‘MakingThings Happen’ in Cross-sector Partnerships: A Multiple Case Study

Cross-sector collaborative partnerships aim to bring resources and knowledge from their particular sectors to provide innovative solutions in response to current social, economic and environmental problems, and for developing policies and processes for emergent issues. However, cross-sector partnerships involving public (i.e., institutions of higher education), private, and nonprofit organizations are complex and dynamic systems that are extremely difficult to manage once they have been established. Organizations spanning different sectors not only have dissimilar operating models, working cultures, values, and leadership styles, but are driven by different motives in joining the partnership thereby making the act of collaborating very challenging. When performing well, cross-sector collaborative partnerships have transformative outcomes due to the collaborative advantage possible with the participants’ knowledge and resources. However, these partnerships are rarely successful due to what is termed “collaborative inertia,” which prevents progress towards goals. This study examined the mechanisms that “make things happen” in two cross-sector collaborative partnerships using a qualitative, multiple case study approach. The study analyzed numerous data sources, providing 24-months of longitudinal data regarding the creation and operations of the partnerships. Through this approach, this research was able to operationalize the concept of collaborative inertia and made substantial contributions to the concept of “making things happen” in the theory of collaborative advantage. In particular, deeper understanding has been provided in understanding the importance of partnership structure, repetitive communication processes, regularity in usage of collaborative spaces, balance in informal team roles, and collective actions that were key mechanisms that “made things happen” in the cross-sector collaborative partnerships studied

\u27Making Things Happen\u27 in Cross-Sector Collaborative Partnerships: A Multiple Case Study

Cross-sector collaborative partnerships aim to bring resources and knowledge from their particular sectors to provide innovative solutions in response to current social, economic and environmental problems, and for developing policies and processes for emergent issues. However, cross-sector partnerships involving public (i.e., institutions of higher education), private, and non-profit organizations are complex and dynamic systems that are extremely difficult to manage once they have been established. Organizations spanning different sectors not only have dissimilar operating models, working cultures, values, and leadership styles, but are driven by different motives in joining the partnership thereby making the act of collaborating very challenging. When performing well, cross-sector collaborative partnerships have transformative outcomes due to the collaborative advantage possible with the participants’ knowledge and resources. However, these partnerships are rarely successful due to what is termed “collaborative inertia,” which prevents progress towards goals. This study examined the mechanisms that “make things happen” in two cross-sector collaborative partnerships using a qualitative, multiple case study approach. The study analyzed numerous data sources, providing 24-months of longitudinal data regarding the creation and operations of the partnerships. Through this approach, this research was able to operationalize the concept of collaborative inertia and made substantial contributions to the concept of “making things happen” in the theory of collaborative advantage. In particular, deeper understanding has been provided in understanding the importance of partnership structure, repetitive communication processes, regularity in usage of collaborative spaces, balance in informal team roles, and collective actions that were key mechanisms that “made things happen” in the cross-sector collaborative partnerships studied

Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Societal Grand Challenges: Systematizing Differences in Scholarly Analysis

Research on how cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) contribute toward addressing societal grand challenges (SGCs) has burgeoned, yet studies differ significantly in what scholars analyze and how. These differences matter as they influence the reported results. In the absence of a comprehensive framework to expose the analytical choices behind each study and their implications, this diversity challenges interpretation and consolidation of evidence upon which novel theory and practical interventions can be developed. In this study, we conduct a systematic review of scholarly analysis in CSP management studies to develop a framework that contextualizes the SGC-related evidence and reveals scholars’ analytical choices and their implications. Conceptually, we advance the term “SGC interventions” to illuminate the black box leading to SGC-related effects, thus helping to differentiate between transformative versus mitigative interventions in scholars’ analytical focus. Moreover, the framework stresses the logical interplay between the framing of the SGC-related problem and the reporting of the intervention’s effects. Through this, we juxtapose what we call problem-centric versus solution-centric SGC analysis and so differentiate between their analytical purpose. We discuss the framework’s implications for advancing an SGC perspective in scholarly analysis of CSPs and outline avenues for future research

Cross-sector partnerships to address societal grand challenges: Systematizing differences in scholarly analysis

Research on how cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) contribute toward addressing societal grand challenges (SGCs) has burgeoned, yet studies differ significantly in what scholars analyze and how. These differences matter as they influence the reported results. In the absence of a comprehensive framework to expose the analytical choices behind each study and their implications, this diversity challenges interpretation and consolidation of evidence upon which novel theory and practical interventions can be developed. In this study, we conduct a systematic review of scholarly analysis in CSP management studies to develop a framework that contextualizes the SGC-related evidence and reveals scholars’ analytical choices and their implications. Conceptually, we advance the term “SGC interventions” to illuminate the black box leading to SGC-related effects, thus helping to differentiate between transformative versus mitigative interventions in scholars’ analytical focus. Moreover, the framework stresses the logical interplay between the framing of the SGC-related problem and the reporting of the intervention’s effects. Through this, we juxtapose what we call problem-centric versus solution-centric SGC analysis and so differentiate between their analytical purpose. We discuss the framework’s implications for advancing an SGC perspective in scholarly analysis of CSPs and outline avenues for future research

Cross-sector partnerships to address societal grand challenges: Systematizing differences in scholarly analysis

Research on how cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) contribute toward addressing societal grand challenges (SGCs) has burgeoned, yet studies differ significantly in what scholars analyze and how. These differences matter as they influence the reported results. In the absence of a comprehensive framework to expose the analytical choices behind each study and their implications, this diversity challenges interpretation and consolidation of evidence upon which novel theory and practical interventions can be developed. In this study, we conduct a systematic review of scholarly analysis in CSP management studies to develop a framework that contextualizes the SGC-related evidence and reveals scholars’ analytical choices and their implications. Conceptually, we advance the term “SGC interventions” to illuminate the black box leading to SGC-related effects, thus helping to differentiate between transformative versus mitigative interventions in scholars’ analytical focus. Moreover, the framework stresses the logical interplay between the framing of the SGC-related problem and the reporting of the intervention’s effects. Through this, we juxtapose what we call problem-centric versus solution-centric SGC analysis and so differentiate between their analytical purpose. We discuss the framework’s implications for advancing an SGC perspective in scholarly analysis of CSPs and outline avenues for future research