Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty
(USC Thesis Other)
Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INTRADEPARTMENTAL COLLABORATION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS:
IMPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE IN AN ERA OF RESOURCE SCARCITY AND
ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY
by
Marco A. Ramirez
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT
March 2014
Copyright 2014 Marco Antonio Ramirez
ii
EPIGRAPH
“We enter the path of transformation when we practice the things we pronounce.”
- Thich Nhat Hahn
“[I]n principle and in practice, in a right track and in a wrong one, the rarest of all human
qualities is consistency.”
- Jeremy Bentham
iii
DEDICATION
To mom.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you, Dr. Peter Robertson, my dissertation chair, for mentoring me, for your
patience, and for your continued support. I feel especially fortunate to have worked with
one of the great minds of public administration and organizational behavior; because of
his support, I feel obligated to create opportunities to contribute to the field of practice in
as many ways as possible. It is my hope that I can do for others what he has
accomplished with me. Namaste.
I am grateful to Dr. Rick Culley, Dr. LaVonna Lewis, and Dr. Melissa Lopez,
members of my committee; I appreciate your willingness to share your expertise and
time. I am especially fortunate to have met Dr. Culley, his trust and friendship gave me
confidence when I needed it most. I particularly recognize the professional support from
Dr. Deborah Natoli. This group of academics and professional practitioners knew what
to say and when to say it; I owe them a debt of gratitude.
Without the help from personnel from Yolo County, this work would not have
been possible. Patrick Blacklock, Gary Engel, Rachel Wolf, Patty Wong were
instrumental in collecting and interpreting the data. Their willingness to allow me study
aspects of their organization made all the difference; the opportunity to interact with
them, despite their hectic work schedules, was as a source of inspiration I leveraged
throughout the life of the project. I am especially grateful to David Henderson and
Joseph Martinez for their help with their help exploring the data.
As a student, I appreciate opportunities to have interacted with Dr. Richard
Callahan, Dr. Terry L. Cooper, Carmen Gomez, Dr. Robert Myrtle, and Christine
Schachter. Other people that have guided me along my path include faculty and
v
administrators from the University of La Verne. These outstanding individuals are Linda
De Long, Mike Eagleson, and Patti Noreen.
I am fortunate to have a circle of friends that includes some of the most visionary,
progressive, and socially conscious individuals in the pubic management and nonprofit
fields. This cadre of local sheroes and heroes includes Sarah Claire Brennan, Cesar Diaz,
Rudolph C. Espinoza, Angelica Frias (and her shoes), Ranko Fukuda, Vivienne Lee, and
Angelica Rubio. I am convinced that if more people had friends like these, the world
would be a better place.
In addition to this group, I acknowledge Ericka and Gregory Lozano-Buhl,
Yesenia Fernandez, J.P. and Diane Harris, Helen Leung, Raquel Nuñez, and Nicolas
Rodriguez for their friendship: brilliant and passionate about public service, your
dedication to your work inspires me to complete this project.
I realize what I put the members of my family through, they supported me degree
after degree. I could not have done this without them. Rosa and Angel Torres, my sister
and brother-in-law, supported me by allowing me the opportunity to spend time with my
brilliant and hilarious nephews, Isela and Benny Torres. Alexander Ramirez, my brother,
helped me decompress by allowing me to spend time with my charismatic, ingenious
nephew, Dylan Parker Ramirez.
My mom, Josefina Ramirez, my ultimate shero, has stood by me at every turn.
Her support, love, and outstanding food, give this chapter of my life meaning at times
when I felt defeated and lost. My mom is the force behind all that I do; her struggles and
sacrifices encouraged me to accept my love-hate relationship with statistics, to find ways
vi
to both come to terms with and overcome my faults, and to recognize my potential. No
one will ever influence my life the way she has and does.
I am also grateful for Hector Diaz, Karla Flamenco, and Pedro Machuca. You
consistently had faith in me and in my abilities despite my shortcomings. Through the
years, you helped me find my voice; more importantly, you never let me give up on
myself. The space in this dissertation is not enough to capture how much you have
impacted my life. I am forever grateful and promise to make you proud.
Others that played a key role in helping me retain my sanity by expressing their
love and exemplary leadership include Yolanda Anguiano; Ruthy Argumedo; Dr. Jacob
Avila; Alexandra and Armando Bravo; Jennifer Brueggemann; Tracye Fields; Diana Fox;
Luis Gomez; Michael Hubbard; Stephanie Lomibao; Melissa and Ruby Machuca; Julio
Marcial; Jazmin Ortega; Jackie Portilla; Vanessa Rodriguez; Maria Salmeron; Bruce,
Veronica, Dylan, and Luke Sears; Greg and Erica Lozano-Buhl; and Laura de la Torre.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EPIGRAPH ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
ABSTRACT xii
CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY AND RATIONALE 1
1.1 Introduction and Setting the Context 1
1.1.1 Public and Private Organizations 2
1.1.2 Environment’s Impact on Public Organizations 5
1.2 Purpose of the Study 8
1.3 Statement of the Problem 11
1.4 Evolving Public Sector Paradigm 14
1.4.1 Role of Government 17
1.4.2 Role of Public Administrators 19
1.4.3 Role of Citizens and Other Stakeholders 21
1.5 Framing of Chapters 22
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE 24
2.1 Introduction to the General Study of Collaboration 24
2.2 General Theoretical Perspectives of Public-Sector Collaborative Practice 25
2.2.1 Governance as a Collaborative Model 25
2.2.2 Regime Theory 27
2.3 Determinants of Collaboration 31
2.3.1 Collaboration and Leadership and Management 32
2.3.2 Collaboration and Capacity Building 40
2.3.3 Collaboration and Policy Diffusion 47
2.3.4 Collaboration and Organizational Culture 53
2.4 Chapter Summary 57
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 59
3.1 Research Methods and Design 59
3.2 Overview of the Research Site 63
3.2.1 Introduction to Yolo County 64
3.2.2 Health Department 77
3.2.3 Library Department 82
3.2.4 Planning and Public Works Department 87
3.3 Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory 103
3.3.1 Data Sources 106
3.3.2 Limitations and Strengths of Data Sources 111
3.4 Chapter Summary 113
viii
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 114
4.1 Introduction 114
4.2 Descriptive Statistics 114
4.2.1 Respondent’s Demographics 114
4.2.2 Scale Reliabilities 115
4.2.3 Descriptive Statistics 117
4.3 CFI Results by Category 122
4.3.1 Environment Category 123
4.3.2 Membership Characteristics Category 124
4.3.3 Process and Structure Category 125
4.3.4 Communication Category 127
4.3.5 Purpose Category 128
4.3.6 Resources Category 130
4.4 Analysis by Category and Respondent Characteristics 131
4.4.1 Department 133
4.4.2 Tenure 134
4.4.3 Age 135
4.4.4 Gender 136
4.4.5 Position 136
4.5 Summary of Key Findings 137
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND PROPOSITIONS FOR FUTURE PRACTICE 139
5.1 Introduction 139
5.2 Propositions for Future Practice 141
5.2.1 Questions and Propositions for Managers 143
5.2.2 Question and Proposition for Non-Managers 146
5.2.3 Questions and Propositions for both Managers and Non-Managers 147
5.3 Implications for the Public Management Field 155
5.3.1 Public Management and Leadership 155
5.3.2 Interaction between Managers and Non-Managers 157
5.4 Options for Improved Intradepartmental Collaborative Practice 160
5.5. Summary and Conclusion 164
REFERENCES 165
APPENDICES 195
Appendix A. Modified Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory 195
Appendix B. Original Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory 199
Appendix C. Study Engagement Letter to Yolo County Personnel 202
Appendix D. Responsible Banking Ordinance Media Advisory 203
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Differences Between Corporate and Government Governance 3
Table 2. Collaboration Levels 13
Table 3. Public Service Paradigm 16
Table 4. Hierarchical Governing and Democratic Governance 18
Table 5. Organizational Dimensions of the Structural Model of Collaboration 33
Table 6. Capacity Defined 41
Table 7. Dimensions of Organizational Capacity 42
Table 8. Organizational Characteristics to Support Policy Diffusion 48
Table 9. Elements of Institutional Isomorphism and Public Policy Diffusion 49
Table 10. NCRC's Matrix of Responsible Banking Ordinances 52
Table 11. Armistead & Pettigrew's Typologies of Behavior 54
Table 12. Goals of Exploratory, Descriptive, & Explanatory Research Design 61
Table 13. Yolo County Population 64
Table 14. Yolo County Demographics 65
Table 15. Revenues in Governmental Funds (in thousands) 67
Table 16. Percentage of Budget Spending by Program Area 70
Table 17. Health Department Budget Overview 81
Table 18. Library Department Budget Overview 86
Table 19. Planning and Public Works Department Budget Overview 91
Table 20. Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory 105
Table 21. Data Sources and Response Rates 110
Table 22. Limitations and Strengths of Data Collection 112
x
Table 23. Respondents' Demographic Characteristics 115
Table 24. Reliability Statistics 116
Table 25. Cronbach's Alpha Scores if Items Deleted 117
Table 26. Summary Statistics for All Categories 118
Table 27. Highest CFI Mean Scores 119
Table 28. Lowest CFI Mean Scores 119
Table 29. Descriptive Statistics by Mean Score for All Items 120
Table 30. Overview of CFI Mean and Reliability Scores for Factors 121
Table 31. Results by Category Compared to Prior Studies 123
Table 32. Results by Environment Category 124
Table 33. Results by Membership Characteristics Category 125
Table 34. Results by Process and Structure Category 127
Table 35. Results by Communication Category 128
Table 36. Results by Purpose Category 130
Table 37. Results by Resources Category 131
Table 38. Summary of Responses by Category and Demographic Characteristic 132
Table 39. Scheffé Post Hoc Test of Responses by Department and Wilder Categories 134
Table 40. Scheffé Post Hoc Test of Responses by Tenure and Wilder Categories 135
Table 41. Questions and Propositions for Future Practice 142
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Emerson et al.'s Integrative Model of Collaborative Governance 29
Figure 2. Bryson et al.'s Framework for Understanding Cross-Sector Collaboration 30
Figure 3. Influence of Context on Distributive Leadership 39
Figure 4. Relationships Between Leadership, Culture, and Performance 56
Figure 5. General Fund Performance 68
Figure 6. General Reserve Fund Performance 68
Figure 7. Tactical Plan 71
Figure 8. Collaboration to Maximize Success 74
Figure 9. FTEs per 1,000 Residents 75
Figure 10. Yolo County Organizational Chart 76
Figure 11. Health Department Budget 79
Figure 12. Health Department FTE Levels 79
Figure 13. Health Department Organizational Chart 80
Figure 14. Library Budget Overview 83
Figure 15. Library Department FTE Levels 84
Figure 16. Library Department Organizational Chart 84
Figure 17. Planning and Public Works Department Budget Overview 88
Figure 18. Planning and Public Works Department FTE Levels 89
Figure 19. Planning and Public Works Department Organizational Chart 89
Figure 20. Hierarchical Intradepartmental Collaboration Structure 159
Figure 21. Participant-Asset Model of Collaboration 159
xii
ABSTRACT
Collaboration is a continuum of opportunities (Creighton, 2005). As an emerging
and frequently sought out practice, forms of collaboration among stakeholders from
disparate organizations is evolving into a popular strategy to manage the negative impact
of declining or limited resources and increased demands for service. Public
organizations, especially, are engaged in efforts to share resources and assets to
successfully navigate the changing environment without compromising their ability to
accomplish the mission. Because there is insufficient evidence to describe the aspects of
collaboration within public-sector departments, this dissertation examines the factors that
either promote or hinder intradepartmental collaboration for the purposes of improving
the state of the field of practice.
The findings unearth insight about collaboration in an era of resource scarcity and
economic uncertainty within three departments—Health, Library, and Planning and
Public Works—at one public organization: Yolo County. This dissertation asks two
questions: 1) What internal organizational factors contribute to intradepartmental
collaboration? 2) How do external factors—those outside of an organization—impact the
degree and quality of intradepartmental collaboration?
To answer the questions, a modified version of the Wilder Collaboration Factors
Inventory (CFI) was used to assess perspectives and attitudes toward collaboration
practice within departments. Arranged by respondents’ department, tenure, age, gender,
and position, the analysis depicts the impact of the following six factors on
intradepartmental collaboration: environmental conditions, communication, purpose,
membership characteristics, process and structure, and resources. Findings from the
xiii
study inform a series propositions designed to improve intradepartmental collaboration
practice in the public sector.
In summary, survey responses suggest that the role one plays, either as manager
or non-manager, in a department influences the degree to which they interpret the factors
that advance effective joint action. Survey responses suggested that economic
uncertainty and resource instability drove managers to implement less than inclusive,
though efficient practices at the expense of hindering opportunities to effectively leverage
internal capacity and uncover strategic blind spots. Due to the nature of their roles,
managers and non-managers experience economic- and resource-related crises
differently; as a result of the recent financial downturn, survey responses indicated that
managerial priorities at Yolo County shifted away from participatory and inclusive
approaches toward those that favor structure, maximize resources, and quickly respond to
needs. Responses present opportunities for public administrators—regardless of their
role in an organization—to consider strategies and tactics that leverage a strong,
prevalent sense of purpose to promote inclusive decision-making, establish open and
informal communication mechanisms between and among managers and non-managers,
assess and address capacity deficiencies, and manage the pace of growth.
1
CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY AND RATIONALE
1.1 Introduction and Setting the Context
Every organization has a story that makes it unique and special; it is an
understatement to assert that the story of today’s public sector is fraught with complexity,
change, and varying degrees of uncertainty. It is through this shifting lens that we may
recognize the emergence of an ideology that redefines collaborative practice within the
public sector and the changing roles of public managers. This study—fueling a curiosity
about the dynamic between government, organizations, and the people powering the
administrative machine—examines the field from a perspective of transition from a
market-based, entrepreneurial governance system toward a more open, inclusive, and
participatory model that shifts traditional governance thinking on its side (Velotti, Botti,
& Vesci, 2013).
