The organizational dynamics of under‐managed partnerships in leisure service departments

Abstract

The formation of partnerships with the public, non-profit and commercial sectors is becoming an increasingly common way for leisure service departments in local government to fulfil their mandate under conditions of economic restraint, political pressures and increased demand for services. However, these departments often lack the capacity to successfully manage the number and complexity of partnerships initiated. While under-managed partnerships have been identified as a significant problem in the literature, little attention has been devoted to understanding the organizational dynamics that underpin them. Interviews with leisure service managers and staff in ten Canadian cities were conducted, revealing a lack of guidelines, insufficient training, poor coordination and a number of other problems contributing to under-managed partnerships. This warrants further research and attention because it can lead to unsuccessful partnerships and negative consequences for all partners involved.

Partnership working in sport and physical activity promotion: An assessment of processes and outcomes in community sports networks

“…From a process standpoint, partnership management, which concerns the coordination of members, strategy, planning and evaluation (Mitchell and Shortell, 2000), has been described as the 'glue' that enables partnerships to stay together (Lasker and Weiss, 2003: p.131). Its relevance within the present context is recognised in research by Frisby et al (2004), and O'Reilly and Brunette (2014), with respect to the importance of partnership planning and coordination, policies, evaluation, and establishing expectations. Management is important for accountability arrangements, ensuring the efficient use of resources, and conflict management (Brinkerhoff, 2004;Kihl et al 2014;South et al 2005).…”

“…With an absence of methodologies capable of providing a means of comparing and predicting partnership variables, the present study was informed by a review of conceptual frameworks from the sport development and health promotion literature (Babiak and Thibault, 2008;Butterfoss et al 1993;Chinman and Wandersman, 1999;El Ansari and Phillips, 2004;Frisby et al 2004;Goodman et al 1996;Lachance et al 2006;Lasker and Weiss, 2003;Lindsey, 2009;Parent and Harvey, 2009). A number of parallels between community health promotion partnerships and CSNs were identified including organisational and demographic diversity, multiple organisational interests and objectives, and an absence of formal authority (Weiner et al 2002).…”

“…For example, although Babiak and Thibault (2009) highlight key challenges to partnership working including environmental constraints, communication and managing perceived power imbalances between non-profit, public and private organisations delivering sport services in Canada, the authors do not extend their research to investigate the theoretical interrelatedness of these aspects with any identifiable outcomes. Furthermore, while the theoretical framework devised by Frisby et al (2004) is useful for investigating management issues in sport-focused partnerships, the qualitative approach limits the potential to assess associations between partnership dimensions, thus leaving questions concerning the interrelatedness of partnership processes and outcomes. This evidence gap establishes the rationale for this study which presents the findings of a cross sectional investigation of CSNs focusing on internal partnership dimensions and intermediary outcomes.…”

Personal goals, group performance and ‘social’ networks: participants’ negotiation of virtual and embodied relationships in the ‘Workplace Challenge’ physical activity programme

“…Consequently network development can facilitate the construction and reproduction of power inequalities (Blackshaw and Long, 2005). Concurrently, power struggles and competing agendas can occur within partnerships (Mackintosh, 2011, Hayhurst and Frisby, 2010, Frisby et al, 2004, leading to a contentious element of partnership work in which service delivery can become dependent upon how effectively power struggles are managed (Anderson andJap, 2005, Coulson, 2005). In some cases the domination of one partner over another can see the subordinate partner's views lost (Rowe, 2006), or a 'them' and 'us' mentality can be adopted (Mackintosh, 2011).…”

How Do Partnerships Lead to a Competitive Advantage? Applying the Resource Based View to Nascent Social Ventures

“…Thus, not all partnerships result in positive outcomes. Many complexities, difficulties, and challenges can emerge from same-sector or cross-sector partnerships between entities from the public, private, and social sectors (Anderson & Jap, 2005;Frisby, Thibault, & Kikulis, 2004;Hodge & Greve, 2005;Huxham, 1996;Parise & Casher, 2003;Provan, Isett, & Milward, 2004;Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). These challenges have been attributed to factors such as environmental constraints, diversity in organizational aims, communication barriers, and difficulties in developing joint modes of operating, power imbalances, mistrust, and logistical problems of working with geographically dispersed partners (Babiak & Thibault, 2009).…”