more specifically, Arkansas. Four governance

principles in Ostrom’s (1990) framework were explored in this study: (a) clearly

defined boundaries, (b) collective choice, (c) monitoring, and (d) conflict-resolution

mechanisms. In the study, the four principles associated with the organization's

governance and operationalized governance through clearly defined boundaries,

access to shared resources, monitoring the shared resources, and conflict

management within collective action collaborations.

Data analysis for IQ4–IQ7 was conducted using MAXQDA software.

Twelve codes emerged from four IQs resulting in 208 data segments: how conflict

is operationalized (31), who determines access to shared resources (25), informal

versus formal (24), access to shared resources (22), what is a shared resource (17),

philosophy of conflict (18), governance structure (15), institutional governance

(13), monitoring system (13), how is monitoring operationalized (12), what are the

barriers and challenges in monitoring (9), and lead program manager (9). The 12

code systems were merged in MAXQDA and analyzed again, resulting in five

categories conflict mechanisms (31), shared resources (53), collaborative

governance (39), governance operationalized (24), and conflict obstacles (18). The

final analysis resulted in 193 data segments in four themes: conflict (77), shared

resources (53), governance (39), and monitoring resources (24), as shown in Table

9. To understand better how commons governance is operationalized in nonprofit

organizations, the results from IQ4–IQ7 follow. Notated within the participant

comment is a bracketed and italicized emergent correlating category or theme.

Table 9

IQ4–IQ7 Categories and Themes

Governance Shared Resources Monitoring Resources Conflict

Institutional

governance

Access to shared

resources (who

Governance

Informal versus

formal

Barriers and challenges

Operationalized

Team leader

Conflict obstacles

Conflict mechanisms

determines)

Institutional

governance

Interview Question 4: Governance

The fourth interview question (IQ4) explored how the stakeholders in the

collaboration determined how the group would be governed [governance]. The

results identified two distinct approaches to governance. The study results showed

nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations were governed by corporate documents like the

articles of incorporation, organization bylaws, and corporate policies and

procedures [institutional governance] (P-1 to P-10). Additionally, if the nonprofit

organization was the grantor of funding, governing documents like a memorandum

of understanding (P-4, P-10), membership agreement (P-10), or federally mandated

regulation could factor into the governance of the organization [governance

structure]. The nonprofit organizations in this study were 501(c)(3) organizations;

however, in collaborative efforts, loosely organized collaborations of stakeholders

reflected voluntary action associations. Like voluntary action associations,

collaborations that formed organically tended to be informally governed (P-1, P-5,

P-8). As P-8 noted, “One of my collaboratives has been very intentional in not

forming a 501(c)(3) because to do so requires so much organization building, time,

and resources, dedicated to bylaws, rules, and procedures [informal versus

formal].” P-2 noted that informal coalitions do not require a separate organization

and manage with an elected chair and treasurer [governance structure].

Governance was operationalized at the board of director level (P-6, P-10),

where the executive director, administrator, or president represented

decisionmaking policies and procedures [governance] to the staff [lead program

manager]. The results of the data analysis showed that in forming collective-action

collaboratives, the structure and governance [governance structure] of the

collaboration depended on the situation (P-9) and was emergent (P-8). Moreover,

collaborative partners contributed to the design of the meeting (P-4), shared

priorities (P-8), identified additional stakeholders (P-9), developed the scope of the

work (P-4), and co-created the governance structure of the collaboration

[governance structure] (P-1). Informal and elected positions [governance structure]

were determined by collaborative members (P-1), where position descriptions

[collaborative governance] moved from informal to more formal positions

[informal versus formal] as the collaboration evolved (P-1, P-10).

Interview Question 5: Access Shared Resources

The fifth interview question (IQ5) was “How do stakeholders (or your

organization) access shared resources, and who makes this determination?”

Analyzed data showed shared resources [what is a shared resource] among the

nonprofits studied to be buildings, (P-1), materials and information (P-4]), funding

(P-4) food commodities and health and hygiene products (P-6), cash (P-7), grant

funding (P-8), office space (P-9), and volunteers (P-10). P-4 explained the

intentionality of program design and collaborative partnership funding for projects

and initiatives:

We will go through a process of deciding on pilot projects that have funding

attached to them and then design and facilitate a process for disseminating

the resources and implementing the project. Additionally, we will use an

external facilitator to guide collaborative stakeholders through the process,

intended to be a very equitable process in which we create the space for the

conversation and implementation to be facilitated.

Data showed the governance structure [governance] of an organization

factored into how shared resources [access to shared resources] could be accessed.

For instance, P-3 and P-6 indicated the board of directors determined who could

access a shared resource [institutional governance], while decision-making for

organizations associated with national affiliates (P-2) occurred at the national level

through MOU agreements [who determines access to a shared resource].

Additionally, a distinction was made between nonprofit organizations operating for

less than 1 year and nonprofit organizations with a more extended working history.

The results showed in newly forming 501(c)(3) organizations, the executive

director [lead program director] of the organization determined how shared

resources [who determines access to shared resources] could be accessed (P-6). In

nonprofit organizations operating with a formal governance structure [informal

versus formal], however, corporate documents [governance] designated how

collaborative stakeholders could access shared resources [access to shared

resources] (P-10). Data collection and reporting were also used to quantify the

allocation of shared resources to specific demographic groups (P-7, P-10).

The funder was a prominent deciding factor in access to shared resources

(P-4, P-7, P-8, P-9). P-8 said,

There is a contract [governance] involved, so it [access to shared resources]

is spelled out by whoever decided to give money to the collaborative. If 10

different funders contribute to the pooled fund, each one of them has some

specific restriction [governance] about how the funds can or cannot be used

[who determines access to shared resources].

For P-9, collaborative stakeholders could also determine how a

collaborative stakeholder accessed a shared resource. Whereas nonprofit

organizations with a mission to be a resource provider to community stakeholders,

the management team decided [who determines access to shared resources] how

collaborative partners accessed the shared resource (P-5, P-6). The data analysis

showed collaborative stakeholders communicated a need for shared resources or an

overabundance of shared resources [shared resources] in monthly meetings (P-1),

networking with community partners (P-3), the organization’s newsletter and social

media outlets (P-5), personal contact with collaborative partners (P-6), in surveys

and emails (P-9), and training or collaboration events (P-10).

Interview Question 6: Monitoring Shared Resources

The sixth interview question (IQ6) was: “How do stakeholders (or your

organization) monitor the use of shared resources among stakeholders?” The study

results showed that although a monitoring system to account for internal and

external shared resources was crucial, actual monitoring of the shared resources

faced barriers and challenges counterproductive to monitoring [barriers and

challenges]. In one organization, new federal regulation due to COVID-19 no

longer required proof of identity or income to receive the shared resource. The

regulation, according to P-6, “left no affordable way for any collaborative efforts to

account for the shared resources among collaborative stakeholders.” For example,

pre-COVID-19, a letter from the Social Security Administration had to be presented

to the organization for the client to receive goods or services. During the ongoing

COVID-19 pandemic, however, documentation was no longer necessary. The

finding is important as the authenticity of the organization can come into question

when a monitoring system is not in place [barriers and challenges]. The study

showed that voluntary action associations without 501(c)(3) designations created

the need for 501(c)(3) organizations to become fiscal agents, whereby transferring

the burden of monitoring the shared resource to the fiscal agent (P-9). P-7, who had

experience as a fiscal agent, maintained that voluntary action associations are not

required to conduct an audit and were empirically found to be less likely to monitor

the number of clients served and the goods and services received and distributed;

[barriers and challenges] the fiscal sponsor could not keep in good faith that the

shared resource reached its intended client (P-7). Another barrier and challenge

were the expectations grantees placed upon grantors to produce shared resources in

the collaborative work; for example, when P-8 convened a statewide collaboration,

the stakeholders identified that an activity calendar of statewide events would

eliminate duplication of services. The stakeholders’ expectation was that the

compilation of such a document would be the responsibility of P-8, and P-8’s

bandwidth could not support such a document [barriers and challenges].