By studying three departments within one public organization, this effort will
show the paradigmatic shifts occurring in governance in real time. The primary purpose,
then, is to examine how departments within the public organization collaborate internally
as a means to 1) more effectively work with external stakeholders and 2) to accomplish
their mission. To understand collaborative practice, I believe it is fundamentally
important to explore the factors that drive public managers to share resources,
responsibility, and risk within their respective departments to improve governance
practice and foster sustainable change.
To establish the research context, I introduce Thomson’s (2001) definition of
collaboration. Her words appropriately highlight my attitude toward collaborative
2
practice and also characterize the normative perspective through which I view our
governance ecology.
Collaboration is a process in which autonomous actors interact through formal
and information negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their
relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it
is a process involving shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions (p. 163).
This inclusive perspective stresses the interconnections between governance actors and
the degree to which they characterize effective collaborative practice.
Applying Thomson’s definition inward and across bureaucratic levels of a public
organization makes it possible to assess what decisions executive managers, midlevel
supervisors, and line staff make to effectively work with both internal and external
stakeholders. Although Thomson’s definition is helpful, it is but one of several
definitions on collaboration that guide aspects of this research (Gray & Wood, 1991;
Sowa, 2008; Schnobrich-Davis & Terrill, 2010). Thus, this study will depend on a
diverse body of collaboration research that examines trends impacting practice within the
public and private sectors and the environments in which they operate.
1.1.1 Public and Private Organizations
Expanding upon the context of this study, it is important to address the
fundamental differences between public and private organizations and whether such
differences even matter. In this case, the differences matter because of their ability and
responsibility to respond to the changing environment. Denhardt and Denhardt (2006)
describe the differences by stating, “the primary distinction between business and the
public sector is that business is primarily concerned with making a profit, while public
3
organizations are concerned with delivering services or regulating individual or group
behavior in the public interest” (p. 5). To further understand the differences, the
following paragraphs illustrate key elements of each organization type by offering
theoretical management perspectives on the following terms: governance, stakeholders,
and shareholders. Based on Pollitt’s (2003) research, Table 1 highlights some of the
more obvious differences between sectors.
Table 1. Differences Between Corporate and Government Governance
Private Sector Governance
(Corporate)
Public Sector Governance
(Government)
Market structure
Restricted hierarchy in terms of
principal-agent relationships
(shareholder-Board-CEO)
Profit motive, performance indicators
are clear
Risks in operational management
Products are not limited in
production
Commercial values, costs versus
benefits
Expectations of consumers is clear
Limited external controllers with
obvious roles
Political structure, status, power and
influence (interest groups, elected
politicians)
More open hierarchy between
principals and agents
Non-profit motive, public interest,
performance is complex and
sometimes conflicting
Risk aversive management
Services or public goods are limited
in production
Public-sector ethos, community-
oriented
Expectations of consumers as
citizens and voters is more complex
Multiple external controlling actors
with varying interests/agendas
Adapted from Pollitt (2003)
Governance in business occurs internally; the dynamic is generally one-sided as
corporations decide in the interest of their shareholders’ expectations based on the
probability of achieving maximum return on financial investment and effective asset
management. In the public sector, however, governance is more complex, and can even
be chaotic at times. Ideally this requires public managers to collaborate with stakeholders
4
in planning, policymaking, implementation, and service delivery (Svara & Denhardt,
2010, p. 7). One difference between the two sectors is the value they assign to efficiency
and effectiveness; public sector governance, for example, is not always efficient, but—if
done in the spirit of fostering civil society principles—will effectively improve
stakeholders’ quality of life. Effective governance in business largely depends on
market-based, income-generating transactions.
According to Tse (2011), shareholder theory defines individuals by their
expectations to maximize, or “expand” monetary value. Relationship quality between
shareholders and managers depends largely on the likelihood of a financial windfall (p.
53). Interestingly, private sector managers tend to also be more overconfident in their
abilities to either manage or avoid risk; they believe that they possess the necessary skills
to “extract value” from their actions (p. 56).
Conversely, Tse also describes stakeholders by the degree to which they influence
decisions and argues that they exist both internally and externally. Tse argues that
stakeholders “who like shareholders, can place demands upon a firm” (p. 57). The
underlying characteristic of the stakeholder group rests in the manner in which a manager
involves individuals in decision-making processes (p. 57). In business, managing
shareholder expectations results from a clear understanding of their financial objectives.
In the public sector, conversely, effectively working with stakeholders informs and
improves participation, policy development, and resource allocation. Inclusion is a
primary stakeholder value; therefore, it cannot “be reduced to singular economic
measures” (Davis & West, 2009, p. 604).
5
1.1.2 Environment’s Impact on Public Organizations
Just as it is important to understand the public sector’s characteristics, it is also
necessary to study the environment in which such organizations function. This section
investigates the inherent impact that changing trends and attitudes toward government
have on public organizations. Contextually, conditional changes in the external
environment affect the manner in which public organizations operate. External changes
shape the internal “structure and functions and the attitudes and behaviors” of actors
within a particular system (Foster-Fishman, Salem, Allen, and Fahrbach, 1999, p. 793).
In a study on organizational culture, Mitchell and Pattison (2012) note the ripple effect
that changes in the external environment has on performance and outcomes (p. 35). They
suggest that an organization’s values determine how personnel perceive changes as well
as drive innovation and reforms (p. 35).
Although environmental conditions vary, be it in the form of urbanization or new
and emerging technology, it is necessary to consider their impact as we assume the
pressures they place on public managers to anticipate changes, influence policy priorities,
and redefine objectives. The financial crisis is one example of how the external
environment affects public organizations: it has resulted in increased outsourcing
activities, eliminated positions due to decreasing revenues, and created greater demand
for services. As financial institutions closed their doors and Wall Street scrambled to
salvage what remained of the housing market, individuals and families slipped through
the safety net. Public organizations responded to the crisis by enacting policies to
“suppor[t] economic activity and promot[e] job growth” (Martinez, Smoke, &
Vaillancourt, 2009). Examples of such policies include greater investment in workforce
6
development services and social initiatives, innovative financing strategies to strengthen
small business, enacting public-private partnerships, and offering tax relief (Martinez et
al., p. 23).
In 2011, the National Commission completed an investigation of the economic
downturn. The product of the lengthy investigation, “Causes of the Financial and
Economic Crisis in the United States,” yielded the nine following findings about the
crisis (xvii-xxviii):
1. The financial crisis was avoidable;
2. Widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to
the stability of the nation’s financial markets;
3. Dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management at many
systemically important financial institutions were a key cause of the crisis;
4. A combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of
transparency put the financial system on a collision course with the crisis;
5. Government was ill prepared for the crisis, and its inconsistent response added to
the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets;
6. There was a systematic breakdown in accountability and ethics;
7. Collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securization pipeline lit
and spread the flame of contagion and crisis;
8. Over-the-counter derivatives contributed significantly to this crisis; and
9. Failures of credit rating agencies were essential cogs in the wheel of financial
destruction.
7
As a heuristic, the findings offer the basis for assuming how systemic failures are likely
to trickle down from the highest levels of government to local cities and counties. An
underlying message of the investigation’s findings suggests that all levels of government
are, indeed, susceptible to environmental changes. To think otherwise is irresponsible.
Another example of changing environmental conditions is the growing presence
of technology within the governance sphere. According to Calista and Melitski (2007),
emerging technological innovations, materialize in the following two forms:
E-governance: “Envisions employing the Web and Internet [Information and
Communications Technology] to overhaul how the state conducts its democratic
dealings by using networked interactions with citizens to foster transparency and
participation” (p. 102).
E-government: “Provides governmental services electronically, usually over the
Web, to reduce the physical character of customer transactions by recreating them
virtually” (p. 101).
Calista and Melitski concluded that it is important for public administrators to understand
the differences between the two forms and to proactively create spaces for them to
intersect. At the intersection, they argue, the two forms are likely to result in one
predominant approach they refer to as “networked e-democracy” (p. 113).
Further supporting technological advances in the environment, Dunleavy,
Margetts, Bastow, and Tinkler (2005) suggested that most New Public Management
businesslike processes are obsolete. In their study, “New Public Management is Dead—
Long Live Digital-Era Governance,” the authors characterized the presence of a shifting
paradigm as, “the advent of the digital era is now the most general, pervasive, and
8
structurally distinctive influence on how governance arrangements are changing in
advanced industrial states” (p. 478). Interestingly, Dunleavy et al. observe that the
challenge to the field is not the role of technology itself in governance practice; it is,
instead, overcoming obstacles to make governance more inviting to the masses as well as
shift managerial attitudes away from New Public Management approaches (p. 489).
In light of these changes, one should consider their impact on front-line public
managers. Understanding and appreciating the state of environment is crucial because
ignoring them is costly, ineffective, and likely to exclude stakeholders from governance
processes—this is especially true at the department level.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
Not until I began my doctoral studies did I realize how much I appreciated public
service and respected public administrators. The epiphany emerged as I became
increasingly aware of the state of the public sector’s paradigm and the impact its
ideological shift has had on communities and government structures alike (McDavid &
Hawthorn, 2006). With nearly 20 years of work experience in and around the public
sector, I have witnessed public administrators caught in the middle—unable to reframe
traditional hierarchical governance systems, which constrain their ability to design new
solutions (Roberts, 2001; Sowa, 2008). Today, public managers are, indeed,
collaborating; in fact, I believe the term is as popular as efficiency was at the height of
the New Public Management era—the predominant, “competing framework” (Overman
and Garson, 1983, p. 144).
In his article, “From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and
the Next Generation of Public Administration,” Vigoda (2002) articulates the
9
underpinnings of my motivation to undertake intradepartmental collaboration research.
He argues:
Public organizations have undergone many changes in the last century, but they
are still based on the Weberian legacy of clear hierarchical order, concentration of
power among senior officials, formal structures with strict rules and regulations,
limited channels of communication, confined openness to innovation and change,
and noncompliance with the option of being replaceable (p. 529).
Part of the current problem is the lack of collaboration research written for practitioners
in their words and with their interest in mind. By that, I assert that public administrators
deserve action-oriented, user-friendly research that advances their understanding of their
industry. Similarly, I believe that knowledge gaps exist between the academy and the
field (Cohen, Moffitt, & Goldin, 2007; Donmoyer, Libby, McDonald, & Deitrick, 2012;
Graffy, 2008; Reay, 2010; Thomson, Perry, & Miller, 2007).
I also believe a) collaboration in the public sector is occurring more frequently
today among a diverse set of stakeholders and 2) the field lacks sufficient knowledge and
information about successful intradepartmental collaboration strategies. This form of
collaboration requires a different set of skills and management approaches than
arrangements. Through this dissertation, I will answer the following research questions:
1. What internal organizational factors contribute to intradepartmental
collaboration?
2. How do external factors—those outside of an organization—impact the
degree and quality of intradepartmental collaboration?
10
The following propositions about how public sector managers work within the
same departments coexist with these driving research questions: a) formal and informal
collaboration occurs within departments to maximize effectiveness as well as to offset
resource and capacity deficiencies; b) emphasis on collaboration with external
stakeholders is widely discussed and studied more now than ever because of increasing
demands for transparency, accountability, and efficiency and; c) the lack of practitioner-
centered intradepartmental collaboration research contributes to a general
misunderstanding or oversimplification of the practice.
The purpose of this study is to explain how and when intradepartmental
collaborative practice occurs within three departments from one public organization in an
era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty. Based on lessons taken/learned from
three departments within one public organization, this study also describes how changes
in the external environment have affected internal administrative and process systems.
Because of the research gap, it is possible to leverage existing collaboration studies from
the private sector and base assumptions on those universal organizational characteristics
that, to some extent, may yield answers to relevant questions about organizational
behavior, motivation, leadership, resource management, and trust.
By beginning to fill the void of public sector research, the field will, ultimately,
be in a better position to make future decisions about how to 1) administer necessary
organizational changes; 2) apply relevant strategies without compromising mission; and
3) highlight the need to promote more in-depth study. Government and business are
often complementary elements in governance systems that have no other choice but to
function together. The structural and ideological differences among sectors reflect their
11
potential contributions toward promulgating democratic principles (O’Connell, 1999;
Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000).
1.3 Statement of the Problem
Because there is a lack of available research on the study of intradepartmental
collaboration within in the public sector, public managers lack access to resources and
information that may contribute to improving their practice. Arguably, the research void
for this form of collaborative practice indirectly forces public managers and enlightened
stakeholders to mimic comparable solutions from the private sector or those involving
organizations from varying sectors. For the most part, contemporary research focuses on
collaborative efforts with external stakeholders; as a result, minimal information exists to
guide public administrators to improve their intradepartmental collaborative practice.
Shedding additional light on the subject, Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006) argue
that collaboration occurs among public organizations for two main reasons: 1) an
organization’s inability to achieve an intended outcome and 2) participants believe it to
be a panacea: a universal response to wicked problems plaguing communities (p. 45). In
an era of performance management and outcomes measurement, a collaborative problem-
solving approach makes strategic sense.
Under pressure to serve effectively, it is therefore plausible to consider that public
administrators—exhausting other alternatives—will overlook or discount the factors that
either implicitly or explicitly contribute toward developing an internal, citizen-centered
collaborative culture. In light of the recent economic downturn, for example, public
organizations across the country have had to find new, innovative ways to achieve their
mission(s) (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & Tinkler, 2006, p. 471). Resource scarcity
12
and economic uncertainty underscore the problem as they are likely to force public
managers to conceptualize solutions and behave as if they were operating a business
enterprise; thus, focusing more on process efficiency, cost savings, and rational decision-
making.
