Pathways to collaborative performance: examining the different combinations of conditions under which collaborations are successful

Abstract

The literature on collaborative governance has generated several comprehensive models detailing the conditions which collaborations must meet to achieve collaborative performance. The importance of each separate conditionsuch as the presence of incentives to participate, appropriate institutional designs, or facilitative leadershiphas been validated in various studies. How all of these conditions interact with each other, and whether all of the conditions need to be present to achieve performance, is less well understood. Leveraging the rich resource of the newly created Collaborative Governance Case Database, this article explores the different pathways to performance used by 26 local collaborations. The analysis shows that the presence of strong incentives for partners to collaborate is a crucial condition for success; almost all performing cases shared this starting point. Performance was then achieved by combining strong incentives with either clear institutional design (e.g. explicit rules, transparent decision-making) or with intensive collaborative processes (e.g. face-to-face dialogue, knowledge sharing). This analysis shows that the current models for collaborative governance can serve as roadmaps, laying out all of the different conditions than may be important, but that collaborations can follow different routes to reach their objectives.

Collaborative Governance at Scale: Examining the Regimes, Platforms, and System in the State of Oregon

“…Finally, most CGRs meet on a quarterly to monthly basis or a quarterly basis, though some meet annually to quarterly or more than monthly, and very few meet less than annually. Overall, these findings provide descriptive evidence about key attributes of collaborative governance explored in the literature, including the leadership role of collaborative participants as convener and facilitator (Ansell & Gash, 2008;Emerson et al, 2009;Heikkila & Gerlak, 2005;Ulibarri, 2015b), role and size of staff and human capital (Hamilton & Lubell, 2018;Leach & Pelkey, 2001;Mosley, 2012;Scott, 2016a;Ulibarri, 2015b), and deliberation in face-to-face meetings (Biddle, 2017;Douglas et al, 2020;Scott, 2016b;Ulibarri, 2015aUlibarri, , p. 2015.…”

“…In this section, we analyze multiple CGR characteristics noted in the literature, including organizational form, lead organization, funding model, structural roles, staffing, and the extent of face-to-face meetings (e.g., Biddle, 2017;Clarke, 2017;Douglas et al, 2020;Mosley, 2012;Scott, 2016aScott, , p. 2016Ulibarri, 2015aUlibarri, , p. 2015.…”

“…Most studies center on individual collaborative governance arrangements, for example, a single case study in a particular policy context (Biddle, 2017; Doberstein, 2016; Emerson et al, 2012; Gerlak & Heikkila, 2011; Scott, 2011). A few analyses address a small number of comparative case studies (e.g., Bell & Scott, 2020; Brody, 2003; Heikkila & Gerlak, 2005; Imperial, 2005; Ulibarri, 2015a), and even fewer studies take a medium- n approach using one to two dozen cases (Douglas et al, 2020; Ulibarri et al, 2020). While these studies have generated useful knowledge, they do not examine what collaborative governance looks like when it encompasses multiple policy areas across a large-scale, multi-jurisdictional context.…”

Individuals in Collaborative Governance for Environmental Management

“…Collaborative governance is defined as "processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies (…) in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished" (Emerson et al 2012, p.2). Recent efforts to follow the trajectories of several collaborative governance initiatives have been possible through the analysis of the Collaborative Governance Case Databank (Douglas et al 2020b). Key factors for successful collaborations include having strong incentives to join the collaboration, as well as achieving a high degree of institutionalization in the collaborative process (Douglas et al 2020a).…”

“…In fact, there have been several attempts to understand how individuals' role identities have an impact on public and private organizations over time but not on collaborative governance processes (Brower and Abolafia 1997;Ramarajan 2014;Kobarg et al 2017;Luu et al 2018;Tempelaar and Rosenkranz 2019;Mu et al 2020). Moreover, while there have been recent efforts to disentangle collaborative governance processes throughout their life cycle (Douglas et al 2020a;Douglas et al 2020b;Torfing et al 2020;Ulibarri et al 2020), it is still unclear how individuals' roles affect their identities and collaborative performance, particularly when individual participants in civil service have transitioned between roles, departments, and organizations during the life cycle of the collaboration. Based on the research gap identified above, the research question is: How do participants' role identity and transition style influence collaborative performance along the collaborative life cycle?…”