Ambiguity, Complexity and Dynamics in the Membership of Collaboration

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the role that membership structures of inter-organizational collaborations have on the achievement of collaborative advantage in the context of tackling social issues. Based on action research involving participants in a wide variety of collaborative situations, the paper aims to explore the nature of the membership of collaborations in practice. A picture of membership is built up from two perspectives. The first considers the structure of collaboration, and argues that ambiguity and complexity in structure may be demonstrated over many dimensions. The second adds another layer of complication through exploring the dynamics of the way in which membership structures change over time. The paper concludes by examining the implications for practitioners and policy makers of this picture in terms of its effect on the design of collaborations and on the factors which tend to lead to colloborative inertia instead of collaborative advantage.

Leadership in the Shaping and Implementation of Collaboration Agendas: How Things Happen in a (Not Quite) Joined-Up World.

“…The leadership challenge, in any case, is concerned with influencing or transforming individuals only (or at least largely) to the extent that such transformation may, in turn, affect the behavior of organizations. Furthermore, research has shown that there is frequently ambiguity and complexity surrounding the membership of collaborations, so there is no clear, consensual sense of who should be influenced or which organizations should be influenced (Huxham & Vangen, 2000a). Secondly, there is a problem with the presumption of specified goals.…”

“…A deeper analysis of the data in these theme areas has revealed that the issues underlying the themes are much less straightforward in practice than initial practitioner views would suggest. A very central part of the research agenda has therefore been to develop a much deeper theoretical understanding of the issues underlying each theme (Eden, Huxham, & Vangen, 1996;Huxham & Vangen, 2000a;. The theory is practice-oriented in that it both derives directly from data collected during practice and is intended to inform practice .…”

“…For example, trust building generally requires creation of a "virtuous circle" in which initially modest activities lead to trust generation and hence to a willingness of parties to take a risk with more ambitious joint activities. However, frequent changes in government policy and in the organizations involved in a collaboration, and role or job changes for the individuals involved, often mean that the continuity required to maintain the loop is not present (Huxham & Vangen, 2000a;.…”

“…As government incentives and directives for collaborative initiatives become ever more abundant, localities increasingly abound with multiple overlapping partnerships in which various combinations of local organizations are represented (Huxham & Vangen, 2000a;Stewart, 1997Stewart, , 1999. This trend can be regarded as the consequence of recognition of Trist's (1983) point that significant social issues necessarily sit within the interorganizational domain and cannot be tackled by any one organization acting alone.…”

Ecomuseums as cross-sector partnerships: governance, strategy and leadership

“…Third, there are accountability systems which clarify who a cross-sector partnership is accountable to and for what (Geddes and Shand, 2013;Page et al, in press). Finally, there is the degree of openness of membership and clarity of roles (Huxham and Vangen, 2000), which may vary from fixed representation and explicit agreed roles, through to multiple people representing a partner with no pre-set assignment of roles.…”