Gray and Wood (1991) described the characteristics of collaborative alliances as
an “interorganizational effort to address problems too complex and too protracted to be
resolved by unilateral organizational action” (p. 5). They further asserted that
organizations are becoming increasingly creative in designing strategies to achieve
“mutually desirable ends” (p. 5). Despite concluding that no one single theory could
serve as the foundation for collaborative practice, Gray and Wood presented useful
perspectives about how and why collaboration occurs: existing preconditions;
collaborative processes; and outcomes of collaboration (p. 13).
Notably, preconditions “refer to motivations or structural conditions that give rise
to collaborative alliances” while collaborative processes reflect methods of “interaction
among parties once preconditions are met” (p. 14-5). Lastly, outcomes address issues of
closure as they relate to collaboration, such as goal attainment; program data, resource
and information sharing; establishing “rules and norms;” and identifying the “level of
organization required to achieve these outcomes” (p. 18). Expanding on Gray, Thomson
and Perry (2006) noted that “collaboration represents longer-term integrated processes”
requiring actors to “implement [mutually agreed upon] solutions jointly” (p. 23).
A lack of understanding about what contributes to effective intradepartmental
collaboration within the public sector is both complex and multifaceted. Moreover,
intradepartmental collaborative practice exists within the realm of other joint problem-
13
solving efforts. The myriad of collaboration levels, such as those in Table 2, further
complicates what public administrators do to align departmental resources and interests.
Table 2. Collaboration Levels
Approach/Design Unique Features Source(s)
Intradepartmental Agreements between individuals from within
the same department—may include
personnel from other sections.
Example: Road and Planning sections, from
within a public works department, work
together to resolve traffic congestion around
a new shopping center.
Davis (2005)
Nevarez, Portis,
& McAfee-
Bilsborough
(2012)
Interdepartmental Agreements between individuals from
different departments or sections from the
same organization.
Example: Housing and parks departments
coordinate a community outreach event to
promote an affordable housing initiative.
Cuijpers,
Guenter, &
Hussinger
(2011); Moore &
Wells (1999)
Intrasectoral Agreements between organizations from the
same sector.
Example: State employment office works
with local school district to host workforce
development workshops to high school
students and their families.
Mitchell &
Pattison (2012);
Takano,
Nakamura, &
Watanabe (2002)
Intersectoral Organized, contractual efforts between
organizations from different sectors, with
compatible cultures, “collaborate around
particular activities that are consistent with
particular shared values.”
Example: County health department
contracts with community clinics and other
nonprofits to educate residents about the
dangers of untreated diabetes.
Miller (2009);
Mitchell &
Pattison (2012)
Cross-sectoral – also
known as public-
private partnerships
(PPPs)
Agreements between organizations from
different sectors, e.g., business, government,
and nonprofit.
Example: Sheriff’s department shares space
with a nonprofit to provide services to
inmates to reduce recidivism rates.
Gray & Wood
(1991); Osborne
(2000); Rich,
Giles, & Stern
(2001);
Selden, Sowa, &
Sandfort (2006)
14
Collaborative
Governance
“The process and structures of public policy
decision making and management that
engage people constructively across the
boundaries of public agencies, levels of
government, and/or the public, private, and
civic spheres in order to carry out a public
purpose that could not otherwise be
accomplished.” An “integrative framework.”
Example: Policymakers host an open forum
to discuss a planning issue; eventually they
invite diverse stakeholders to inform
decisions and processes to measure
progress/success.
Bogason (2001);
Emerson,
Nabachi, &
Balogh (2011);
Fung (2006)
1.4 Evolving Public Sector Paradigm
There has been an emerging desire to break down walls that have traditionally
kept the public away from engaging with public managers and policymakers alike. The
demand is to infuse transparency into a system focused on efficient process as well as
administrative order and control. In an article, Denhardt and Denhardt (2000) identify
the major attributes of the changing public sector paradigm. Table 3 describes elements
of three distinct ideological approaches and attitudes about the role of government, public
managers, and stakeholders: Old Public Administration (hierarchy and scientific
management); New Public Management (market-based and entrepreneurial); and New
Public Service (citizenship, advance democratic principles, and civil society) (p. 554).
The differences between the approaches are striking; most significant are
assertions toward governance that imply transformation of public sector agents into
promoters of democracy. Supporting this shift toward a decentralized, open governance
system, O’Connell (1999) argues that the public sector’s primary role is to foster
effective citizenship, not effective government (p. 39). This line of thinking deprioritizes
bureaucracy and government exclusivity, disrupting a 100-year-old business model.
15
Facets of our society such as the struggling economy, the pace of new, innovative
technology development, emerging social trends, and increased demands for political
candor both at home and abroad, add to the influences shaping today’s public sector.
Particularly, these demands have called for transparency and opportunities to participate
in governance processes such that the public sector has had to find ways to satisfy a wide
array of expectations while anticipating and mitigating the affects of externalities. The
remaining subsections discuss how the actors involved in public service have fared in the
midst of a shifting values and ideals about public service.
16
Table 3. Public Service Paradigm
Old Public
Administration
New Public
Management
New Public Service
Primary
theoretical and
epistemological
foundations
Political theory,
social and political
commentary
augmented by naïve
social science
Economic theory,
more sophisticated
dialogue based on
positivist social
science
Democratic theory,
varied approaches to
knowledge including
positive,
interpretive, critical,
and postmodern
Prevailing
rationality and
models of
behavior
Synoptic rationality,
“administrative man”
Technical and
economic
rationality,
“economic man,” or
self-interested
decision maker
Strategic rationality,
(political, economic,
organizational)
Conception of
the public
interest
Politically defined
and expressed in law
Represents the
aggregation of
individual interests
Results of dialogue
about shared values
To whom are the
public servants
responsive?
Clients and
constituents
Customers Citizens
Role of
government
Rowing (designing
and implementing
policies focusing on a
single, political
objective)
Steering (acting as a
catalyst to unleash
market forces)
Serving (negotiating
and brokering
interests among
citizens and groups
creating shared
values)
Mechanisms for
achieving policy
objectives
Administering
programs through
existing government
agencies
Creating
mechanisms and
incentive structures
to achieve policy
objectives through
private and
nonprofit agencies
Building coalitions
of public, nonprofit,
and private agencies
to meet mutually
agreed upon needs
Approach to
accountability
Hierarchical—
administrators are
responsible to
democratically
elected political
leaders
Market-driven—
self-interests result
in outcomes desired
by groups of citizens
(or customers)
Multifaceted—
attend to law,
community values,
political norms,
professional
standards, and
citizen interests
Administrative
discretion
Limited discretion
allowed
administrative
officials
Wide latitude to
meet entrepreneurial
goals
Discretion needed
but constrained and
accountable
17
Assumed
organizational
structure
Bureaucratic
organizations marked
by top down authority
within agencies and
control or regulation
of clients
Decentralized
organizations with
primary control
remaining within the
agency
Collaborative
structures with
leadership shared
internally and
externally
Assumed
motivational
basis of public
servants and
administrators
Pay and benefits,
civil-service
projections
Entrepreneurial
spirit, ideological
desire to reduce size
of government
Public service,
desire to contribute
to society
Source: Denhardt and Denhardt (2000)
1.4.1 Role of Government
What Denhardt and Denhardt’s illustration depicts, although conceptually, is a
paradigm shift away from a structured, controlled form of government to a more open
and fluid system. Jun (2006), addressing the state of public management, argues, “A
public administration that relies on conventional pluralistic politics and modern
management theories is inadequate for understanding today’s crisis and complex human
phenomena” (p. 1). Jun, transcending conventional definitions of governance, offers the
differences in Table 4.
The terms from Table 4 serve as a tool to understanding implications for, and
attitudes toward, public management. Agreeably, the terms do not imply that the
traditional definitions of governance are either obsolete or irrelevant. The comparison
should, however, stress what the transition to an action-orientation in governing offers
context to the larger conversation. Jun’s conceptual shift from governing to governance,
thus signals the need for a public sector that listens and safeguards regulations designed
to encourage stakeholder participation and engagement. Given the context of this
dissertation, public managers should align their internal processes and controls to make
the highest and best use of the networks within which they operate.
18
Table 4. Hierarchical Governing and Democratic Governance
Hierarchical Governing Democratic Governance
Centralization: national government
controls programs and funds
Uniformity and hierarchical autocracy
Implementing agency goals
Vertical relationships
Control and command
Pluralistic and interest group politics
Formal authority and policing power
Agency as the center of coordination
Enforcing laws and regulations
Information control and secrecy
Limited participation and consultation
Tendency toward antidemocratic and
instrumental rationality
Decentralization: devolution of programs and
authority to local governments
Fragmentation and autonomy in decision
making
Implementing shared goals
Horizontal relationships
Networking and collaboration
Negotiating through dialogue/discourse
Joint partnership and responsibility
Temporary coordination arrangements
Local initiatives
Information sharing and transparency
Open participation and public deliberation
Discursive democracy and communicative
rationality
Adapted from Jun (2006)
The emerging role of government, along with evolving perspectives on
governance, are important to consider in the study of intradepartmental collaboration
because they impact the business of managing public resources and policy development.
In a review of texts on governance and collaboration, Durose and Rummery (2006)
suggest “governance has become a key conceptual and analytical convention adopted by
social policy, largely because of its usefulness in examining questions that are key to the
discipline: citizenship; welfare rights and responsibilities; accountability; legitimacy and
partnership working” (p. 315). Although the concept of intradepartmental collaboration
19
is explicitly absent from literature, it is possible to presume the influence of emerging
[collaborative] governance “as a key trend” impacting the various levels and subunits of
government from the federal to the local (Stoker, 2002).
1.4.2 Role of Public Administrators
Today, citizens and other stakeholders want to participate in governance
decisions; they expect public administrators to exemplify a collaborative spirit and to
facilitate engagement. No longer is governance alone in the hands of professional
administration experts (Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006). Instead of upholding divisions
between government and stakeholders, modern-day public managers are responsible for
supporting new roles and values (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2011).
The new roles and values address the concept of advancing responsiveness and
social equity. As guiding concepts, responsiveness and social equity place public
managers in positions to both advocate and create opportunities for all stakeholders to
participate equally. Summarizing Frederickson’s work, Denhardt and Denhardt argue:
Essentially, providing equitable solutions to public problems involves not just
offering the same services to all but greater levels of service to those in greater
need. Frederickson argues that public administration is not neutral and certainly
should not be judged by the criterion of efficiency alone. Rather, concepts such
as equality, equity, and responsiveness should also come into play (p. 40).
Public managers, advancing social equity, redefined the meaning of effective
performance measurement (Glaser, Hildredth, McGuire, & Bannon, 2011).
In a similar light, Spears (2004) suggests that public managers embrace a servant
role. As servants, quality service is a central performance measure for which to strive.
20
Spears further proposed that public managers must master the following capacities:
listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight,
stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (p. 8).
The modern public manager’s administrative acumen, while invaluable, has to
also be supported by strong interpersonal skills. The changes reflect a decreased
emphasis on technical skills and more on responsibilities that exemplify organic,
humanistic values. These responsibilities, according to Cooper (2012, citing Mosher,
1968 and Winter, 1966), require public managers to fulfill their duties from objective and
subjective perspectives (p. 71). Objective responsibility “involves responsibility to
someone, or some collective body, and responsibility for certain tasks, subordinate
personnel, and goal achievement” (Cooper, 2012). In contrast, subjective accountability
“concerns things for which we feel a responsibility” (p. 72). Public managers typically
develop this form of ethical responsibility through personal experience (p. 82).
Realizing the collaborative role of modern public administrators makes it possible
to understand the dynamic between administrators within public-sector organizations.
Vigoda (2002) describes the complicated relationship between government and public
administration (G&PA) as a struggle to balance efficiency, bureaucracy, power and
control, civil society principles, and collaborative practice (p. 531). It goes without
saying that, given the nature of the emerging trends, the job description of today’s public
manager should include the following terms, “facilitator, conflict manager, network
manager/administrator, collaborative manager, boundary spanner, and integrative leader”
(O’Leary, Choi, & Gerard, 2013, p. 70).
21
1.4.3 Role of Citizens and Other Stakeholders
Regardless of the term we choose to refer to those typically relegated to the
margins of the formal government apparatus, everyday people are part of the political
system. Policymaking cannot realistically occur without taking the citizenry into
account. Citing Frederickson’s (1973) classic work, “Neighborhood Control in the
1970s: Politics, Administration, and Citizen Participation,” Bryer and Cooper (2012)
maintain that citizens’ role in governance is indispensible and reintroduce his five
themes: 1) citizens have an instrumental role to play in governance; 2) responsiveness
and social equity are core goals for public administration and may be pursued at the
expense of efficiency; 3) the public is best perceived to be and should be treated as
citizens; 4) the public as citizen ought to be constitutionally grounded, and it is; and 5)
public administration education is a necessary component of developing citizens and
institutions that support citizenship (p. 108). Bryer and Cooper are essentially
reintroducing and reframing the citizen back into the conversation by bringing to light the
contributions scholars, such as that of Frederickson (1973, 1991); Denhardt & Denhardt
(2000); and Dryzek (2010).
Closed, exclusive governance systems are flawed—history repeatedly proves this
assertion true. In today’s world, the field can no longer afford to exclude the citizenry
from decision-making and participatory processes; resources are too limited and policy
networks—informal and formal alike—increasingly yield political power. Within the
context of the emerging governance paradigm, citizens and other stakeholders are more
inclined to collaborate with public managers and policymakers. The issue at play here is
not necessarily about citizens and other stakeholders; it is about the real or perceived
22
impact their involvement is likely to have on public administration practice. To put it
another way, changing demands for either transparency or opportunities to collaborate
may force public managers to work more closely together within their departments.
1.5 Framing of Chapters
Chapter Two, Significance of the Study, signals an attempt to align this study
with the existing body of contemporary collaboration and organizational behavior
research. The literature expands upon determinants that drive collaboration. By
examining reasons for collaboration, e.g., to manage public resources, address issues
related to resource availability, and leadership, the chapter summarizes a series of
theories that demonstrate how different elements affect goal achievement. This chapter is
also about highlighting existing conceptual gaps and the degree to which they relate to
the public sector.