When monitoring did occur in the organization, the responsibility to do so

often fell to a staff person [team leader] (P-1, P-3, P-9, P-10) whose monitoring

could be calendaring (P-1), accounting for financial donations (P-3), compiling and

submitting funder reports (P-8), and attending meetings (P-4). Monitoring shared

resources per memorandums of understanding [operationalized] was

operationalized in reporting and communicating (P-1, P-2, P-9, P-10) with internal

stakeholders like the board of directors and external stakeholders like funders. P-10

illustrated the role of technology in monitoring resources as follows:

We will take our intake form from paper to a web-based program. Although

our client base will remain anonymous to one another, our program staff

will be able to monitor the resource activity of stakeholders. The

demographic data will help us understand in real-time the full impact of the

goods and services distributed through our collaborative stakeholders.

Moreover, we will be able to access reports that show us how many women

were served, and of the women, how many were single moms, how many

children under 18 were helped, and even how many clients have a chronic

illness. The use of technology will be a game-changer for us and our

collaborative stakeholders.

Interview Question 7: Conflict Management

The seventh interview question (IQ7) was: “How do stakeholders (or your

organization) manage conflict?” Data analysis of the participants’ responses to IQ7

were varied, and the participants did not embrace the topic of conflict and conflict

management. P-3 stated that there had never been an issue of conflict among the

stakeholders. Moreover, managing conflict was not something P-3 liked to do, and

this participant acknowledged that conflict was always a challenge [conflict

obstacle]. P-5 and P-9 also maintained they had not had any conflict issues in

collaborative efforts. P-8 voiced that conflict was uncomfortable and preferred to

collaborate in harmonious situations [conflict obstacle]: “I do not see a lot of

people in open confrontation in meetings and conversations. I am conflict adverse

[conflict obstacle].” The participants offered the motivation of stakeholders (P-3),

competing priorities and frustration with the process (P-4), and avoidance of

conflict (P-8) as some of the challenges in conflict management [conflict

obstacles].

As the interview transitioned to techniques used in conflict management, P4

pondered the importance of conflict management training [conflict mechanism] for

collaborative stakeholders:

We rarely think about conflict management and conflict resolution as a

training component. For a group of organizations working in the same space, we

just want to give them technical skills related to doing better, like delivering their

service. We tend to focus on working better together and how we can help

collaborative partners work better together. Conflict resolution should be an

important part of the training component. P-10 offered an example on conflict

management from the book of Matthew in the New Testament:

I go back to the book of Matthew. And if I have a problem with someone, I

need to talk to you personally. And if that doesn't work, I need to bring

someone with me, and we need to talk together. The Bible says to bring an

elder, a deacon, a third party to be an arbitrator, basically, on our behalf.

And if that doesn't work, then in Scripture, it says to bring that person

before the whole church [collaboration] and, as a group, you know, work

through that process.

Moreover, from an HR perspective, P-10 contributed that a process for arbitration

and the perceived organizational support (POS) standards [conflict mechanism] that

shows how organizations care about the well-being of their employees and

stakeholders were a part of the governance documents of the organization.

The results showed that P-3, P-5, P-7, and P-10 had policies and procedures

[conflict mechanism] to bring about conflict resolution. In addition, P-1 through

P10 operated with MOUs, contracts, and agreements with incorporated arbitration

clauses [conflict mechanism]. P-3, P-8, and P-10 related a more informal approach

to conflict resolution as a conversational intervention [conflict mechanism]. P-10

preferred to meet with the individual in a one-on-one meeting where the parties

worked together to resolve the conflict. P-3 stated, “I am going to seek a resolution

and work it out together,” and P-8 articulated, “Dissension sometimes happens;

however, keep hanging out with us, maybe the next time will be your cup of tea.”

The results showed other tactics [conflict mechanisms] for conflict management to

be discussing the conflict in stakeholder meetings (P-1, P-3, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10).

The first part of the third research question (RQ3A) explored four

governance principles in questions IQ4–IQ7 (Ostrom, 1990). Four themes—

governance, shared resources, monitoring resources, and conflict—were discussed.

The implications of these findings are discussed further in Chapter 5 in order to

provide a better understanding of how commons governance is operationalized in

nonprofit organizations contributing to the furtherance of an organization’s mission.

Research Question 3B: Nonprofit Governance Principles and Assumptions

This study's third research question (RQ3) was: “What do commons

governance principles and assumptions look like in nonprofit and voluntary action

collaboratives (Lohmann, 1992; Ostrom, 1990)?” Nine interview questions (IQ4–

IQ12) were asked of participants exploring nine principles and assumptions in

Lohmann’s (1992) and Ostrom’s (1990) findings. Interview questions IQ8–IQ12

were asked of participants to explore how commons governance principles and

assumptions were operationalized in nonprofit organizations and voluntary action

associations contributing to shared resources and philanthropic value.

IQ8: How would you describe social action in your program,

collaboration, or organization?

IQ9: How does your organization communicate authenticity to collaborative

stakeholders?

IQ10: How does your organization integrate, teach, or maintain continuity

in the recruitment of new stakeholders?

IQ11: What rules, standards, or values are recognized and used in your

organization? How do these rules, standards, or values contribute to

shared resources or philanthropic value?

IQ12: What does ordinary language look like in your program,

collaboration, or organization, and how is that language

communicated to collaborative stakeholders?

Before the data were analyzed in MAXQDA, the researcher hand coded the

data and identified 71 codes with eight codes for social action (IQ8), 16 codes for

authenticity (IQ9), 25 codes for continuity (IQ10), 11 codes for intrinsic valuation

(IQ11), and 13 codes for ordinary language (IQ12). The codes were analyzed again,

resulting in four categories: social action enacted, community building, culture, and

systemic. Authenticity resulted in four categories: corporate reporting, culture,

relationships, and transparency. Continuity resulted in stakeholder characteristics,

building relationships, networking, what, how and by in five categories. Three

categories in intrinsic valuation were values, mission driven, and shared results.

The final assumption explored, ordinary language resulted in three category types

of ordinary language, challenges, and operationalize. The data were analyzed a

third time, generating 290 data segments in 15 themes in MAXQDA. The data

segments and themes for IQ8–IQ12 are as follows: social action (52) with three

emergent themes common good (20), community building (12), and culture (20).

Authenticity (56) with three emergent themes accountability (17), a culture of

transparency (18), and relationships (20). Continuity (61) with three emergent

themes integration of stakeholders (18), governance with stakeholders (23), and

maintain relationships with stakeholders (20) and intrinsic valuation (58) with three

emergent themes: characteristics (26), operationalized (19), shared resources and

philanthropic value (19), as shown in Table 10. To understand better how commons

governance is operationalized in nonprofit organizations and voluntary action

associations, the results from IQ8–IQ12 are presented in the following sections.

Notated within the participant comment is a bracketed and italicized emergent

correlating category or theme.

Table 10

IQ8–IQ12 Categories and Themes

Social Action Authenticity Continuity

Intrinsic Valuation Ordinary

Language

Common Good

Community

Building

Culture

Accountability

Culture &

Transparency

Relationships

Integration of

Stakeholders

Governance

with

Stakeholders

Maintain

Relationship with

Stakeholders

Characteristics

Operationalized

Shared Resources

& Philanthropic

Value

OJ Jargon

Communication

Barriers

Operationalized

Interview Question 8: Social Action

The eighth interview question (IQ8) was: “How would you describe social

action in your program, collaboration, or organization?” Three themes common

good, community building, and culture emerged through data analysis. P-1, P-3,

and P-8 described social action to be for the good of others with a focus on charity

[enacted]. P-3 stated, “a lot of the things we do are humanitarian, charity, and

altruistic in focus.” P-6 also thought their organization exhibited social action

through each of the elements of social action; the good of humanity, charity as an

action taken for the good of others, and altruism as the interest in others [common

good]. P-1, P-2, and P-10 believed social action to be action taken for the good of

humanity [enacted]. P-10 showed within the context of social action there to be a

tension between being a consumable charity that consumes people’s time,

resources, and finances and meeting an immediate need [common good]. P8 also

reflected on charity being an action taken for the good of others with this comment:

“Rather than, only giving in response to a charitable impulse? I would like us to yes

to the person who is hungry, but also ask why are they hungry? And what can we

do about that [action taken for the good of humanity]?” P-8 wanted the

conversation to go deeper, indicating a wholistic approach to societal challenges

was a topic of further research.

