Institutional Antecedents of Partnering for Social Change: How Institutional Logics Shape Cross-Sector Social Partnerships

Abstract

cross-sector social partnerships, institutional logics, partnering styles, corporate social responsibility, social good,

Data Collaboratives as a New Frontier of Cross-Sector Partnerships in the Age of Open Data: Taxonomy Development

“…Based our proposed definition of data collaboratives, we consider this concept to be founded on two main research domains: cross-sector social partnerships (CSSP) and open and big data. Research on CSSPs, which is rather mature, offers a number of ways to categorize partnerships: there exist taxonomies of CSSPs organized around who the actors are, types of resources exchanged, characteristics of agreement, level of intensity such as commitment and engagement, dynamics and time dimension of CSSPs [15]. On the other hand, research on open and big data has just taken root and offers predominantly exploratory results in terms of taxonomies.…”

Cross-Sector Partnerships and the Co-creation of Dynamic Capabilities for Stakeholder Orientation

“…The basic premise is that over time CSPs can influence the ability of organizations to react, anticipate, and harmonize the pressures of multiple stakeholders (Vurro et al 2010;Waddock 2012) through organizational learning and relationship building (Seitanidi and Ryan 2007). From a business perspective, the ability of a firm to successfully partner with an NGO or with other cross-sector stakeholders may itself constitute a dynamic capability that can lead to competitive advantage (Dahan et al 2010).…”

Negotiating the Moral Aspects of Purpose in Single and Cross-Sectoral Collaborations

“…Indeed, from this study's perspective, collaborative processes are characterized as a series of ''tests'' that the stated purpose of a collaborative effort must ''pass'' before an agreement between partners can be made. Often without realizing, collaboration partners evaluate whether the overarching purpose of a collaborative effort meets tacit criteria of appropriateness or acceptability (Vurro et al 2010) which are not always aligned between partners and which may differ considerably from what each partners thinks is ''normal.'' Because of this, agreement can be difficult to forge, and even when it is, lingering sources of tension due to unresolved and unacknowledged differences between partners may undermine the relationship in the longer term.…”

“…Following Eden and Huxham (2001), we define collaboration purpose as the overarching ends that collaboration partners seek to achieve through collaboration, and the legitimate means whereby such ends might be reached. ''Purpose'' is viewed here as a broad concept that captures what other authors have alternately referred to as logics (LeBer and Branzei 2010;Vurro et al 2010), metagoals (Huxham and Vangen 1996), philosophies (Jamali and Keshishian 2009;Nowell 2009), or ''prime directive'' (Selsky and Parker 2010). As these and other authors have noted, the negotiation of joint purpose understood in this way can be fraught with difficulties (Eden and Huxham 2001;Gray 1989;Macdonald and Chrisp 2005).…”

“…In this paper, we argue that tensions in collaborations arise because partners have fundamentally different views as to what the central purpose of a collaborative effort is or should be. Agreeing on collaborative purpose is particularly challenging because collaboration partners often harbor tacit, deeply held and difficult-to-reconcile ideological and moral assumptions about what the most appropriate or legitimate purpose of a collaborative effort is (Googins and Rochlin 2000;Gray 2004;Vurro et al 2010). Such differences inevitably affect how agreements between partners are likely to be reached.…”