Chapter Three, Research Methodology, describes activities to establish
academically rigorous data collection, analysis, and reporting processes. This chapter
lists the various data sources I used in my analysis and qualifies them by offering a
strength and weakness critique. In addition to discussing the analytical process, I also
argue in support of adapting and using a preexisting, tested survey instrument: The
Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory. Chapter Three’s purpose is to substantiate the
study; essentially, this is where I explain the research process in relation to both the
central research questions and study propositions in preparation for the analysis in the
subsequent chapter.
Chapter Four, Analyzing Data and Findings, directly connects survey results with
the central research questions and hypotheses. Chapter Four’s purpose is to demonstrate
23
how intradepartmental collaborative practice elements from the Wilder Collaboration
Factors Inventory examine. The chapter includes a comparative analysis across
departments, of attitude shifts toward collaboration, and identifies and explores prevalent
themes that inform the recommendations and propositions for future study in Chapter
Five.
Chapter Five, Discussion and Propositions for Future Study, summarizes the
project and explains how and why intradepartmental collaborative practice transpires
within the public sector. The purpose of this chapter is to identify and share best
practices.
24
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction to the General Study of Collaboration
Intradepartmental collaboration remains an understudied aspect of public
management. This review of select literature contributes toward closing knowledge gaps
by examining prior research that addresses the general practice of collaboration within
public organizations. The review, therefore, offers information to consider realistic,
pragmatic assumptions about how collaboration occurs and the factors that determine its
relative and operational effectiveness.
Through a review of select literature, one may also discover new insights assess
both theoretical and practical applicability; and confirm assumptions. Relevant literature
presents the researcher with opportunities to compare methods against complementary,
analogous findings. Rather than addressing collaborative efforts among employees
within departments, literature on public-sector collaboration has largely focused on
strategies to solve social problems alongside stakeholders from other departments,
organizations, and sectors. This review examines literature pertinent to collaboration and
also considers the applicability of various strategies that contemporary public managers
could adapt to promote and improve intradepartmental collaboration. The review also
seeks to bring to light the factors, both theoretical and practical, that contribute to this
unique, understudied form of collaboration.
Examining literature broadly creates opportunities to inform the type of questions
necessary to understand the roots of collaboration as well as the behaviors among
individuals working together. The questions are also likely to provide insight about the
factors that contribute to effective collaborative practice within departments in public
25
organizations as well as the reasons this narrow focus matters and contributes to the fields
of both research and practice.
Intradepartmental collaboration literature is nonexistent. The problem is that the
research perspective for collaboration has been explicitly external, leaving public
managers without access to tested-effective examples. Notably, the foundations driving
this literature review are grounded in collaboration theory. Based on the problem this
dissertation seeks to address, this chapter follows a logical path that begins by assessing
literature, at first generically by way of theory, then specifically, by way of determinants
of intradepartmental collaboration. Section 2.2 and its corresponding subsections
highlight the ways in which prior research has influenced collaborative research and
practice. The section explores collaboration as governance and through the lens of
regimes. Section 2.3 and its corresponding subsections seek to explain collaboration and
introduce the topic broadly from the perspective of antecedents, which includes
leadership, capacity building, organizational culture, and policy diffusion. Lastly,
Section 2.4 articulates the motives behind forging new ground with this topic and also
summarizes the chapter.
2.2 General Theoretical Perspectives of Public-Sector Collaborative Practice
2.2.1 Governance as a Collaborative Model
To clarify various outlooks of collaboration, perhaps it is appropriate to begin
with a selected review of literature on the topic of collaborative governance.
Frederickson, Smith, Larimer, and Licari (2012) argued, “governance is centered on the
need to account for the changing relationship between government and society” (p. 242).
Similarly, Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill (2001) noted, “public policies and programs in the
26
United States and elsewhere are being administered…through complicated webs of
states, regions, special districts, service delivery areas, local offices, nonprofit
organizations, collaborations, networks, partnerships and other means for the control and
coordination of dispersed activities” (p. 1). Lynn et al.’s work is especially interesting
because it offers the following logic of governance as a collaborative model: O = f[E, C,
T, S, M]. In other words, outcomes (O) are the products of environmental factors (E),
client attributes and characteristics (C), treatments—or organizational processes or
objectives (T), organizational structural designs (S), and managerial roles and actions (M)
(p. 93).
Organizational structures, specifically, involve functions, coordination of services
and arrangements among stakeholders. Additionally, managerial roles and actions
include decision-making and communication approaches, managerial styles, and
accountability measures (p. 225). Considering structure and managerial roles makes it
possible to identify the existing interdependencies between collaboration and governance
practice. For example, organizations that favor hierarchical structures require managers
to operate in a manner that influences such things as span of control, goal setting, and
decision-making (Banderia, Prat, Sadun, & Wulf, 2011). A strict emphasis on adherence
to structure, therefore, is more likely to reinforce rigid, inclusive management systems
(Jun, 2006). According to Frederickson et al., Lynn et al.’s model does not fully capture
the essentials of governance; pursuing this further, they suggest borrowing integral
elements from regime theory, such as an action and mission-centered planning orientation
to fill theoretical gaps.
27
2.2.2 Regime Theory
Shedding additional light on collaborative practice within a governance context,
Emerson, Nabachi, and Balogh (2011) propose a systemic view of integrative processes.
A comprehensive model, Emerson et al. showcase collaboration as part of a system that
envelops various aspects of governance, such as policy demands or drivers on behalf of
stakeholders; the dynamics of collaboration that involve participation, discourse, and
planning; and the formal or informal partnership arrangement between stakeholders that
yield political action.
Emerson et al. explain that regime theory incorporates aspects of collaborative
practice where dimensions are “nested” within “their respective components” (p. 8).
Figure 1 illustrates the manner in which a number of collaborative components, like
collaborative governance, exist within regime theory. The model essentially comprises
three layered dimensions: 1) collaboration dynamics; 2) collaborative governance regime
(CGR); and 3) system context.
The three dimensions interact seamlessly with one another—neither is mutually
exclusive. Each dimension is capable of shaping collaborative practice based on
environmental conditions or stakeholders’ motivation to mobilize to act jointly. Before
the dimensions, it is necessary to describe the drivers that cause stakeholders to work
together. Emerson et al. argue that common drivers include visionary leadership,
financial incentives to collaborate, interdependence or synergies among partners, degrees
of resource uncertainty, or likely threats. Drivers activate collaboration dynamics: the
centermost dimension of Emerson et al.’s conceptual model. Collaboration dynamics are,
essentially, values that support a sense of mutuality, trust, and support. The three
28
elements of this dimension are principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity
for joint action.
Having identified the values that bring partners together, the collaborative
governance regime (CGR) is the arena in which the drivers and collaborative dynamics
intersect to “do” collaboration and cause action. Within this dimension, stakeholders
have the opportunity to observe the results of their collaborative efforts, provide input to
facilitate successful adaptation in the field of practice, and evaluate the overall impact of
their work (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006). This form of conjoint action is
representative of a movement that may ultimately influence a system context. Emerson
et al. offer the following examples of system context: political or legal frameworks,
socioeconomic, resource conditions, levels of conflict or trust, prior failure to address
issues, and political dynamics and power relations (p. 8). Because the dimensions’
elements are interdependent, it is possible for either the system context or the drivers to
influence what transpires within a CGR and also collaboration dynamics.
Within the three dimensions, stakeholders interact and support one another—a
common cause guides their activities. Each dimension is capable of shaping the quality
collaborative practice, thus, neither dimension is uniquely more important than any other.
Emerson et al. suggested that the system framework serves as a tool to understand the
various elements that make collaboration possible (p. 9). Their arguments imply that
collaboration is holistic and inclusive; effectiveness depends on participants’ ability to
lend their strengths and adapt in ways that benefit a commonly understood cause.
29
Figure 1. Emerson et al.'s Integrative Model of Collaborative Governance
Source: Emerson et al. (2011)
Stoker (1998), discussing governance, argued that the practice is now “concerned
with creating the conditions for ordered rule and collective action” (p. 17). Pertaining to
regime theory, Stoker suggests that individuals, organizations, or both organize
themselves into collaborative regime arrangements. Aligned, actors “gain a capacity to
act by blending their resources, skills, and purposes into a long-term coalition” (p. 23).
Within regime theory, collaborative arrangements are typically informal to avoid pitfalls
traditionally present in hierarchical, structure-laden public organizations (Stoker, p. 25).
Despite the contributions regime theory presents, Frederickson et al. (2012), in line with
Stoker, posited that the informal, social arrangements also contribute to a general lack of
accountability and legitimacy in light of the actors’ ability to quickly respond to changing
30
environmental conditions (p. 238-9). The result of decreased accountability, as Stoker
(1998) suggests, is “dissatisfaction” with collaborative arrangements (p. 24).
With this in mind, it is clear that accountability and legitimacy measures are
crucial aspects of collaborative practice and, as such, deem additional study. Bryson et
al. offer a framework that contributes to Stoker’s; combined, the two models make it
easier to understand cross-sector collaborative arrangements. Bryson et al.’s framework,
provided in Figure 2, synthesizes both Lynn et al. and Stoker’s models and illustrates
how collaborating actors work together formally and informally to hold network partners
accountable and, more importantly, to legitimize their collective efforts.
Figure 2. Bryson et al.'s Framework for Understanding Cross-Sector Collaboration
Source: Bryson et al. (2006)
31
Notably, Bryson et al.’s model argues that cross-sectoral collaborative processes
typically uphold contractual agreements, establish clear lines of communication, and
define outcomes within the context of environmental conditions. Based on prior research
by Page (2003), Bryson et al. describe the importance of accountability below:
An accountable collaborative…needs a measurement system to document its
results and how those results change over time. It is also needs a ‘managing for
results’ system that links the data it measures to specific actors and interventions,
that provides critical performance information to its stakeholders, and that uses
the information to improve its operations (p. 51).
Regime theory addresses the dynamics among partners and the values they share to
resolve complex problems by working around and through bureaucracy. Other models,
such as those in the following section suggest that effective collaborative practice largely
depends on the presence of key antecedents, i.e., effective leadership and management,
building collaboration capacity, policy diffusion, and organizational culture.
2.3 Determinants of Collaboration
To study collaboration is to seek to understand the elements that foster a culture
of sharing, of learning, and of service. Studying the determinants of collaborative
practice is a reasonable place from which to begin. This section and the corresponding
subsections examine a broad, yet specific range of factors that facilitate collaboration; the
factors are important because they highlight attitudes and prevalent tendencies among
public managers. The general application of this set of determinants should illustrate
possible real-world applications to intradepartmental collaboration. Modern public
managers should be familiar with the factors that contribute to positive collaborative
32
experiences within their departments. The literature in this chapter represents a mix of
seminal studies and contemporary articles; to capture a more modern perspective, most of
the literature has publication dates after 2000.
Based on a review of existing collaboration research and my professional
experience, the following are significant factors of public-sector collaborative practice.
Leadership and management (Chung, Ma, Hong, & Griffiths, 2012; Currie &
Lockett, 2011; Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast,
2012; Rainey, 2009);
Capacity building (Binz-Scharf, Lazer, & Mergel, 2012; Glickman & Servan
in DeFilippis & Saegert, 2008; Getha-Taylor, & Morse, 2012; Joaquin &
Greitens, 2012; Wohlstetter, Mallow, Hentscheke, & Smith, 2004);
Policy diffusion (Robinson, Savage, & Sydow-Campbell, 2003; Roussos &
Fawcett, 2000; Tse, 2011; Shipman & Volden, 2012; Trummers, 2012); and
Organizational culture (Armistead & Pettigrew, 2004; Dietrich, Eskerod,
Dalcher, & Sandhawalia, 2010; Mitchell & Pattison, 2012; Ogbonna & Harris,
2000).
2.3.1 Collaboration and Leadership and Management
Effective leadership and management influence collaborative practice regardless
of sector. In a way, collaboration and leadership are synonymous terms because they are
interwoven and mutually dependent upon one another. In a study about interprofessional
collaboration (IPC) in the health care field, Chung, Ma, Hong, and Griffiths’ (2012)
findings suggest that leadership is one of a handful of factors that determine collaboration
quality. Chung et al. indicate that leadership is one of four elements that influence the
33
governance activities that drive innovation, communication, and strategic resource
management within organizations (see Table 5). Moreover, the authors specify that
leadership is “essential” for successful interprofessional collaboration strategies and
illustrate the relationship between leadership and power dispersion to foster engagement
and safeguard stakeholder safeguard (p. 3).
The nature of collaboration requires individuals to share, implying support for an
objective greater than their own. Individuals, then, in leadership positions are responsible
for shepherding strategies that sustain a culture of “we.” Within a collaborative context,
leaders must find ways to balance effective relationship management while upholding
processes that afford the greatest strategic value to stakeholders.
Table 5. Organizational Dimensions of the Structural Model of Collaboration
Dimensions Indicators Description
Governance Centrality Clear and explicit direction towards
collaboration between professions.
Directives are essential strategic and political
tools that help to materialize the implementation
of collaborative processes and structures.
Leadership Essential for the success of ICP.
Power should be disbursed beyond a single
partner; all partners should participate in
decision-making.
Support for
innovation
Collaboration involves dividing responsibilities
between professionals and between institutions.
Connectivity Strong communication allows for rapid and
continuous adjustments to problems.
Formalization Formalization
tools
The means of clarifying the various partners’
responsibilities and negotiating how the
responsibilities are shared.
Information
exchange
The existence and appropriate use of an
information infrastructure that allow for rapid
and complete exchanges, and feedback, between
professionals.
Adapted from Chung et al. (2012)
34
Interprofessional collaboration, according to Chung et al., requires leaders to establish
and communicate a vision that stakeholders’ understand and are willing to advance.