The culture of the organization contributed to how social action was

actuated in the organization with the culture engrained in organizational values

[values driven]. The values were expressed as a desire to prepare better citizens for

the good of the community (P-1), to work themselves out of a job as there were no

more hungry people (P-2), and to look at the systemic issues facing a community

(P-9) [systemic]. For P-6, being a faith-based organization framed their value in

doing the best they could to be the hands and feet of Jesus without being

judgmental and for P-4, the value was to ensure that everyone had the support

system needed to take care of themselves and their families [values driven].

Moreover, for P-4, respect for the client and approaching a job with excellence was

expressed in the culture of the organization [values driven]. Simply put, a value in

P-4’s organization was summed up with the comment “nobody wants children to go

hungry.”

P-9 articulated that two sets of values framed social action in their

organization [values driven]. The first set focused on internal values comprised of

relationships, priorities, stewardship, and having joy in one’s work. Whereas the

external values embraced serving local communities, operating with strategic

initiatives, and being inclusive. Moreover, P-9 stated that the internal and external

values “define a culture that creates any social action that we are going to do

[mission driven]” (P-9). The mission of the organization linked to the values of the

organization for P-3, P-6, and P-9, although social action was also described to be

humanitarian, charity-based, and altruistic. Social action extended to community

building to ensure a better life for the next generation (P-1) [community building]

and a better place to live in the state of Arkansas (P-9). Moreover, for P7, social

action included outreach to the surrounding communities, thinking outside the four

walls of the organization to collaborate with other organizations in serving

immigrants and undocumented people in the United States [collaboration]. The

results from the data showed collaboration to be effective in community building

[community building] (P-2, P-4, P-7, and P-8).

Interview Question 9: Authenticity

The ninth interview question (IQ9) was: “How does your organization

communicate authenticity to collaborative stakeholders?” Three themes

accountability, culture, and relationships emerged through data analysis.

Authenticity for this question implies that the stakeholders are what they appear to

be and say and that shared resources they receive reach the client. Results showed

authenticity occurred when organizations were accountable to stakeholders (P-1,

P2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-9, and P-10). Written reports to stakeholders and funders

(P-1), data collection and research [data] (P-2), tracking intake of individuals and

families served (P-6), and reporting on goods and services distributed [written

reports] (P-10) were among the way participants accounted for goods, services, and

funds received. Authenticity was attributed to accurate accounting records, as noted

by P-10: “In our annual audit by pulling a percentage of receiving invoices and

distribution invoices, our parent company can literally track everything down to the

client.” In addition to annual audits [annual audits], P-10’s organization monitors

its agencies with the same intricacies with which they are audited and monitored

[transparency]. I always tell our agencies, “The purpose of these donated items is

to serve the client [authenticity].” Like P-10, nonprofit organizations were required

to maintain documents of clients served, and invoices for receiving and for

distribution of good and services, for a minimum of 3 years. Reporting to

stakeholders was conducted through advisory and board meetings [formal

communication] (P-9), communicating with donor and volunteers on the results of

an activity or program and in annual business meetings [formal and informal

communication] (P-3). Intrinsically, authenticity was communicated through the

actions of the staff. P-8 stated, “We follow through on what we say we are going to

do, and we give people the ability to give us feedback anonymously.” Furthermore,

in addition to accurate accounting, intrinsic valuation, and formal and informal

communication, nonprofit organizations use official documents like their Employee

Identification Number (EIN) and 501(c)(3) status [corporate documents] (P-6).

Authenticity was embedded in a culture of transparency within the

participant organizations (P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, and P-9). P-6 articulated this

organizational value as follows: “We do not hide anything. You are welcome to

come and look at everything we do.” The results showed that an open

communication policy [open policy] allowed complete transparency in anything

specific to what the pubic needed to know (P-3). P-7 also acknowledged that an

open door [open policy] policy and a genuine desire to serve everyone, regardless

of associated funding, exhibited authenticity [culture]. Moreover, P5 equated

authenticity to actions and being honest and truthful [trust]. Additionally, P5

offered that funding for programs and services was a direct result of a culture of

transparency [trust]: “We have helped a lot of people and I think, if we did not, we

wouldn’t be funded, our donations would not be as they are.” A culture of

authenticity begins in the workplace; as P-4 maintained, “Our authentic self-shows

up in the way we speak and interact with one another internally. The expectations

we set for how we work together, and then role model that behavior that when the

team goes into the community [transparency].” Although, P-4 thought they could

do a better job to foster authentic behavior in allowing clients to openly share,

without feeling judged [trust]. The findings also showed authenticity to be about

building trust in the community through transparent reporting, diversity in the

board of directors, in being authentic, or being and doing what they say they are

and do [authenticity] (P-9). P-8 brought a culture of transparency back to

prioritizing relationships with good customer service, returning phone calls,

accessibility to stakeholders in your work with community groups [relationships].

Building authentic relationships required coming together in meetings

whether one-on-one, in a group setting, or through a Zoom connection [meetings]

(P-1, P-4). P-1 offered, “You can tell if a person in authentic when you sit down

with them, break bread with them, and look them in the eye [personal connection].”

Relationship building with stakeholders occurred in storytelling about the lives

helped through the organization [storytelling] (P-2), by participating in projects

where people got involved in the “doing of giving [volunteers]” (P-3), and in

showing up in the community [equity] (P-8). For P-7, who received a grant to serve

individuals that tested positive for COVID-19, the relationships built with the

funders and individuals served extended beyond grant contract. During a peak in

the number of COVID-19 cases, P-7’s organization went from delivering 40 home

care boxes to 160. Relationships building occurred within the walls of an

organization that embraced a culture of transparency and a can-do spirit that said

that they will make a way to serve these families and find other resources [results].

Interview Question 10: Continuity

The tenth interview question (IQ10) was: “How does your organization

integrate, teach, or maintain continuity in the recruitment of new stakeholders?”

Three themes—integration of stakeholders, governance with stakeholders, and

maintain relationships with stakeholders—emerged through data analysis.

Continuity in this study implies there is an invisible force learned

intergenerationally or experienced through tradition where the action of the

stakeholder is reasonable, predictive, or productive of desired outcomes. In

nonprofit organizations, recruiting board members or stakeholders to open positions

within a program, collaboration, or organization (e.g., paid or volunteer) is

illustrative of continuity. The results showed that when organizations recruit new

stakeholders, they identify stakeholders that align with the organization’s strategic

objective [organizational alignment] (P-7), strengthen the composition of the

stakeholder group [diversity] (P-3, P-10), and are committed to the work [people

committed to the organization] (P-1). P-8 suggested that continuity occurred as new

organizations were identified to form new relationships to meet the strategic

initiatives of the collaborative effort [organizational depth]. When a new

stakeholder was integrated into the collaboration, it fell to the convening

organization to assure there was a process to address how new stakeholders were

equipped, empowered, and had a sense of belonging [organizational depth] (P-8).

Two spectrums of how stakeholders were identified came from P-6, who stated

simply, “It is through word of mouth [people interested in the organization]” and

P10, who maintained a spreadsheet to analyze gaps in stakeholder diversity

[organizational depth]. For P-10, diversity was the age, gender, race or ethnicity,

sexuality, how a stakeholder identified, and the industry or business of the

stakeholder [organizational depth].

The recruitment of board members or stakeholders was an intentional

process of the organization (P-3, P-4, P-5, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10). The results showed

that board members and stakeholders were vetted and prequalified through

organizational guidelines and corporate documents (P-3, P-5, P-8, P-10). In

addition, they received an orientation or onboarding process to assure continuity

[continuity] (P-4, P-9). For P-9, transferring the institutional knowledge was

important: “It tells you what you have tried in the past, what you have learned from

the past, where you have failed, and where you have succeeded [institutional

knowledge].” The findings showed that governing boards with scheduled rotation

for board members contributed to continuity [rotating terms/term limits] (P-5, P10).

