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

Abstract

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

The coordination of export promotion networks for the creative industries

“…In addition, whatever the degree of centralisation, countries have adopted a loose, tight (Seringhaus and Rosson, 1991), or loose-tight coordination system, each with advantages and disadvantages. However, regardless of the setup adopted, our study tends to reinforce the belief in the literature that interorganisational networks generate organisational effectiveness by enhancing organisational capacity-building and by contributing to inducing positive effects on EPPs and TSIs, effects such as greater public exposure and increased social capital (e.g., Jones et al, 2017;Oparaocha, 2015;Paarlberg and Varda, 2009). Figure 1 presents a pictorial representation of the UK and the Colombian cases analysed in this paper.…”

Mobilizing capacity to achieve the mainstreaming of disability sport

“…Research has found that in a variety of nonprofit sport contexts, structural capacity's sub-dimensions are also linked to success. This is true for relationship and network capacity (Jones, Edwards, Bocarro, Bunds & Smith, 2017Misener & Doherty, 2009;Misener & Doherty, 2013;, planning and development capacity (Wicker & Breuer, 2012, and infrastructure and process capacity (Balduck, et al, 2015;Misener & Doherty, 2009;Svensson et al, 2017). Within the specific context of disability sport Wicker & Breuer (2014) revealed that larger multi-sport clubs were more likely to provide disability sport when they had sufficient financial capacity, well developed networks and adopted formal and strategic planning processes.…”

Managing informal sport participation: tensions and opportunities

“…Topics examined include how networks can be facilitated (Casey et al 2012); models of network governance with the introduction of new sports systems (Grix and Phillpots 2011, examining county sports partnerships in the UK) and how networks can be used to strengthen existing fragmented sports systems (Cousens et al 2012, analysing networks in Canada). Key themes emerging from this literature are the potential value of a network approach within community sport to enable sharing of resources and expertise and to enhance coordination (Barnes et al 2007, Misener andDoherty 2009); the challenges of facilitating network collaboration due to existing fragmentation and lack of collaboration between actors (Jones et al 2017); perceived competition for resources; creating and managing partnerships and establishing mutual goals and ambitions (Barnes et al 2007, Jones et al 2017. Misener and Doherty (2009) outlined how respect, trust and openness were essential in developing relations amongst actors and enhancing network capacity.…”