Leaders are also primarily responsible for upholding structures that promote innovation,
accountability, and informal and formal communication “infrastructure.” Permeable
management structures make it possible for leaders and followers to share the
responsibility for implementing fair negotiation and conflict management processes that
promote trust among partners.
The remainder of this section offers varying perspectives on leadership in
collaborative practice. Although none of the literature specifically examines
intradepartmental collaboration, it is possible to ascertain how these concepts might
coincide with efforts to understand collaboration as it happens within the public sector.
Rainey’s (2009) look at the 1948 Ohio State Leadership Studies is practical place from
which to start.
In his book, “Understand and Managing Public Organizations,” Rainey indicates
that the Ohio State Leadership Studies focused on two key orientations among leaders
within organizations: 1) “concern for his or her relationships with subordinates: and 2) an
“emphasis on setting standards, assigning roles, and pressing for productivity and
performance” (p. 316). Striving to balance social and operational responsibilities
demonstrates the crucial role leaders play in establishing a collaborative organizational
culture. A key finding was that managers are responsible for ensuring personnel have the
resources to accomplish their work. Notably, when frontline personnel work with their
managers to establish expectations objectives, they are more likely to understand how
and when to contribute.
35
Similarly, Druskat and Wolff (2001) write that team-based emotional intelligence,
which extends beyond the social, interpersonal aspects of the Ohio State Leadership
Studies, is worthy of study because it has had a “real impact” on collaborative mission
accomplishment (p. 81). The authors also highlight the fact that groups, and an
understanding of their dynamics, are commonplace within organizations. The benefits of
emphasizing social connections identified in their study, all of which improve effective
collaborative practice, include: improved trust, identify, and efficacy; quality
participation, cooperation, and collaboration; and better decisions, more creative
solutions, and higher productivity (p. 83).
Emerging collaborative leadership research is expanding beyond formal
organizations and sectors. As a result, membership and identity are aspects of the
collaboration equation. Hogg, Knippenberg, and Rast (2012), for example, describe the
paradigm as one in which organizations operate in an environment with less-defined
organizational or team structures. Hogg et al.’s central tenet is that intergroup
collaboration “is an issue of identity” (p. 223). The authors explain that identity implies a
clearly defined connection to a particular organization and its culture. Intergroup
relational identity is one that characterizes one group based on the relationship it has with
other groups with which it collaborates. An essential facet of intergroup relational
identity is the dynamic between individuals and the groups to which they belong.
Individuals, as it seems, define their participation in a collaborative activity based on the
features of their particular groups.
More importantly, the theoretical framework Hogg et al. developed from their
research stresses both the need for and significance of defining an intergroup
36
collaboration identity from two unique standpoints: 1) focus on identity and 2) focus of
comparison. Their conceptual model addresses the manner in which individuals define
their personal identity based on differences between themselves and other individuals;
their relationship with others within the same group; their own group’s identity; and the
“relationship between one’s own group and specific subgroup” (p. 239).
Hogg et al.’s research expands the foundation from which we can begin to
observe the importance of fostering the necessary conditions within one department to
effectively collaborate with groups from other organizations or sectors. The Focus of
Identity and Focus of Comparison model suggests leaders should strive to manage
relationships among group members rather than to establish a collective identity. Hogg et
al. argue for developing intergroup relational identity because it “allows leadership to
create an extended sense of identity that helps prevent intergroup identity clashes” (p.
240). They conclude by asserting that successful intergroup leadership leads to natural
collaboration and “harmonious” efforts to “achieve joint intergroup goals” (p. 240). The
model defines intergroup leadership from a facilitative perspective as a boundary
spanning approach that connects “two otherwise unconnected social networks” (p. 243).
Hogg et al. stress that effective intergroup relational identity depends on leaders’ ability
to leverage rhetoric that inspires followers to act and sustain collaboration (p. 242). The
inspiration to act requires degrees of freedom to make decisions and take action
independently without reservation.
In their examination of leadership in practice within the social service field,
Currie and Lockett (2011) sought answers to identify how government programs
promoted distributed leadership among stakeholders. They presented the distributed
37
leadership (DL) approach and shed new light on a problem affecting leadership practice.
Specifically, Currie and Lockett note, “DL leverages skills and strengths across the
organization to enhance organizational resourcefulness and is considered to be
particularly appropriate for complex, contemporary organizations, where knowledge is
distributed” (p. 287). Expanding upon work from other authors (Gronn, 2002; Denis,
Lamothe, 2001, & Langley, 2001; Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003), Currie and
Lockett found that reducing followers’ dependency on leaders results in improved client
outcomes (p. 286).
As they illustrated the management implications associated with distributed
leadership, Currie and Lockett describe the benefits to both organizations and individuals,
as involved followers. They argue that organizations benefit from this approach because
it is inclusive and is also likely to align opportunities that support horizontal “distribution
of knowledge” (p. 294). They further noted that distributed leadership “may foster
collaborative and ethical practice, and avoid alienation associated with lack of power by
those positioned as followers” (p. 287). As a general concept, distributed leadership is
unique because it depends largely on the crucial role of followers as leaders themselves—
this is different because it illustrates the natural interdependencies, regardless of
hierarchy or position, between actors in organizational settings.
Interestingly, Currie and Lockett are quick to point out that distributed leadership
is no panacea; it “requires both concertive action and conjoint agency” (p. 290). Based
on Currie and Lockett’s research, two central elements define distributed leadership: 1)
conjoint agency and 2) concertive action. Conjoint agency addresses the direction of a
leader’s influence and, equally important, is the “synchronization of leadership action
38
across different individuals” (289). Synchronization, or coordinating leadership
horizontally through organizations depends on a leader’s ability to sustain a genuine
sense of mutuality (p. 289). A lean toward mutually beneficial action is important
because leaders and their followers must feel empowered to be innovative without
practical reservations.
The second element, concertive action, relates to the manner in which
collaborators work together. To effectively facilitate collaboration, leaders establish
“patterns of activity” that both foster and shape a sharing culture (p. 290). Because of the
“spontaneous collaboration” that occurs naturally within organizations, concertive action
leads to institutionalizing the traits that make pooling resources part of an organization’s
standard operating procedures (p. 289). Their model in Figure 4 presents factors that
impact distributed leadership, which includes network structures; collegiality;
professional power; hierarchy; and target-based policy (p. 295). Hierarchy addresses
institutionalized influence related to the concentration of professional power, which the
authors describe as “essentially paternalistic and authoritarian” (p. 294). An emphasis on
target-based policy reinforces performance management and “drives leadership towards
concentration rather than distribution” (p. 294). The presence of these factors determines
how well leadership actors share resources and power as well as how much freedom they
enjoy in making decisions without organizational barriers (Ott, Parkes, & Simpson, 2008,
p. 339).
39
Figure 3. Influence of Context on Distributive Leadership
Adapted from Currie & Lockett (2011)
To maximize an organization’s potential, leadership actors wielding their
professional power to effectively address the five factors in Currie and Lockett’s
conceptual model. By reinforcing, or “pulling in” positive network structures and
leadership development, leaders “push out” hierarchical, inhibiting structures as well as
target- and performance-based mechanisms (p. 295). Leaders have to constantly work to
fight off the natural tendency to favor hierarchy and performance-based management and,
instead, create a culture that seeks out spontaneous collaboration, favors and influences
reciprocity, synchronizes leadership activities, and understands the power of
interpersonal synergy among across the organization. Professional power remains in the
area in which the axes converge, Currie and Lockett note that this element remains
40
present in collaborative cultures where conjoint agency and concertive action thrive.
Ultimately, their work suggests that leaders orchestrate collaborative practice; the culture
they promote determines whether a unit accepts the vulnerabilities associated with
sharing capacity and resources (Bryson et al., 2006).
The connection between the two concepts exists in their interdependent qualities;
in other words, effective collaboration is not possible without leaders focused on joining
seemingly disconnected or unrelated sets of actors. The literature supports Chung et al.’s
(2012) assertions that leadership, as an aspect of governance and establishing
collaborative structures, is essential to sharing power among stakeholders to maximize
their previously untapped, ignored, or underappreciated collective potential. Effective
leadership yields empowered employees, those with a greater sense of commitment to an
organization’s mission and vision. Argyris (1998) notes that in traditional, hierarchical
organizational structures, “employees won’t feel internally committed if someone is
always controlling them from the top down” (p. 102). In a word, the act of distributing
leadership across organizations invites employees to define and interpret goals, tasks and
behavior; establish performance metrics; and find ways to challenge themselves (p. 102).
Sometimes, however, leaders need help improving their collaboration effectiveness. The
following section address capacity issues related to intradepartmental collaborative
practice.
2.3.2 Collaboration and Capacity Building
Capacity plays an important role in collaboration. After examining definitions for
capacity as they relate to collaborative practice, the two central themes that emerge
involve performance and goal achievement. Table 6 illustrates the similarities and
41
differences in the manner in which previous studies define capacity. Misener and
Doherty (2009) provide perhaps the most appropriate definition because it addresses an
organization’s potential by implying a sense of joint efficacy, discovery, and possibility.
Misener and Doherty also suggest a common set of five dimensions that contribute to
interpreting capacity. Although the authors describe capacity in their own ways, further
analysis proved that the fundamental elements are more similar than they are different
(see Table 7). The five factors that describe capacity include: 1) public sector
institutional context; 2) task network; 3) human resources; 4) organization; and 5) action
environment.
Table 6. Capacity Defined
Definition Author
“Capacity building is about strengthening management systems
and governance in organizations…[it] should not be confused
with capacity repair” (p. 2).
Chandler (2003)
“The ability to perform appropriate tasks effectively, efficiently,
and sustainably” (p. 442).
Grindle &
Hilderbrand (1995)
“Refers to an organization’s potential to achieve its mission and
objectives based on the extend to which it has certain attributes
that have been identified as critical to goal achievement” (p. 458)
Misener & Doherty
(2009)
“A set of attributes that help or enable an organization to fulfill its
missions” (p. 117).
Eisinger (2002)
42
Table 7. Dimensions of Organizational Capacity
Dimension Characteristics
1. Public Sector Institutional Context Includes the mandates and other rules set
for public management operations and
public officials; also includes the
management and strategic allocation of
financial resources to carry out activities.
2. Task Network Refers to the set of stakeholders involved
in accomplishing any given task(s).
Includes distribution of labor and
managing communications and other
interactions among stakeholders.
3. Human Resources The ability to deploy human capital
within the organization, and includes
competencies, knowledge, attitudes,
motivation, and behaviors of individuals
in the organization.
4. Organization Management of goals, work structure,
incentive systems, formal and informal
communications, and technical assistance.
5. Action Environment Identifies the political, social, and
economic context within which public
organizations operate.
Adapted from Misener & Doherty (2009)
Building capacity is a requisite for effective intradepartmental collaborative
practice because the work is likely to occur in unfamiliar settings and revolve around
formal and informal arrangements between actors. Efforts to build capacity ensure that
participating stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute toward advancing collective
objectives in both sustainable and equitable ways. The focus on capacity is evident in
recent works from Getha-Taylor and Morse (2012) and Joaquin and Greitens (2012).
Getha-Taylor and Morse evaluated the impact of two leadership development
programs for federal employees: Supervisory Leadership Training (SLT) and The Public
Executive Leadership Academy (PELA). Their research primarily sought to identify
collaborative competencies among participants as a result of the training program
43
participants received. The results of their research revealed that generally, “those who
participated in training indicate stronger agreement with questions related to the value of
collaboration” (p. 88). Interestingly, the training program also allowed participants to
assess their individual collaborative practice competencies (p. 95). Through group
learning, program participants discovered collaboration as a necessary strategy to
accomplish objectives and also realized the inherent, long-term value collaboration
affords (p. 88).
From the world of public contract management, which Joaquin and Greitens
(2012) define as “all activities performed by the government…that are relevant to
contracts with private or nonprofit organizations” (p. 708), they explained that this formal
form of collaboration requires governments to depend more heavily on private firms to
perform services previously exclusive to the public sector. Describing the current state of
public-sector contract management, they argue, “Contract managers are suddenly
expected to be boundary spanners who understand the public and business arenas and
must resolve some of the contradictions of contracting” (p. 808). An example of such
contradictions is the “shift over the years from procurement of good [deeds] to [the
management of] services” (p. 808).
In a struggling economy, contract management requires public managers to do
more than vet likely vendors; in some cases they work side by side to design, implement
and evaluate programs. Joaquin and Greitens further posit that collaboration among
stakeholders may mitigate “unknowns” and other performance obstacles (p. 809).
Increased formal, contractual collaboration between vendors and public organizations,
they claimed, builds trust as it encourages co-working approaches in which actors learn
44
the intricacies of program implementation and management from one another (p. 814).
Similarly, Ring and Van de Ven’s (1994) studies of interorganizational relationships
reveal that, in some cases, parties “rely on trust as a counter to the problems of adverse
selection and moral hazard” (p. 93).
Conversely, in their article about knowledge sharing among public organizations,
Binz-Scharf, Lazer, and Mergel (2012) offered insight on the concept of networks of
practice and the benefits and impact of informal connections. Their study focused on
ways groups of organizations involved in DNA research for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation collaborated to realize organizational objectives and increase individuals’
capabilities despite formal, otherwise restrictive, hierarchical boundaries. Notably, Binz-
Scharf et al. proposed that two types of networks are at play within organizations: formal
and informal. Examples of formal networks are those likely established through
contracts while informal networks may be members of an affinity group or community.
Formal and informal networks reflect whether ties between collaborating
stakeholders serve as prescribed facets of bureaucracy; are included in formal reporting
procedures; or are established through hierarchical positions (p. 205). Binz-Scharf et al.
supported Meyer and Rowan’s (1997) research in which they argue that formal
organizational structures determine purpose through rational means and are inherent
aspects of an organization beyond the “discretion” of any individual (p. 344). Because
informal networks naturally exist in organizations (Page, 2003), Binz-Scharf et al. believe
its is necessary to increase the field’s understanding of how they work and when they
realize each other’s value propositions. Binz-Scharf et al., describing modern
45
collaboration activities, stated, “informal interpersonal networks emerge as a result of
local needs for knowledge” (p. 203).