P-10 explained rotating terms and term limits:

Board of directors are elected to a 3-year term, after which you can be

elected for one additional 3-year term. On the completion of your 6-year

term, a board member is required to retire off the board. After 1 year, a

board member can be re-elected to an additional 6-year term. Six years may

sound like a lifetime; however, we really need that continuity of

understanding and depth of understanding that comes from being with the

organization for a long time. In addition, we have a 15-member board, and

on a rotation basis, maybe five rotate off at any one time because we are

watching to make sure that we always have that institutional memory and

knowledge that's active in the lives of our volunteers, as well as our staff

[rotating terms/term limits].

A model of how a board member, staff, or volunteer came from P-5’s

organization, where an individual began as a volunteer of the organization, was

asked to serve as a board member, transitioned into a staff position, and circled

back to being a volunteer of the organization [process]. The rotation of board

members further contributed to maintaining the relationships important to

continuity [maintain continuity]. The research findings showed that how an

organization maintained relationships influenced continuity within the organization.

For instance, in P-1’s organization, when a board member rotated off the board, that

board member oftentimes served in an advisory role [succession]. In addition,

organizational culture [culture] (P-3), community advisory boards for the

recruitment of new collaborative partners [networking] (P-4), relationship building

through social and informal meetings [relationships] (P-6, P-8), and retaining

representation of community stakeholders [networking] (P-2) emerged as

dimensions in maintaining relationship for organizational continuity [maintain

relationships].

Interview Question 11: Intrinsic Valuation

The 11th interview question (IQ11) was asked in two parts: “What rules,

standards, or values are recognized and used in your organization?” and “How do

these rules, standards, or values contribute to shared resources or philanthropic

value?” In response to this question, characteristics, operationalization

[operationalized], and shared resources and philanthropic value emerged as the

themes. The study findings showed characteristics of intrinsic valuation to be

embedded within the organization. An example would be the purchase order form

used in P-3’s organization. At the top of the form are the following words: “We

receive these funds in our organization and we are going to do our best to steward

these funds based on missional specific values of the organization and not spend

anything that goes against those stated values [values].” The value spoken of by P-

3 was also echoed by P-5: “Anything we are given, we try to use it responsibly. We

value the donations that are given to us. We value the money [values].”

Furthermore, social values were aligned with intrinsic valuation (P-10); these

values included focuses on child hunger or senior citizens choosing between food

and prescription medication [characteristics of values].

The participants in the study reported that the mission of the organization

was the origin of intrinsic valuation [operationalized] (P-1, P2, P3, P7). The values

embedded in organizations were a part of performance evaluations and reinforced

by leadership (P-4), resource allocation decisions (P-3), written into corporate

guidelines and documents (P-5), and developed as standards of excellence in a

strategic plan (P-10) [operationalized]. P-9 maintained their organization had as

few rules as possible. Moreover, they liked to “keep it as simple as possible for

collaborative stakeholders. Do not make it a rule unless it is really important and do

not put it in writing unless you are going to enforce it [operationalized].” Although

the rules and standards in an organization might change, the values do not, as stated

by P-10: “We have been clear to articulate that the strategic plan is a living

document and the standards in the document may change [rules and standards].” In

addition, the results showed that leadership modeling (P-4), documents that

reinforced organizational value (P-3), aligning organizational opportunities with the

mission statement (P-1), and building community trust through relationship

building (P-8) contributed to intrinsic valuation where the values, rules, and

standards were used and recognized by stakeholders.

Through the second part of IQ11, the researcher explored whether intrinsic

valuation contributed to shared resources and philanthropic value. The results

showed that intrinsic valuation contributed to shared resources and philanthropic

value, through collective-efforts [shared goals] (P-2), asking for money

[philanthropic value] (P-3), and shared responsibility [shared responsibility] (P-1).

Moreover, creating values together [values] (P-4), word-of-mouth testimonials

[stewardship] (P-6), and meeting activity and program objectives [operationalized]

(P-7) were direct results of intrinsic valuation [intrinsic valuation]. Additionally,

results showed that stewardship was a value [stewardship] (P-8, P-9), embodying

respect for all stakeholders [value] (P-4), local decision-making [value] (P-8),

ethics and integrity [value] (P-5), delivering goods and services in a timely manner

[value] (P-5), and doing work that supports the mission of the organization [value]

(P-1) contributed to shared resources and philanthropic value.

Interview Question 12: Ordinary Language

The 12th interview question (IQ12) was: “What does ordinary language

look like in your program, collaboration, or organization, and how is that language

communicated to collaborative stakeholders?” The three themes that emerged

through the data were: OJ jargon, communication barriers to ordinary language

[communication barriers], and how ordinary language is operationalized

[operationalized]. In this study, ordinary language was identified as a common

language that is adopted, used, and recognized by stakeholders; however, ordinary

language is not necessarily a term familiar to stakeholders. P-3 said of ordinary

language, “I think every organization has its own language [OJ jargon].” Likewise,

P-9 stated, “We are very comfortable with our ordinary language [OJ jargon].” The

results showed words like allocated funds or designated funds [terms] (P-3)

endowment, philanthropy, unrestricted funds, or social capital (P-8), underserved or

the under resourced (P-5), Hopes Closet (P-6), and food insecurity (P-2) [terms]

were indicators of OJ jargon. Acronyms like T-flat program, CSFP, CACFP, SF, and

SP (P-10), ROI (P-8), and USDA (P-2) also contributed to the use of ordinary

language [acronyms]. For P-4, the use of OJ jargon was expected where federal

funding and research-based projects were dependent on meeting regulated

standards as expressed in contracts and publications.

The results showed that terms like food insecurity (P-2), underserved (P-5),

or social capital (P-8) created [communication barriers]. P-4 thought that creating a

new common language in which all stakeholders understood the meaning of what

was implied through the OJ jargon was important [co-create a common language].

P-8 saw a disparity in understanding OJ jargon between business stakeholders and

nonprofit organizations and voluntary associations [challenge]. For P-8, OJ jargon

and the world of philanthropy was like “The ground we walk on and the air we

breathe.” Whereas, business stakeholders might say, “What are you even talking

about? [stakeholder comprehension].” Additionally, in presentations, the

stakeholder comprehension of the definition of a word created communication

barriers [challenge]. P-1 articulated the challenge as follows:

You know, there are some groups when you say, retirement, they think,

okay, I need a half a million dollars to make sure I'm secure. Do I have my

IRA in order? Is everything in place for my retirement? Whereas, for a

person from my area, regarding retirement, they have not even gotten close

to that level. They might be thinking something as simple as, do I have

savings accounts in place, or do I have money set aside for an emergency

fund? The people from my area are at a different level and range of

understanding and these two groups are separated by two different worlds

[stakeholder comprehension].

The results further showed contributing factors to communication barriers

included language that was too ponderous and lofty (P-8), using OJ jargon with the

thought that everyone has a basic understanding of the language (P-9), and the use

of acronyms [clarity in communication] (P-10). Conquering the divide between

stakeholder groups and organizational jargon was operationalized in a variety of

ways. P-10 compiled a glossary of terms that was presented to new stakeholders

[operationalized]. Furthermore, at board, staff, or other stakeholder meetings the

glossary of terms was distributed [clarity in communication]. The findings

demonstrated other methods to limit OJ jargon included weekly communication in

laymen’s terms [stakeholder comprehension] (P-3), creating a common language

[language barrier] (P-4), using language that makes sense to everyone [terms are

understood] (P-9), and explaining the definition of an acronym is one is used

[acronym] (P-10).

The third research question (RQ3) was presented in two parts in this study.

Part A explored four governance principles in questions IQ4–IQ7 (Ostrom, 1990).

Part B explored commons governance and principles in nonprofit organizations and

voluntary action collaboratives in questions IQ8–IQ12 (Lohmann, 1992). In culling

the data, data analysis, and grouping the data into categories, 19 themes emerged.

Four themes—governance, shared resources, monitoring resources, and conflict—

were discussed in response to questions IQ4–IQ7. Additionally, three themes in

each question IQ8–IQ9 were discussed. The implications of these findings are

discussed further in Chapter 5 and provide a better understanding of how commons

governance is operationalized in nonprofit organizations contributing to the

furtherance of an organization’s mission.