Collaboration and capacity building depend on strong interpersonal connections
among individuals, which is central to improving overall program effectiveness (Binz-
Scharf et al., p. 220). Through 33 interviews of public administrators, Binz-Scharf et al.
discovered that “innovation happens through informal, mostly horizontal collaboration,
whereas formal, vertical authority remains important in the bureaucratic government
environment” (p. 206). Ultimately, Binz-Scharf et al. found that informal, interpersonal
factors contributed largely to the quality of knowledge sharing among networks of
practice. Collaborating to share data increased the DNA laboratories ability to “function”
and contribute regardless of their size (p. 219). In other words, informal knowledge
sharing among trusted network members offset formal infrastructural deficiencies.
A general lack of public-sector intradepartmental collaboration research fails to
inform the important role networks play in building organizational capacity. According
to Glickman and Servon (in DeFelippi & Servon, 2008), building network strength is a
central component of capacity that also includes political, resource and organizational
development, and other programmatic activities (p. 47). Without access to a diverse and
engaged network, organizations are less likely to establish the necessary social or
political capital to succeed, especially in an era of federal devolution (Keys, Schwartz,
Vidal, & Bratt, 1996, p. 209).
Demonstrating the public sector’s inability to satisfy community needs alone,
Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, and Smith (2004) argue that strategic alliances enhance
service delivery and improve client outcomes. Their exploratory study of charter schools
46
identified improved outcomes as a result of collaboration efforts between organizations
from the nonprofit, for-profit, and public sectors (p. 1078). The ability to satisfactorily
identify and communicate community needs creates opportunities for organizations,
through strategic collaborative arrangements, to design actionable solutions and share
collective strengths (p. 1080-2). Together, collaborating organizations and stakeholders
fill capacity gaps as they work toward achieving a set of common strategic objectives. In
their review of literature related to cross-sectoral alliances, Wohlstetter et al. argue that
the benefits of such arrangements makes it possible for organizations to “search for
solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible” (citing Gray, 1989,
p. 1080). Likewise, Wang, Hawkins, Lebredo, and Bergman (2012) argue, “capacity is
linked to an organization’s ability to establish goals, acquire resources, satisfy citizens,
reconfigure internal management processes, and adapt to change” (p. 842).
Phillips (2004) suggests that horizontal, inclusive governance practice requires
public managers to think about capacity development beyond government. She indicates
that inclusive governance practice should close the perceived or established gaps between
an “us” (government) versus “them” (other stakeholders) mentality. She further stated
that, given the new focus “on interdependence, not power relationships and on
negotiation and persuasion, not control, the skills required for effective governing have
shifted from those of management to those of enablement” (p. 384). Ideally, this
approach encourages intersections of capacity that otherwise would have never existed.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the studies from this section address
fundamental problems associated with modern inclusive governance approaches, most of
which revolve around exclusive decision-making and political elitism. Despite the
47
findings about capacity and the role it plays in collaborative practice, the research
answers “why” and “what” questions but leaves unattended the “how.” Without this
crucial piece of information, the field is lacking resources likely to enhance service
delivery, stakeholder engagement, and planning approaches.
2.3.3 Collaboration and Policy Diffusion
Public managers and policymakers are copycats, they replicate elements of tested
effective and regulatory trends in ways that benefit their constituents, relate to the current
policy environment, and guide policy development (Shipman & Volden, 2012).
Diffusion is a term that describes adaptive processes; it is also the spread of policy
innovations, or the transfer of knowledge across governments (Shipman & Volden,
2008).
From the field of health care research, Robinson, Savage, and Sydow-Campbell
(2003) argue, “The diffusion process by which new technology is adopted by
organizations is influenced by characteristics of the technology itself, organizational
characteristics, communication, and contextual factors such as regulations and
economics” (p. 70). They studied diffusion of innovation among international networks
of health care providers in offering telemedicine services—an approach that facilitates
the provision of virtual health-related services to clients without a doctor being present.
Robinson et al. also argued that the marketplace demands “push” organizations to devise
products and services to address needs, such as efforts to protect consumers from
predatory lending schemes (p. 70).
The two sets of authors, Shipman and Volden and Robinson et al., separately
outlined five similar characteristics that advance diffusion efforts. Despite the 10-year
48
research gap, the differences between the two works are mostly semantic. The thematic
similarities in Table 8 address the steps organizations may employ to make informed
decisions about which policy actions to undertake. Clearly, organizations embracing
organic, open, inclusive systems are better suited to adapt and implement policies based
on their constituency’s needs or expectations (Mizrahi, Vigoda-Gadot, & Cohen, 2009).
Table 8. Organizational Characteristics to Support Policy Diffusion
Shipman & Volden (2013) Robinson et al. (2003)
Relative advantage: potential to
perceive a policy’s significant
advantages over past policies.
Compatibility: address policy problems
within similar fields of practice.
Complexity: whether the nature of
policies address wicked problems
lacking simple solutions.
Triability: whether the policy could be
experimented with in a limited manner.
Observability: whether others could
easily see the policy effects.
Relative advantage of innovation:
today’s public organizations compete
with one another for resources to offset
insufficient or depleted revenue
streams.
Compatibility: ability to integrate
innovations with existing technology
and systems.
Complexity: designing and managing
mutual adaptation by collaborating
partners—mitigating organizational
cultures and processes.
Ability to replicate innovation:
persuading and convincing
stakeholders to try the innovations.
Observe innovation: opportunity to
study innovations in real-world
settings
Perhaps it makes sense to examine facets of institutional isomorphism to fully
understand policy diffusion—this is likely to make the connections to collaborative
practice more distinct, especially because the term policy diffusion itself is prevalent in
literature although it is rarely used in practice. Rainey (2009), citing DiMaggio and
Powell (1983), defined institutional isomorphism as the manner in which “organizations
and other institutions becom[e] similar or identical to each other in form” (p. 99). Rainey
describes three types of institutional isomorphism, which include coercive, normative,
49
and mimetic. The types allow for more in-depth examination of the ways organizations
discover and replicate strategies from the field of practice. Table 9 illustrates the
elements of organizational isomorphism as well as the general applicability to this study.
Table 9. Elements of Institutional Isomorphism and Public Policy Diffusion
Form Institutional Isomorphism Applicability to Policy Diffusion
Coercive Organizations comply with similar
laws and regulations
Demands for transparency and
decentralized, open governance
systems.
Normative Compliance with professional and
moral norms such as those imposed
through accreditation or certification
processes by professional associations.
Public managers, as professional
administrators, are versed in
promoting civil society, network
management, and responsive
policy development.
Mimetic Organizations and other entities imitate
each other, based on prevailing
orthodoxy or culturally supported
beliefs about the proper structures and
procedures.
Organizations adjust and
implement best practices as a
means to maximize limited
resources and leverage networks.
Adapted from Rainey (2009)
Effective adapting and implementing of public policy depends on an
organization’s ability to collaborate. In practice, enlightened public managers or
policymakers might identify a public policy that could apply in their jurisdiction. As they
set out to customize aspects of a particular policy, personnel have to work together to
ensure its relevancy in an effort to both safeguard and optimize public resources. At the
department level, policy diffusion depends on personnel’s ability to assess feasibility.
Using responsible banking ordinances as an example, Table 10 demonstrates policy
diffusion in action from 1991 to 2012 in a comparison matrix.
Originating in 1991, the City of Cleveland’s responsible banking ordinance
established a policy benchmark to hold financial institutions accountable for investing in
their communities and fostering responsible corporate stewardship. Cleveland’s policy
50
ensured financial institutions serving their communities operated responsibly, were
transparent, and welcomed public engagement. As a result of the turmoil from the 2007
economic downturn, the City of New York established a version of the Cleveland policy
in 2012. Following New York, the City of Los Angeles enacted their versions of the
responsible banking policy later that year. Interestingly, New York and Los Angeles
included six of the nine items in the comparison matrix; the other two cities excluded
formal affidavits with financial institutions, required specific consumer safeguards, and
language that regulated branch closures. In Los Angeles, stakeholders demanded the City
take a more aggressive stance on regulating the manner in which financial institutions
operate. Councilmember Richard Alarcon was interested in increasing local reinvestment
and based decisions to continue banking with a financial institution on the degree of local
investment. The Los Angeles policy, therefore, reflects strategies geared toward
stimulating the local economy while offering a substantial business opportunity to banks.
A copy of the official media advisory for the Los Angeles is located in the Appendix for
further review. The differences in policies are likely due to the manner in which each
city defined and prioritized the problems, political will, pressure from consumer groups,
or the nature of existing relationships with financial institutions.
In these examples, intradepartmental collaboration occurred as stakeholders
worked together to leverage available resources to design a sometimes controversial and
complex policy. Regarding elements of responsible banking policy, Boston and Pittsburg
are like Cleveland, Kansas City’s policy resembles San Jose, and Portland and Seattle’s
version of the policy are also similar to one another. Cleveland set the tone; their policy
innovation continues to influence regulations imposed upon financial institutions
51
throughout the country. Other cities, Portland, Seattle, for example, address issues
related to an oversight body to collaborate with financial institutions to
In summary, policy diffusion is one strategy to either shape or respond to the
changing public management landscape. Demonstrating willingness to learn and to take
calculated risks, organizations evolve as they apply lessons from the field.
Organizations, like people, learn. The topic is relevant because personnel, at the
department level, have to organize themselves and collaborate to adapt policy with the
resources available.
52
Table 10. NCRC's Matrix of Responsible Banking Ordinances
Oversight
Body
Data
Disclosure
Reinvestment
Plan
Evaluation
Method
Public
Participation
Affidavit
Consumer
Safeguards
Branch
Closures
Penalties
Cleveland
(1991)
X X X X X X X X X
Philadelphia
(2002)
X X X X X X X
Los
Angeles
(2012)
X X X X X X
New York
(2012)
X X X X X X
Pittsburgh
(2012)
X X X X X X X X X
Seattle
(2011)
X
Portland
(2012)
X
Boston
(Proposed)
X X X X X X X X X
Chicago
(Proposed)
X X X X
Minneapolis
(Proposed)
X X
Kansas City
(Proposed)
X X
San Jose
(2010)
X X
Adapted from National Community Reinvestment Coalition (2012)
53
2.3.4 Collaboration and Organizational Culture
Today’s public managers serve in a fast-paced political and technologically
advanced environment (Beyerlein, Freedman, McGee, & Moran, 2003; Dietrich,
Eskerod, Dalcher, & Sandhawalia, 2010). For the purposes of clarity, Schein (1984)
drafted the following definition of organizational culture that fits the spirit of this
analysis:
Organizational culture is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has
invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to
be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 3).
His definition guided the examination of literature relating to organizational culture and
the approaches public managers have enacted to meet stakeholder’s expectations.
The wicked problems that organizations face often require collaborative
approaches. Such approaches suggest ways organizations adopt cultures that focus less
on hierarchy and more on shaping the dynamic within which stakeholders interact. It is
useful in this regard to consider the cultural changes Armistead and Pettigrew (2004)
suggest; they highlight organizational shifts moving away from zero-sum toward win-win
(see Table 11). The latter reflects values of collaborative practice; the move away from
the former requires public managers to align organizational culture with external
environmental pressures. Zero-sum behavior, as Table 11 shows, depends on exclusion
and competition. Win-win behavior, on the other hand, contributes toward acting in the
54
interests of the collective rather than expecting stakeholders to adapt to a specific
organization’s objectives or political agenda (Armistead & Pettigrew, p. 578).
Table 11. Armistead & Pettigrew's Typologies of Behavior
Zero Sum Win/Win
Insincerity Trust
Aggression – no mercy! Forgiving first indiscretion
Self interest Collaboration/Cooperation
Not listening/”Crowding out” Listening carefully
Stereotyping/Making assumptions Not rushing to judgment
Lack of respect Every view is valid
Dishonesty/”Behind back” behavior Openness/Frankness
Unpredictable Consistent/Predictable
All deals are one-offs Long-term view
Bulldozing Signaling/Sensing
Win at all costs “Dare to lose”
Status and power conscious Quality of contribution rather than status
Personal gain Common goal/Passion
Adapted from Armistead and Pettigrew (2004)
Effective collaborative practice in a public management context calls for the
constant discovery of intersections. Intersections are the spaces in which capacities,
interests, and assets collide to produce something greater than the sum of its parts.
Dietrich et al. (2010) argue that organizational culture is “central to encourage interaction
and collaboration between individuals with the ability to self-organize their own
knowledge and wholeheartedly participate in communities of practice to facilitate
solutions for problems and share knowledge” (p. 62). Facilitating communities of
practice depends largely on public managers’ ability to create an environment in which
trust and mutuality are the norm. Shaping a collaborative culture, and discovering
meaning as “a pathway to reaching our true potential as both individuals and
55
organizations” is a universal responsibility both public managers and stakeholders should
take seriously (Morrison, 2003).
Because the act of collaboration involves aligning assets and norms, efforts to
work together are more likely to succeed when public managers share a similar culture.
Complementary cultures might, as Mitchell and Pattison (2012) suggest, “moderate the
influence of factors in the external environment on the acceptance of proposed reforms
and innovations” (p. 35). Further recognizing the role culture plays in collaborative
practice, Mitchell and Pattison also propose a typology of four organizational culture
types to determine the likelihood of successful performance. The typology includes the
following characteristics: 1) adaptive, externally oriented; 2) open practice; 3)
constructive; and 4) developmental (p. 34).
Adaptive, externally oriented organizational cultures pay special attention to
conditions in the external environment and position themselves to appropriately respond
to stakeholder demands. Open practice culture cultures question their conceptions of
reality and continuously challenges their ideals (Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992).