RQ4: Convening Leadership

The fourth research question (RQ) was: “How does the convenor contribute

to collective-action collaboration? (Clary, 2021)" Five interview questions (IQ13–

IQ18) were asked to explore how the convenor contributes to collective-action

collaboration. The five questions were:

IQ13: What have you observed as three best practices of a convenor?

IQ14: What has been your experience in how a convenor’s core beliefs,

values, and attitudes influence collaborative efforts?

IQ15: What has been your experience in how a convenor brings together

socio-economic groups with differences in culture, customs,

language, influence, and disparity of resources?

IQ16: How does a convenor facilitate collaboration among stakeholders?

IQ17: What have you observed as a technique a convenor would use to reframe a

problem to help stakeholders find common ground during times of conflict.

A convenor is essential for successful collaborative action (Carlson, 2006),

and increasingly more so to solve the complex societal and global issues nonprofit

organizations address today. Carlson (2006) looked at convening as a powerful tool

in which leaders created a space for stakeholders to problem solve through

collaboration. Carlson distinguished between a leader's management and their

ability to build consensus. Neal et al. (2010) drew from the definition of the word

convene to define convening as “the art of gathering and “holding” people, in a safe

and generative space, for the sake of authentic engagement” (p. 304). Clary (2021)

submitted that assembling stakeholders is a significant role for the convenor. It is in

the assembly of the stakeholders’ where commons are formed, governance occurs,

and shared resources are managed.

Westley et al. (2013) created a theory of transformative agency in

socialecological systems, arguing that leadership per se may be passe as the focus

of change transfers to institutional entrepreneurship. Leadership in these authors’

framework capitalizes on the concept of actors and actor groups incorporating

words such as stewards, knowledge carriers, leaders, interpreters, sense makers,

networks, visionaries, experimenters, followers, reinforcers, and facilitators where

transformation takes place through the efforts of several actors. According to

Westley et al. institutional entrepreneurship, a concept developed by DiMaggio

(1988), describes the work of convenors looking to bring transformational change

to institutions.

Westley et al. (2013) contended the focus on institutional entrepreneurship

was better suited to emergence and change in adaptive systems and noted that to

refocus on the endeavor itself one must shift from the concept of leader to that of

entrepreneur [convenor]. What Westley et al. (2013) identified as institutional

entrepreneurship, Clary (2021) maintained was the role of a convenor and

convening leadership. According to Svendsen and Laberge (2005), convenors help

build independent relationships to create a “stakeholders’ network,” which they

define as “a web of groups, organizations and/or organizations who come together

to address a complex and shared cross-boundary problem, issue, or opportunity” (p.

92). Additionally, the convenor helps collaborative members find solutions and

innovations through the energy, resources, and intelligence of its members.

(Svendsen & Laberge, 2005).

A convenor can be an organization or someone who steps into a leadership

role as a coalition convenor (Kemp, 2020). Moreover, a convenor may take the

form of a collaboration of convening representatives from multiple sectors

(Colburn, n.d.). Block (2008) maintained that there is an art to convening

stakeholders and that convening leadership is essential. In the context of a

decentralized solution to the problem of cooperation, Lobo et al. (2016) supported

Ostrom’s (1990) argument that individuals can develop institutions that guarantee

optimal cooperative solutions without the need for enforcement from leaders and

proposed mutual monitoring as discussed in the previous section. Moreover,

according to Ostrom (2000), a leader may evolve from the group and can be the

initial stimulant in presenting alternative ways of organizing. Van Belle (1996)

argued that leadership can be instrumental in overcoming the difficulties found in

the pursuit of public goods thus providing an efficient and effective solution to

collective action [collaboration] problems.

Glowacki and von Rueden (2015) found leadership to be effective in

smallscale societies with high efficacy in domains of collective action. Moreover, a

leader’s prior experience, age-related knowledge of the situation, body size, and

social placement contribute to the effectiveness of the leader. In a study on

leadership in social movements, Morris and Staggenborg (2004) cited that leaders

inspire commitment, are strategic decision-makers, influence collective outcomes,

and create and recognize opportunities. In terms of leadership in the global

community, Crosby (1996) posited that these individuals build global community or

civil society in the world by creating organizations and exchange programs.

Leadership then inspires and mobilizes others to take collective action in pursuit of

the common good (Crosby, 1996; Crosby & Bryson, 2010). Block (2008) offered

leadership in community building encompasses intentionality, convening, valuing

relatedness, and presenting choices. Further, Block also described leaders as those

who set the stage for institutional and civic engagement. In this regard, the leader

not only designs the blueprint for the engagement but also provides the roadmap on

how to arrive at the destination (Block, 2008). Collaborative governance offers an

opportunity for the many roles of leadership on the commons (Agranoff &

McGuire, 2003; Bryson et al., 2006). Emerson et al. (2011), based on the work of

Agranoff and McGuire (2003), Bryson et al. (2006), and Carlson (2006), offered

leadership roles including sponsor, convenor, facilitator, mediator, public advocate,

and others. The cultivation of commons leadership is essential to create

sustainability and provide a competitive advantage to the organization (Franzgen,

2020, p. 37). Fundamentally, collaborations do not rise spontaneously; someone

must initiate them (Bertels, 2006). Clary’s (2021) convening leadership framework

features five dimensions, as shown in Table 3.

Data analysis for IQ13–IQ17 was conducted in MAXQDA, and five codes

emerged from five IQs resulting in 172 data segments: best practices (52), core

beliefs, values, and attitudes [CBVA] (31), socio-economic groups [socioeconomic]

(32), facilitate collaboration [collaboration] (38), and congruity in conflict

[conflict] (25). The data segments from the five codes were transferred to an Excel

spreadsheet, further analyzed, and grouped into codes, categories, and themes

whereas the following themes emerged as shown in Table 11. To understand better

how commons governance is operationalized in nonprofit organizations, the results

from IQ13–IQ17 follow. Notated within the participant comment is a bracketed and

italicized emergent correlating category or theme.

Table 11

IQ13–IQ17 Categories and Themes

Best Practices Core Beliefs,

Values and

Attitudes

Socio-Economic

Groups

Collaboration Congruity in

Conflict

Characteristics of

a convenor

[convenor]

The convenor as

connector

[connector]

The

proficiencies of

a convenor

[proficiencies]

Expectations of

the convenor

[expectations]

Influences of the

convenor

[influence]

Convening

operationalized

[operationalized]

Diversity and

inclusion [D&I]

Socio-economic

groups

operationalized

[operationalized]

Understanding the

tensions [tension]

Meeting design

[meeting]

Monitoring and

maintenance

[monitoring]

Building

relationships

[relationships]

Acknowledge

there is a conflict

[acknowledge

conflict]

The convenor’s

role in conflict

resolution

[convenor’s role]

Techniques used

in conflict

management

[techniques]

Interview Question 13: Best Practices

The 13th interview question (IQ13) was: “What have you observed as three

best practices of a convenor?” Through analyzing the data, the themes

characteristics of a convenor [convenor], the convenor as connector [connector],

and the proficiencies of a convenor [ proficiencies] emerged. The characteristics of

a convenor were listening (P-9, P-10), flexibility [flexible] (P-9), the ability to

motivate people [motivator] (P-3), transparency, and the ability to drive the

collaborative forward [convenor] (P-4). P-4 articulated that transparency occurred

in the forming phase of collaborative work, as a part of the process of collaboration

where people needed latitude in dealing with their own fears and insecurities in

joining a collaborative effort [transparency in the process]. In addition, P-3

believed that a convenor should have a vision for the collaborative effort and be

passionate about the purpose of the collaboration [vision and passion]. P-3 stated,

Without a vision, people are not going anywhere. And, if they are not competent, it

does not matter how many resources they have available, they are not going to

manage them well. And then, being able to motivate people to move forward is

critical.

One final characteristic competency [competent] that P-3 offered could also

be linked with the proficiencies of a convenor [proficiencies]. The skill of a

convenor emerged in the participant responses in the form of questions the

participants asked. For instance, P-2 thought the convenor should be asking, “Who

else should be sitting at this table? [asking who should be at the table].” In doing

so, the convenor works with the collaborative members to assure that everyone who

should be at the table, was at the table [proficiencies]. For P-3, collaborative

members included state agencies; people and organizations involved in child

nutrition; school districts; YMCA or similar service providers; and representatives

at the local, regional, and state levels [inclusive]. P-3 offered one illustration of

what it means to have everybody at the table: “It is making sure you have

somebody at the table who represents the governor’s office, or is the lobbyist, or

who aids education administrators, that can help you get your hearing at the state

capitol when you need it [strategic partners].” The findings also showed that the

convenor should be a skilled administrator performing duties like updating the

stakeholder list so it is current [detailed] and scheduling collaborative meetings

[planning] (P-2).

The results showed it was incumbent upon the convenor to help the

collaboration identify these strategic partners [proficiencies]. Additionally, the

results showed that convenors needed to be skilled in encouraging collaborate

members to think outside of the box [think outside the box] and create an

atmosphere for honest conversation [honest conversation] among collaborative

members (P-1). Furthermore, realistic expectations [realistic expectations] of what

the collaborative could achieve was identified by P-8. The participants voiced that

it was the skill of the convenor to set these expectations at the onset of the

collaborative work. In doing so, the convenor provided collaborative members to

an opportunity to communicate the bandwidth of organizational capacity (e.g.,

volunteers, funding, resources) [informed decision-making] (P-7).

Being a dot connector [dot connector] was identified as a proficiency by P-

10, who stated,

We need to listen and be a dot connector. As we (e.g., convenors) listen, we

must be good at connecting the dots for people because someone can say

one thing, on one side of the room, and another can say something else.

Although, the two comments may seem unrelated, a good convenor can

connect the dots and help them see that what they are saying could be the

solution to their issue.

The third theme to emerge in response to IQ13 centered on relationships and

building rapport among collaborative stakeholders. In this vein, the convenor

emerged as the connector [connector]. P-8 said, “I think it is important to invest in

making time for social connection, not just work connection [social connection].”

The results showed the intentionality of the convenor to build rapport with

collaborative members to be a best practice [build rapport]. As a connector, the

findings further showed the convenor needed to be able to create an inviting

atmosphere where collaborative members felt comfortable in the space [create a

comfortable atmosphere] (P-1). Convenors also needed to meet people where they

were as they joined the collaboration (P-4, P-9). Moreover, the convenor needed to

listen to collaborative members and answer any questions as the collaboration

formed [create a comfortable atmosphere]. The characteristics of convening

leadership and the ability of the convenor to work with stakeholders in collective

action collaboration are shown in Table 12.

Table 12

Convening Leadership Characteristics and Skillset

Collaboration of

Stakeholders

(IQ13)

Characteristics of

Convening Leadership

Ability of the Convenor

Best Practices of

Convening

Leadership

Competent

Connector

Flexible

Listens

Passionate

Transparent

Visionary

Creates an environment for transparency

Encourages stakeholders to think outside the box

Fosters social and professional connections

Identifies strategic partners

Motivates stakeholders

Moves a collaborative forward

Operationalizes a strategic agenda

Sets the expectation of collaborative stakeholders

Interview Question 14: Core Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes

The 14th interview question (IQ14) was: “What has been your experience in

how a convenor’s core beliefs, values, and attitudes influence collaborative

efforts?” Through analyzing the data, the themes expectations of the convenor

[expectations], influences of the convenor [influences], and convening

operationalized [operationalized] emerged. The findings showed that the core

beliefs, values, and attitudes of the convenor influenced collaborative efforts. P-3

suggested that if a convenor’s core belief was that they could be successful in

bringing the stakeholders together [core belief], then that basic belief would result

in a positive outcome in the work of the collaboration. In contrast, if the convenor

launched the collaboration without honest input from the collaborative

stakeholders, then the outcome would be negative [honest sharing] (P-3). P-4

proposed a convenor brings a set of beliefs, values, and attitudes [CVBA] to the

space. Also, how the space is designed, what happens in the space, who can speak

in the space, and process of collaboration in the space stems from the convenor’s

CVBA. P-4 posited, “If a convenor’s CVBAs are not inclusive, equitable, or

humble, or if the convenor lacks confidence in trusting the process, then the

convenor can have a negative influence on the outcome of the collaborative effort

[create the culture].” Other expectations of the convenors that emerged in the

findings were the convenor would lead from their heart toward a common goal

[authentic] (P-6, P-7), they would set the stage for the norms of the group [shared

space] (P-9), and they would be knowledgeable in the issue and understand the

history behind the complexity of the challenge [understands the history] (P-10). A

final expectation of the convenor is they would be able to story-tellers relevant to

the collaboration members and collective-effort [storytellers] (P2).

The findings also revealed the culture of the collaboration is going to be

reflective of a convenor’s CVBAs [culture] (P-3). Furthermore, for P-3, the culture

of the collaboration as set by a convenor was a definitive factor in the active

engagement of stakeholders in the collaborative effort [influences]. P-8 referred to

the convenor’s influence as the personal flavor of the convenor where a convenor

may exhibit an exuberant personality or be intense, or even a good

conversationalist [convenor’s personality]. The personification of the convenor’s

personality influenced the dynamics of the collaboration [influences]. As P-10

summarized,

The convenor’s CVBAs can change the dynamics of the group and the

willingness of the people at the table to have to follow through and continue

to work on a project; depending on whether convenor railroads the

collaborative-efforts with an agenda or creates an interactive space that

allows for participation and engagement of stakeholders [changes group

dynamics].

In this study, how a phenomenon such as how a convenor’s core beliefs,

values, and attitudes influence collaborative efforts is operationalized through

attributes of the convenor as expressed by the participants in the study

[operationalized]. The findings indicated that respect that was earned through

previous experiences and relationships [convenor respect] (P-2), having a servant’s

heart [servant’s heart] (P-2, P-6), and being open [openness] to collaborative

stakeholders’ ideas were valued attributes of convenors. Moreover, these attributes

influenced collaborative-efforts. In organizations where convening was a part of the

organizational mandate, values like building relationships [relationships] and

giving a voice to stakeholders [values played out in collaboration] (P-9), loving

people and meeting people where they were when they entered the collaborative

effort [meeting people] (P-7) and embracing storytelling [storytelling] (P-5)

modeled the operationalization [operationalized] of the convenor. Furthermore,

having a servant’s heart [servant’s heart] (P-5, P-6), earning respect among

collaborative stakeholders (P-2), and acknowledging the collective value

stakeholders brough to the collaborative process [value sharing] (P1) additionally

operationalized the convenor’s influence [influence]. Finally, creating a culture to

attract cross platform collaborations [create a culture] (P-3, P-4), working hard

[hard work] (P-8), and convening to solve the collaborative agenda [no agenda]

emerged as how the convenor’s core beliefs, values, and attitudes influence the

collaborative effort [operationalized]. Table 13 presents the findings on how the

core beliefs, values, and attitudes of the convenor in collective action collaborations

influence the outcome of the collaborative effort.

Table 13

Convening Leadership Core Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes of the Convenor

Core Beliefs, Values, and

Attitudes (IQ14)

Shaped by the Core Beliefs, Values, and Attitudes of the

Convenor

Convenor’s Care Beliefs,

Values, and Attitudes

Creates and designs a space for collaboration

Determines what happens in the space

Determines who speaks in the space

Establishes the processes and sets the norms for collaboration

Works toward a common goal

Positive Influences on the

Outcome of Collaborative

Efforts

Convenor’s disposition

Loving people

Openness to stakeholder’s ideas

Previous experience and relationships

Relationship building

Servant’s heart

Valuing stakeholders

Negative Influences on the Inequitable vs. Equity

Outcome of Collaborative

Efforts

Exclusivity vs. Inclusivity

Arrogant vs. Humility

Personal Attributes Knowledge of the history of the collaboration

Knowledge of the challenges, issues, and complexities of the

collaboration

Relevant story-telling

Interview Question 15: Socio-Economic Groups [Socio-Economic]

The 15th interview question (IQ15) was: “What has been your experience in

how a convenor brings together socio-economic groups with differences in culture,

customs, language, influence, and disparity of resources?” Through analyzing the

data, the following themes emerged: diversity and inclusion [D&I], socio-economic

groups operationalized [operationalized], and understanding the tensions [tension].