“Organizational norms of achievement and motivation, individualism and self-
actualization, and being humanistic and supportive” describe constructive cultures
(Aarons & Sawitsky, 2006). Lastly, organizations with developmental culture are
innovative, dynamic, entrepreneurial, and “outward-looking” (Mannion, Davies, &
Marshall, 2004).
The typology Mitchell and Pattison present is useful to determine the quality of
current or future collaborative efforts; they suggest, “The notions of cultural typologies,
and of variability on particular values and norms, are useful for theorizing why and how
56
organizational culture might influence intersectoral collaboration” (p. 35). Despite their
focus on the intersectoral form of collaboration, it is possible to apply the findings toward
departments because they are likely to enjoy their unique cultures and norms.
Organizational leadership and culture influence performance (Mitchell &
Pattison, 2012; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). Ogbonna and Harris’s contribution to the
discussion on culture emphasizes explicit connections between the external environment,
leadership style, organizational culture, and organizational performance. Their
conceptual model suggests that leadership style, organizational culture, and
organizational performance are “intertwined” (p. 771). Although, greater competitive
advantage is the likely result of appropriately leveraging their model, Ogbonna and
Harris admit that additional research should be done to further understand the links
between the various elements from their model. Ogbonna and Harris’s research found
that managing organizational culture is “at best difficult and at worst impossible” (p.
783). They argued for additional research to avoid becoming “complacent” about
seeking answers to understanding the central role leadership plays in making
organizations effective (citing Schein, 1985, p. 783).
Figure 4. Relationships Between Leadership, Culture, and Performance
Adapted from Ogbonna and Harris (2000)
57
2.4 Chapter Summary
Both the field and the academy should concern themselves with understanding the
factors that promote intradepartmental collaboration because it is the most frequently
occurring and understudied form of collaborative practice. The current emphasis on
external-centered collaborative practice makes it possible to oversimplify the drivers of
collaboration at a more intimate level, such as collaboration within departments. This
dissertation purposefully departs from current literature and examines intradepartmental
collaboration because literature on collaboration does not go far enough. Practitioners,
more now than ever, understand the challenges of serving communities in times of
depleting resources and demands for greater transparency. In the spirit of achieving a
purpose greater than themselves, public managers are operating in a highly complex
governance environment, they are more than agents of change, they are instruments of
“the purposes we pursue” (Sandel, 2007).
Some of the changes require public managers to implement new and innovative
ways to collaborate. Hoggett (2006) argued this point when he stated that today’s public
organizations coexist within an overflowing ecosystem where “blurring” boundaries
between actors is becoming increasingly common (p. 177). By highlighting the
determinants of collaboration, this review of relevant literature makes it possible to assess
how, when, and why collaborative practice occurs. A determinants perspective captures
insights from a broad array of existing collaboration research; the challenge and ultimate
goal, however, is to connect a broad form of collaboration with one more specific.
The four determinants of collaboration in the literature capture the essence of
what is fundamentally necessary for effective intradepartmental collaboration, at a
58
minimum, to occur. First, leadership addresses the inspirational and motivational aspects
to collaborate with people from within the same department. Second, an emphasis on
capacity building reflects the importance of having the skills necessary to collaborate
effectively. Third, policy diffusion poses the greatest challenge to public managers
because it forces them to deal with trends in the external environment and, then, figure
out ways to adapt policies to fit their conditions. Lastly, a focus on understanding
organizational culture makes it possible to identify both the possibilities for and
challenges to collaborating with stakeholders.
Just as literature focuses on collaborative experiences among external
stakeholders, it has not focused on the collaborative experiences and roles of the public
manager within his/her respective department. This study fits within the existing gap of
collaboration literature that focuses on relationships between stakeholders. Based on the
lack of scholarly information, the gap between interdepartmental collaboration research
and practice affords an opportunity to inform practice and contribute to a more resilient
and effective public sector. Together with a review of relevant literature, the analytical
methods in Chapter 3 describe an approach to discover which factors facilitate and
prohibit intradepartmental collaborative practice on one public organization.
59
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Methods and Design
This chapter identifies the procedures to administer an exploratory study. An
exploratory design such as this makes it possible to inform future research efforts that
delve deeper into theoretical perspectives of organizational behavior, power dynamics,
trust, ethics of collaboration, etc.
An exploratory approach aligns with my analytical capacity and satisfactorily
answers the following two questions:
1. What organizational factors contribute to the facilitation of intradepartmental
collaboration?
2. How do external factors impact the degree and quality of intradepartmental
collaborative efforts?
With the research questions in mind, it was important to assess comparable research
designs, weighed the appropriateness of the sample size to effectively generalize results,
evaluated my ability to complete a thorough and rigorous analysis, and also considered
data collection measures likely to yield reliable results. Next, I decided upon a sequential
exploratory design because of its practicality and applicability to the project’s
overarching objectives (Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004). Sequential implies an
order; qualitative research followed by quantitative analysis. Furthermore, I found an
exploratory study is appropriate because, as Creswell and Plano-Clark (2011) describe,
“Measures or instruments are not available, the variables are unknown, or there is no
guiding framework or theory” (p. 75).
60
Creswell and Plano-Clark also state that there are two variants of exploratory
design: instrument development model and taxonomy development model. Although
there are various differences between the two variants, a central difference is the
instrument development model’s iterative, qualitative process to design a data collection
instrument. The instrument is key to validating the study’s overall findings. The
taxonomy development model, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with
establishing theory and classifying study findings.
To effectively implement the exploratory design using an instrument development
method, Creswell and Plano-Clark suggest two clear and distinct activities. First, the
researcher creates a data collection instrument after completing a qualitative
investigation. In this phase, the researcher identifies “variables, develops a taxonomy or
classification system, or emergent theory.” Second, the researcher validates the survey
instrument quantitatively (p. 77). In short, the instrument development variant of
exploratory research aligns best to this study’s research objectives primarily because the
procedures for which it calls are feasible given the overall scope.
In line with Creswell and Plano-Clark, Brotherton (2008) argues that an
exploratory research approach might clarify key issues as well. Brotherton, supporting
exploratory research as an approach to discover aspects of a topic for which little
information exists, argues:
Where, perhaps, the situation is very new, has been previously inaccessible for
some reason or the research problem is too large or complex to address without
some initial, exploratory work, an attempt to generate some initial insights and
understanding would be of value. In this sense, a piece of exploratory research
61
designed to surface key issues and questions may be appropriate as it would help
to make the situation clearer and, possibly, set the research agenda (p. 12).
Because of the lack of literature specific to intradepartmental collaboration, an
exploratory design may inform future research. Table 12 illustrates the key differences
between other, complementary research designs
Table 12. Goals of Exploratory, Descriptive, & Explanatory Research Design
Exploratory Descriptive Explanatory
Become familiar with the
basic facts, people and
concerns involved.
Develop a well-grounded
mental picture of what is
happening.
Generate many ideas and
develop tentative theories
and conjectures.
Determine feasibility of
doing additional research.
Formulate questions and
refine issues for more
systematic inquiry.
Develop techniques and a
sense of direction for future
research.
Provide an accurate profile
of a group.
Describe a process,
mechanism, or relationship.
Give a verbal or numerical
picture.
Find information to
stimulate new explanations.
Present basic background
information or context.
Create a set of categories of
classify types.
Document information that
contradicts prior beliefs
about a subject.
Determine the accuracy of a
principle or theory.
Find out which competing
explanation is better.
Advance knowledge about
an underlying process.
Link the different issues or
topics under a common
general statement.
Build and elaborate a theory
so it becomes complete.
Extend a theory or principle
into to new areas or issues.
Provide evidence to support
or refute an explanation.
Adapted from Brotherton (2008)
Below is a list of the eight steps Creswell and Plano-Clark (p. 76) provide for
developing and administering an exploratory instrument; included in the description is a
brief summary of how the process contributed to this study.
62
1. Qualitative Data Collection: Gathered publicly available data about the study
subject from 2007-13 and participated in meetings about collaboration efforts
with members of the management team and frontline personnel (Section 3.2).
2. Qualitative Data Analysis: Assessed strategic development and fiscal trends
and their overall impact on the subject (Section 3.3).
3. Qualitative Results: Based on preliminary findings, identified three
departments for which to study: Health, Library, and Planning and Public
Works (Chapter 4).
4. Develop an Instrument: Modified an existing, trusted collaboration survey
instrument: Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (Section 3.3).
5. Quantitative Data Collection: Created an online, SurveyMonkey.com version
of the modified Wilder Instrument; worked with department managers to
administer the finalized survey over a two-week period (Appendix A).
6. Quantitative Data Analysis: Used statistical analysis methods to study survey
results (Chapter 4).
7. Quantitative Results: Identified the most prevalent factors that facilitate
intradepartmental collaboration with three departments (Chapter 4).
8. Interpretation: Identifying the connection between the results of two
sequential data collection processes (qualitative and quantitative) and their
general contributions to the study (Chapter 5).
Section 3.2 expands upon qualitative collection and review of publicly available data; it
provides a more complete overview of Yolo County as well as the reasons for selecting
this as a subject.
63
3.2 Overview of the Research Site
I chose Yolo County as the study’s subject after learning about their ongoing
efforts to learn more about how their departments collaborate with stakeholders from
other departments and other sectors. Through a colleague, I had the privilege of meeting
Mr. Patrick Blacklock, Yolo County’s Chief Administrative Officer. We discovered a
mutual interest in learning more about collaboration and how it impacts public
organizations. Shortly after the initial meeting, prepared a summary where I described
my research interests, stated the study’s overarching purpose, ideal data collection and
analysis methodology, likely outcomes, key deliverables, benefits to Yolo County, and a
draft project outline. As a result of our discussions and complementary interests, we
agreed to work together on this project. Mr. Blacklock committed County resources with
minimal interruption to daily operations. Once securing his approval, other managers
quickly organized themselves, and their resources, to support the study.
Consequently, we discussed the gaps that plague the public sector and agreed that
this study was going to connect theory and practice by focusing on Yolo County’s needs,
which include 1) an objective examination of the factors that influence intradepartmental
collaboration and 2) recommendations to improve collaborative practice. In the
following sections, I introduce Yolo County broadly and to establish context (Section
3.2.1). Subsequently, I provide more detailed information on the subjects of this study:
Health Department, Section 3.2.2; Library Department, Section 3.2.3; and Planning and
Public Works, Section 3.2.4. A closer look at the individuals departments illustrates the
affects of changes in full-time equivalent (FTEs) personnel, operational restructuring, and
strategic fiscal management.
64
3.2.1 Introduction to Yolo County
Yolo County is located near Sacramento, CA; it is approximately 420 north of the
City of Los Angeles. According to the visitor’s bureau website, Yolo, in the native
Poewin Indian language means, “abounding in the rushes.” Founded in 1849, Yolo
County is an agricultural enclave, which spans 1,021 square miles and has a population
over 200,000. Yolo County is adjacent to the City of Sacramento and serves the
following four cities: Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento, and Winters. The City of
Davis is the prominent force in the region; it is home to the local state university, is the
most populated, and is the single largest employer countywide.
Table 13. Yolo County Population
Cities Population Percentage
Davis 65,052 32%
Winters 6,839 3%
Woodland 55,646 28%
West Sacramento 49,292 24%
Unincorporated 25,304 13%
Total 202,133 100%
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (2012) and U.S. Census (2012)
To better understand a community’s needs and characteristics, McDavid and
Hawthorn (2006) advocate using U.S. Census data. Citing Soriano (1995), they argue:
[D]emographic information on the age and gender distributions in a region might
be used to roughly gauge the need for services for the elderly. The assumption
that it is strongly associated with the need for services that target older persons
can be corroborated by developing demographic profiles of existing clients for
services for the elderly where such services are provided, and then comparing
client profiles to the population demographics (p. 217).
65
U.S. Census data paints a picture of what Yolo County looks like from the perspective of
its residents. From Table 14, it is evident that the City of Davis enjoys both the best and
worst demographic characteristics of all cities in Yolo County; for example, it has the
highest poverty rates and, because of the university, has the highest percentage of
residents with college degrees. Yolo County’s residents, for the most part, are female,
white, own their own home, and enjoy household incomes above $54,000. Interestingly,
the least populated city, Winters, has the highest percentage of individuals that speak a
language other than English, 41.4 percent. The fact that Winters’s “leading economic
activity is agriculture” may influence its demographic figures (County of Yolo
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2012).
Table 14. Yolo County Demographics
Davis
West
Sacramento
Winters Woodland
Yolo
County
Poverty 26.2% 18.9% 9.5% 11.3% 18.6%
Homeownership 44.6% 59.2% 65.3% 58% 54%
Median Income $61,182 $54,040 $59,559 $56,859 $57,920
College Degree 69.3% 24.9% 21.2% 24.1% 38.4%
Language other
than English
26.8% 37.1% 41.4% 39.1% 34.5%
Predominant Sex
(Female)
50.8%
(Female)
50.8%
(Female)
52.1%
(Female)
51.5%
(Female)
51.9%
Predominant
Race/Ethnicity
(White)
58.9%
(White)
47.4%
(White)
40.1%
(White)
44.9%
(White)
50.3%
Source: U.S. Census (2012)
Aside from studying demographic information, one way to assess the County’s
overall condition is to analyze its fiscal performance by way of its General Fund and
General Reserve Fund. A general fund is “a major county operating fund used to account
66
for all financial sources and uses, except for those required to be accounted for in another
fund” (2009-10 Yolo County Budget Appendices, 2009, p. 381). Yolo County
administrators manage a general reserve fund in accordance with laws of the State of
California, which stipulate, “that a local government should maintain a general reserve
between five percent and 15 percent of expenditures…these funds cannot be spent except
in emergencies” (p. 381). The 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
reports that Yolo County personnel are in the midst of developing a comprehensive,
forward-thinking tactical plan. The three-year plan includes strategies designed to
promote financial sustainability, infuse monies into the General Fund, “allow for
adequate contingencies during the budget year,” and increase transparency (p. iv).