The topic of diversity and inclusion was important to the participants.

During the global COVID-19 pandemic when the interviews for this study took

place, the United States of America was trying to rebound from a state of political

unrest, racial tensions, and mounting disruptions to the healthcare system. The

results of the study reflected participants’ acknowledgment of this diversity. As P-2

stated, “I would think over the last year or two, that bringing together

socioeconomic groups would be a more purposeful goal of every group that we

have worked with, and it is a sign of the times, pandemic and all [pandemic

awareness].”

P-4 contributed with, “We could have done a better job and we are constantly

asking, ‘How do we creative a community that is diverse and stronger?’ [builds

community]” (P-10). For P-3, the global COVID-19 and other crisis situations

galvanized people with difference in backgrounds, cultures, and customs around the

need and a common goal [pandemic challenges]. As operationalized

[operationalized] for P-3, it was the vision and mission [vision and mission] that

laid the foundation to pursue diversity and inclusion in and out of the organization

pre COVID-19. Similarly, all the participants (P-1 through P-10) advocated for

diversity and inclusion on their boards and in collaborative stakeholder meetings.

the findings showed, however, that the participants who represented funding

organizations, found it challenging to be inclusive of all stakeholders when there

was a noticeable difference in the disparity of resources [all-inclusive]. P-10

illuminated the challenge as follows:

Well, I need people from wealth class, middle class, and poverty class to all

be at my table. But if my wealth class lady says, “Well, if they would just

get off the couch”; and, if the language is always, they—and they need to

do this, then I must redirect the language and help them understand the

differences [bridging the divide].

Diversity and inclusion [D&I] requires finding methods to operationalize

[operationalized] the communication gap to talk about sensitive issues [sensitive

issues] (P-8, (P-10). The results of the study showed that participants endeavored to

include socio-economic groups [socio-economic groups] in written communication

like multiple-language documents [interactive process] (P-4), providing

accommodations if needed to attend stakeholder meetings [stakeholder meetings]

(P-4), diversified staff fluent in multiple languages [team diversity], electronic

communication [accessibility] (P-8), multimodal meetings, and conversations with

a lot of groups [multimodal experience] (P-8). Limited methods of how to

operationalize [D&I] in nonprofit organization collaboration, were identified in the

study and more research is needed to study this phenomenon. The third theme

understanding the tension [tensions] provided some insight into why the results

showed there was an inequity in the composition of stakeholders in collaborative

efforts. As stated by P-8, “It is easy to connect and collaborate with people who are

similar.” P-9 equated the challenge to the difference between funding organizations

and service provider organizations where service provider organizations were in a

position of needing resources [understanding tensions]. As mentioned earlier in this

section, the racial tension between the races and cultures also contributed to the

inequity [tensions]. In contrast, P-6 claimed there were no people of color in their

county; therefore, they could not have collaborative-efforts that had differences in

culture, customs, language, influence, and disparity of resources [blind bias]. One

result showed socio-economic groups to be hard work [hard work] (P-10). At a very

basic level of the wealth in classes of population there are tension nonprofit

organization leaders must address. P-10 captured the essence of this thought with

an illustration:

An illustration from P-10 highlights some of the complexities:

It is tough to bring the wealth class, middle class, and poverty class together

in collaborative work. We took one of the ladies from one of our programs

to a national conference. It was a volunteer group that attended the

conference. Our president of the board, another volunteer, and two members

of our classes. On the plane ride home, one of the ladies from one of our

classes, the community member, opened up to a person, that she had a

bunch of silverware in her luggage that she had been taken from dinner.

And they were like, “What, why did you do this?” And you know, they

were just shocked. So, there are those kinds of things when we bring in

different socio economic groups, it is very, very difficult.

P-10 reiterated the need to be ever present in the room, in the conversation, and in

building bridges between the groups. Building collaboratives of all socio-economic

groups with differences in culture, customs, language, influence, and disparity of

resources falls to each one working in the nonprofit and voluntary action sector

(P10). Table 14 illustrates how convening leadership works with diverse

stakeholder groups.

Table 14

Convening Leadership and Working with Diverse Stakeholder Groups

Convening Leadership (IQ15) Convenor’s Working with Diverse Stakeholder Groups Should

Socio-Economic Groups

Advocate for diversity and inclusion in stakeholder groups

Develop a personal philosophy of diversity and inclusion for

stakeholder groups

Embrace stakeholder groups that are diverse and inclusive

Realize disparity in resources of stakeholders contributes to

challenges in collaboration

Understand tension exists in socio-economic diverse

stakeholder groups

Techniques to Break Down

Barriers to Diversity and

Inclusion

Acknowledge that tension exists

Build bridges through communication and conversations

Diverse staff

Offer multiple-language documents

Provide resources to attend stakeholder meetings

Interview Question 16: Facilitate Collaboration [Collaboration]

The 16th interview question (IQ16) was: “How does a convenor facilitate

collaboration among stakeholders?” The researcher observed that the participants—all of

whom who served in convening roles—spoke sometimes as the convenor and sometimes

to the desired characteristic of the convenor. Additionally, the participants voiced that the

convening role was a collaborative effort between the convenor and the convening

organization. Through analyzing the data, three themes emerged: meeting design

[meeting], monitoring and maintenance [monitoring], and relationship building

[relationships]. The first theme was about the design of the meeting. The results showed

there was not one way to design the meeting space or agenda; however, there were

important aspects to consider in convening stakeholders. At a meta or organizational level,

as a convenor, P-4 viewed the convenor’s role to be that as a trainer and the stakeholders

were in a training session [train the trainer], documenting the process of convening to

provide a resource for stakeholder’s as they left the session. As P-4 explained, “You are

learning the process for implementation for the relationships you are building here, but

also for many other places in your life or career [meeting design].” P-3, P-4, P9, and P-10

articulated that the meeting design should include ways to engage the stakeholders. For P-

3, this was a convenor’s reasonability to know the stakeholders in the room and how they

would be able to fill roles needed within the collaboration [knowing the stakeholders]. P10

engaged stakeholders by working in groups; whereas P-9 preferred to hire a facilitator

who believed in the mission of the collaboration to convene over the meeting [meeting

with a facilitator]. P-9 stated, “The facilitator is responsible for facilitating the discussion,

making sure all the voices are heard, and making sure that we are reporting back to our

groups as the reports are ready.” In small group work, the results showed P-10 assigned a

listener in the group, a reporter or an individual that could report back what the small

group had discussed and reminded the stakeholder’s that everyone’s input was essential to

the outcome of the meeting [collaborative work]. The design of the meeting also needed to

consider they dynamics socio-economic groups brought to the collaborative [group

dynamics] (P-8) keeping the common interest of the stakeholders at the forefront of the

meeting design [meeting] (P-5) and asking stakeholders to step into strategic positions (P-

3).

The second theme in facilitating collaboration was in the monitoring and

maintenance of stakeholder interactions after the meeting concluded [monitoring].

The results showed that tactically, someone had to be responsible to follow up with

stakeholders [follow up] (P-8). The results further showed follow up occurred in

conversation, email communication, text messages, lunches, and meetings (P-3, P8,

P-10). P-10 considered follow-up to be moving a little further down the field

toward the goal line for the collaborative effort, recognizing that “the real work is

going to happen down the road, and I need the stakeholders to stay engaged in

order to achieve the strategic outcome of the collaboration [encourage ownership].”

In this manner, for P-10, the conversation continued, the stakeholders were

engaged, and the real work began with the goal in mind [monitoring and

maintenance]. In monitoring and maintenance [monitoring] and in the meeting

design [meeting] building relationship [relationships] the convenor’s ability to

foster and build relationships was essential to a successful outcome. The constraints

in a continued state of social distancing due to COVID-19 created challenges as

expressed by P-4: It is hard right now, in a digital world. We have to find creative

ways to you know, meet stakeholders in the hallway, over coffee, or at the kiosk.

We ask ourselves as convenor’s “How do we facilitate meaningful conversations on

Zoom and tell stories that showcase our commonalities and align our goals

and purpose? [social interaction].

For P-9, consideration of the digital world circled back to the meeting

design and creating a space for relationships to form as stakeholders connected

[social interaction]. The results showed that relationship building [relationships]

centered on working toward a common goal [objective] (P-7), helping collaborative

stakeholders understand that they mattered [value-added] (P-10), meeting with

stakeholders before the formal meeting [knowing stakeholders] (P-3), listening to

stakeholder input (P-9), and remaining connected outside of collaboration meetings

[building relationships] (P-1). P-1 shared the importance of the establishing and

maintaining relationships with collaborative stakeholders. P-1 stated, “I can talk to

one stakeholder and express a need where that stakeholder shares the need with

another stakeholder. Although, the result may not be immediate, the connection is

there for future opportunities [collaborative interfacing].” P-8 expressed that it was

incumbent upon the convenor to meet the participant’s where they were to surface

and help break down barriers in collaboration [collaborative interfacing]. Breaking

down barriers to collaboration included understanding the capacity [capacity] of the

stakeholder partners [building relationships]. The results of the study showed that

the participants had expectations of convening leadership in facilitating

collaboration, as shown in Table 15.

Table 15

Convening Leadership and Expectations in Facilitating Collaboration

Facilitate Collaboration (IQ16) Expectation of Convening Leadership

Build relationships with the stakeholders

Document the collaboration outcomes

Engage the stakeholders

Facilitate stakeholder conversations

Follow up with all stakeholders on accepted responsibilities

Help stakeholders understand they are value-added to the

collaborative effort

Know the capacity of stakeholders

Provide opportunity for all stakeholder voices to be heard

Train the collaborate stakeholders how to convene

Work toward a common goal

Interview Question 17: Congruity in Conflict [Conflict]

The 17th interview question (IQ17) was: “What have you observed as a

technique a convenor would use to reframe problem to help stakeholders find

common ground during times of conflict?” Through analyzing the data, the themes

acknowledge there is a conflict [conflict], the convenor’s role in conflict resolution

[convenor’s role], and techniques used in conflict management [techniques]

emerged. The themes that emerged through analyzing the data underscored that

conflict was to be expected in collaborative work (P-1, P-3, P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9,

P-10). P-1, P-3, and P-9 offered that conflict should be acknowledged. P-1 said,

“Be quiet, and listen to the conflict. Then, identify the commonalities and help each

other understand the source of the conflict [conflict].” P-3 suggested to refocus the

conflict [conflict] by acknowledging the conflict and reminding stakeholders that

what they were doing together mattered. P-9 asserted that at the end of the day,

while there may not be consensus, everyone’s voice should have been heard, and a

group vote helps to move the collaborative-effort forward [acknowledge agreement

not reached]. The convenor’s role was important in reframing the problem to help

stakeholders find common ground during times of conflict. The findings showed

the convenor is expected to find commonality among the stakeholders [identify

commonalities] (P-1), remind stakeholders of the purpose of the collaborative effort

[focus on group objective] (P-8), and refocus stakeholders on the mission of the

group [mission] (P-3). In addition, P-3 shared,

I think what you (e.g., the convenor) try to do is remind people that they

have passion, and the reason there is conflict is because there is an

objective, and they care about what they are doing. Additionally, we may or

may not agree on exactly how to do it. But the objective is the same [keep

the objective at the forefront].

Moreover, it was incumbent upon the convenor to know the culture of the

collaboration to help stakeholders rally around the objective instead of personal

preferences [understand the culture] (P-3). For P-1, where convening brought

different aged group stakeholders together, the findings showed the root cause of

conflict stemmed from age differences, racial tensions, and a lack of shared history

[looking for commonality]. To address the conflict, P-1 suggested, “The best way to

dissolve the conflict is helping both groups understand they are saying the same

thing, only from their perspective. Therefore, the convenor must help them

appreciate the perspective each one brings [help them find commonality].”

Similarly, P-4 proposed that the convenor should engage the stakeholders in a

backand-forth conversation to get both groups to a place of agreement.

The results revealed several techniques that convenors could use to help

reframe conflict. If the conflict involved a few people, P-6 found meeting in person

in an office to be effective [face-to-face]. Moreover, P-8 asserted that gathering

information prior to resolution was a good technique [gather information] as was

letting people talk openly about the conflict [hearing stakeholder voices] (P-9). P-5,

however, thought that a convenor should be skilled in managing conflict to frame a

negative situation to a positive frame, but acknowledged that not everyone had the

talent to do so [reframe an issue]. A unique finding was expressed by P-7, who

thought stakeholders could be persuaded with a personal example to resolve

conflict by stating what she would commit to improve to change the outcome of the

conflict [techniques]. By doing so, P-7 said, “I am not pointing fingers, and I am

willing to put some skin in the game to help resolve the issue” [no finger pointing].

Two methods that a convenor can use in reframing conflict came from P-4

and P-10. P-4 recalled an experience in observing a convenor who asked everyone

in the group to consider the exercise of backing down a ladder. Once the group had

backed down the ladder figuratively, the convenor asked everyone to step back and

consider how they went off the rails. The convenor then interacted with the

comments bringing the group to consensus [stepping back]. P-10 had a great deal of

respect for a convenor who used a parking lot approach to conflict reframing. In P-

10’s scenario, the convenor captures items that kind of relate to the topic of

discussion in a parking lot on her flip chart. She hears what the stakeholders say

and places it in the parking lot to maybe revisit at another time. This keeps the

group focused on the objective. P-10 recalled a time where the objective was to

focus on childhood hunger; however, the members wanted to talk about the

deadbeat dads who are not working. The convenor reframed the situation by

placing the deadbeat dads in the parking lot and refocusing the collaborative-effort

on childhood hunger. Table 16 as shown reflects the convening leadership role in

collective action collaboration.

Table 16

Convening Leadership and Conflict Resolution

Convening Leadership Role

Acknowledge there is conflict

Help stakeholders appreciate other perspectives Rally

around the objectives of the stakeholders and not

personal preferences

Refocus the conflict on the mission

Reframe the problem with group exercises

The fourth research question (RQ4) explored how the convenor contributed

to collective-action collaboration (Clary, 2021). In culling data, analyzing, and

Congruity in Conflict (IQ -17)

grouping data into codes, categories, and themes, five codes—best practices, core

beliefs, values, and attitudes, socio-economic groups, facilitate collaboration, and

congruity in conflict—emerged. In addition, three themes emerged in each of the

five IQs asked of participants in this study. Overall, the findings from 172 data

segments were used to answer RQ4. The implications of these findings are

discussed further in Chapter 5 and provide a better understanding of how a

convenor contributes to collective-action collaboration in nonprofit organizations

contributing to the furtherance of an organization’s mission.

RQ5: Mission Fulfillment

The fifth research question (RQ5) was: “What is the need for shared

resources and philanthropic value in nonprofit and voluntary action

collaboratives?” Three interview questions (IQ18–IQ20) were asked of the

participants to explore the need for shared resources and philanthropic value in

nonprofit and voluntary action collaboratives. The questions were:

IQ18: How have you observed the need for increased (if at all) shared

resources and philanthropic value in collaborations since

COVID19?

IQ19: How have you observed (if at all) governance and convening

leadership contribute to shared resources and philanthropic value in

collaborations?

IQ20: How have you observed (if at all) collaboration contributes to shared

resources and philanthropic value?

According to Johnson (2011), the nonprofit organization’s mission is the

heart of the organization. Furthermore, Johnson contended that a clear

understanding of the mission should direct board members in the use of resources

to further the organization’s mission. In a time of fiscal crisis for nonprofit

organizations, however, many boards and nonprofit leaders are seeking new ways

to address the challenges of limited resources (Moynihan & Smith, 2014). A

plethora of research has shown fierce competition among nonprofit organizations to

procure resources and philanthropic gifts (Ashley & Young, 2014; Faulk, 2014;

Harrison & Thornton, 2014; Seaman et al., 2014). Competition among nonprofit

organizations is not new and can revolve around revenue sources, physical capital,

clients, labor, or land. Nonprofit organizations also increasingly compete for

prestige and political power as resources (Ashley & Young, 2014).