Prior to 2007, Yolo County’s General Fund regularly hovered around $70 million;
it experienced its first major decline of nearly $10 million between 2008-09. Since 2007,
the General Fund has declined by $32.6 million and averages approximately $55 million;
the most significant drop occurred during 2011-12. Per the CAFR, fiscal changes are due
to significant revenue decreases; Table 15 offers a snapshot of the changes between 2012
and 2011. Although revenue from taxes and licenses and permits has increased, the
losses from fines, forfeitures, and penalties, intergovernmental, charges for services, and
other revenue are substantial and overshadow gains. The CAFR reports that 2012-13
revenue levels “have not increased sufficiently to fund the increased costs of providing
the same level of services causing the County to continue with reduced service levels” (p.
16).
67
Table 15. Revenues in Governmental Funds (in thousands)
2012 2011 Change
Revenue Sources Amount
% of
Total
Amount
% of
Total
Amount
% of
Total
Taxes $47,550 19.8% $46,790 19.1% $760 1.6%
Licenses and permits $6,524 2.7% $5,685 2.3% $839 14.8%
Fines, forfeitures and
penalties
$8,397 3.5% $8,904 3.6% -$507 -5.7%
Use of money and
property
$1,625 0.7% $1,568 0.6% $57 3.6%
Intergovernmental $149,181 62.2% $150,902 61.5% -$1,721 -1.1%
Charges for services $23,916 10.0% $27,476 11.2% -$3,560 -13.0%
Other revenue $2,575 1.1% $4,082 1.7% -$1,507 -36.9
Totals $239,768 100% $245,407 100% -$5,639 -2.3%
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (2012)
Indeed, Figure 5 tells only part of the story; combined with other data, it is
possible to ascertain what else occurred within the County. The state of the General
Reserve Fund is another way to assess a public organization’s fiscal condition. In a
similar fashion, Figure 6 illustrates a sudden drop in Yolo County’s General Reserve
Fund between 2007 and 2009. The County of Yolo Recommended Budget 2012-13 notes
that budgets from 2008 to 2011 relied heavily on the General Reserve to support
“ongoing” programs. In 2011, the Board of Supervisors directed Yolo personnel to
preserve this fund solely for “unexpected” emergencies (p. ii). The letter to the Board
states:
It is recommended that the General Fund reserve continue to be maintained at its
[2012] current level and reviewed at Adopted Budget hearings for possible
augmentation in accordance with the Board’s Reserve Policy (p. ii).
At its peak, the General Reserve Fund’s balance was $8.2 million. General Reserve Fund
amounts stabilized in 2009 below $4 million, a reduction of nearly $4 million from 2007.
At its lowest points, 2010 and 2011, the Reserve Fund dropped to as low as $3.7 million,
68
55 percent smaller than the original level in 2007. To date, the Reserve Fund has reduced
in size by 47 percent. In a sign of effective, strategic fiscal management, the Reserve
Fund enjoyed an increase of $.8 million during the 2012-13 period (CAFR, p. 16).
Figure 5. General Fund Performance
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
Figure 6. General Reserve Fund Performance
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
69
The General Fund and the General Reserve Fund provide a clear overview of the
County’s fiscal health. They also inform assumptions about what has happened, is
happening, and is likely to happen throughout the organization. For example, if the
County’s General Fund is low, public managers will face decisions about how to either
adjust or cut programs. Since the beginning of the economic crisis, Yolo County
managers have implemented changes that included “a balanced array of cost reductions
comprised of program restructuring, elimination of vacant positions and employee
concessions” (Chief Administrator’s Letter to the Board of Supervisors, 2012). The
CAFR indicates the following events as a result of the County’s economic condition: a
five percent decrease in agriculture, parks, and resources; a one percent increase in
capital projects funding since 2007; a 10 percent decrease in the general government
budget between 2011-12; an eight percent decrease for the health and human services
budget; and a 10 percent budget increase for the Planning and Public Works Department
(see Table 16). Reviewing budget trends since 2007, the Health and Human Services
suffered the greatest overall losses; Planning and Public Works, on the other hand,
enjoyed the most notable increases.
70
Table 16. Percentage of Budget Spending by Program Area
Program 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2007-2012
Change
Agriculture, Parks, &
Resources
5% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% -5%
Capital Projects 0% 9% 6% 3% 1% 1% 1%
Debt Services 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
General Government 14% 21% 23% 27% 27% 17% 3%
Health and Human
Services
50% 34% 35% 36% 40% 42% -8%
Law and Justice 21% 21% 21% 21% 22% 23% 2%
Planning and Public
Works
10% 10% 12% 13% 10% 17% 7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
In light of the unstable economy, Yolo County, as an organization, found ways to
remain committed to its mission through strategic collaborative practice. Given its recent
challenges, which include increased demands for service, the organization has invested
resources to identify ways to improve the quality of their partnerships with both internal
and external stakeholders. Based on Yolo County’s Tactical Plan, it is evident that their
efforts align with this study’s intended purpose. Fortunately, the County’s goal to
“collaborate to maximize success” signals the importance of positioning organizational
assets to sustain changes over the long term. Such assets include County personnel and
their corresponding expertise. Figure 7 communicates the County’s inclusive,
comprehensive collaboration strategy as a means to succeed.
To maximize success, Yolo County implemented a strategy dependent on
activities that promote key elements of collaboration, such as sharing responsibility,
unified goals and objectives, culture based on mutuality, and the integration of services to
spark innovation and build collaborative capacity. Similarly, their objectives advance the
County’s collaboration agenda in an intentional and transparent way. The widely used
71
acronym SMART (specific, measureable, actionable, relevant and timely) depicts
managers’ goal-setting approach. Regarding objectives, Yolo County includes both
internal and external stakeholders as part of a larger, more comprehensive strategy to
establish a collaboration culture in which partners “share service priorities” and raise
program funds to support their work.
Figure 7. Tactical Plan
Adapted from Yolo County Tactical Plan (2012)
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), according Yolo County’s
website, is “an independent agency responsible for implementation of the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzbert Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000.” Comprised of a diverse
Three-Year Tactical Plan for Board of Supervisors
Goal: Collaborate to maximize success
KEY CONCEPTS (Actionable items reflected in meaning)
OBJECTIVES (SMART-based outcomes that advance the goals and can be achieved in the next three years)
Yolo County works with internal and external partners to maximize success for all residents through shared vision and
collaborative service development
D. County cultural shift to
stimulate participation
includes comprehensive
training, leadership support,
recognition of existing
programs and legislative
funding for current and
future efforts.
Shared services are jointly
funded and mutual aid
capacity is developed among
participating partners with
efficient and innovative
outcomes. Programs
acknowledge fiscal and
organizational challenges.
A culture of collaboration is
valued and fostered at all
levels. Collaborative
programs are evaluated on an
ongoing basis to maintain
benefit to all partners.
Partners share common goals
to create a strong Yolo
County, pooling broad
resources for mutual benefit.
County and community
partners share responsibility,
accountability and risk, and
agreed upon definitions of
success through non-
competitive, supportive
relationships.
E. Shared service priorities
and agreements between
County, cities, special
districts and other support
agencies to formalize
relationships through
LAFCo.
F. Joint funding obtained to
support collaborative
priorities.
A. Programs and policies for
collaboration efforts
throughout the county,
including recommendations
for internal and external
partners and evaluation
audits
B. Platform of tools to
encourage shared services
and criteria to seek and foster
relationships.
C. Internal and external
operating clearinghouse to
identify and administer
collaborative projects and
shared service opportunities.
Fiscally and structurally
feasible
Collaborative and
cooperative service
development
Shared vision and mutual
benefit
Sustainablity and long-
term effectiveness
72
group of stakeholders, LAFCo is the decision-making body that oversees “city
annexations, consolidations, boundary changes, and incorporations special districts.”
The Tactical Plan also communicates a proactive, yet mindful attitude toward
developing and advancing objectives. This attention to objectives, as well as the
emphasis on strengthening relationships among partners, suggests the presence of an
open, forward-thinking, outcomes-based orientation toward collaboration. Through the
plan, stakeholders have a sense of what is expected of them, clarifies tasks, and connects
actions to the larger vision for the County. Locke and Latham (2006), describing the
benefits of task clarity and communication, note:
The key moderators of goal setting are feedback, which people need in order to
track their progress; commitment to the goal, which is enhanced by self-efficacy
and viewing the goal as important; task complexity, to the extent that task
knowledge is harder to acquire on complex tasks; and institutional constraints (p.
265).
The Tactical Plan is a tool on which partners may depend to reinforce their commitment
to a goal or a particular set of goals. Together, participating stakeholders take advantage
of the ability to self-define efficacy as they make sense and take ownership of their
commitment to their goals. It is possible that, through this approach, partners find
comfort in tackling complicated risks together.
In a similar light, Figure 8 depicts the key factors that impact the quality and
effectiveness of Yolo County’s collaborative efforts. According to the Tactical Plan, the
two crucial elements that maximize success include: 1) County and 2) Community. The
County element contributes assets and resources that support infrastructure, e.g., internal
73
collaboration among departments, recognition and incentives for performance, and
financial support. The Community element affords an opportunity to work with a wide
array of external stakeholders and access to diverse sources of unrestricted funding.
Together, the two elements create a unique dynamic that encompasses the best of
community and county; the products of this strategy include improved leadership,
cultural support to change, and policy shift.
The diagram highlights the contributions both the County and Community make
toward affecting change. The intersection of the three elements should result in
stakeholders realizing, according to the Tactical Plan, “shared service models and
expanded services and programs.” The sharing of models present opportunities to
discover new service approaches and, more importantly, activates action-oriented
processes that integrate resources, capacity, and function with limited bureaucratic
hindrances. When County and Community elements work together to impact policy, the
act of aligning external and internal stakeholders is likely to result in long-standing
changes that satisfy expectations.
74
Figure 8. Collaboration to Maximize Success
Adapted from the Yolo County 2012-2015 Tactical Plan
Although Yolo County personnel have strived to improve the manner in which
they collaborate with stakeholders, the organization functions within a stark reality: there
is fewer staff on board to carry out the mission. The ratio of full-time equivalent (FTE)
personnel to residents offers useful information about possible workloads and factors that
influence prioritizing public programs and services. In 2012, the County defines a FTE
by the number of work hours per year. In other words, one FTE works 2,080 hours per
year, or 40 hours per week for 52 weeks, including vacation; similarly, two individuals
working 1,040 hours per year, or 20 hours per week for 52 weeks make up one FTE.
Typically, FTE calculations serve as management tools that organizations use to forecast
and estimate costs, workload, and other resource requirements to support activities
(Internal Revenue Service, 2013).
75
In a public discussion about FTE to population industry standard, the International
City/County Management Association (2010) noted it is “difficult to ‘normalize’ the ratio
because of the need to consider services delivered.” The ratio is an important indicator of
the changes the organization has endured (see Figure 9). Prior to 2008, population rates
remained near 200,000 and the FTE to population ratio never dropped below 8.0. With a
7.3 FTE to population ratio, 2009 was the start of a new paradigm at Yolo County that
saw the number gradually decline.
Figure 9. FTEs per 1,000 Residents
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
The ratio of Yolo County personnel to residents is likely to influence
organizational culture as well as administrative and operational processes. The point of
highlighting FTE levels is to introduce the likely impact of reduced FTEs as a result of
limited resources in a time when the population’s demand services increase. Regardless
of the condition of resources, public organizations have to find new ways of meeting or
exceeding community needs or expectations. Indeed, a smaller FTE to population
presents collaboration as a worthwhile and necessary service approach.
76
Figure 10. Yolo County Organizational Chart
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (2012)
Having examined information at the organizational level, it is also important to
explore how three Yolo County departments faired in the midst of the economic
downturn: Health, Library, and Planning & Public Works. Sections 3.2.2 to 3.2.4 assess
77
the departmental structures, FTE levels, and operating budgets to offer more in-depth
details. For additional context, Figure 10 offers a pictorial representation Yolo County’s
structure and reporting relationships.
3.2.2 Health Department
Under the auspices of the Health and Human Services section, the Health
department is the center of the County’s social safety net. The Health department’s
mission and vision outline its intent to enhance quality of life by promoting safety and
preventing injury. The Health department’s goals for 2012-13 include:
1. Expand and enhance health care services for low-income adults;
2. Promote healthy behaviors in the community
3. Strengthen Yolo County families; and
4. Create a culture of quality within the department.
The Health department’s fourth goal, especially, communicates a commitment to
safeguarding the community’s access to services that ensure an improved quality of life.
Despite an 11 percent budget reduction in 2009, the Health department found ways to
remain viable in light of its financial condition. In 2011, for example, the Health
department captured funds from other government sources. As a result of their efforts,
the Department’s operating budget increased by $7 million, from $19 million to $26
million (see Figure 11).
The changed in the economy forced the Health department to adapt and find new
ways to continue serving the community in a different capacity. Instead of direct service
provision, contract and relationship management became the new normal; it is, therefore,
78
likely that the practice of outsourcing influenced or reshaped the Health department’s
culture.
Invariably, the Health department has endured many changes and challenges since
2007. This department, more than the others in this study, is an interesting subject
because of its ability to sustain operations in light of increasing demands for service.
From a review of the publicly available information, Health department managers
demonstrated the ability to innovate new service approaches, such as regionalizing the
public health laboratory, sharing services with other County departments, implementing
revenue-generating health services for low-income residents, etc. This approach to
administering services continues to contribute to the Health department’s overall success.
As with the other departments in this study, the Health department experienced
greater personnel losses as a result of the declining economy. Since 2007, the department
sustained a 50 percent drop in FTEs, from 137 in 2007 to 69 in 2012 (see Figure 12).
Equipped with this information, it is possible to assume the sense of urgency managers
and frontline personnel felt. Figure 13 shows the distribution of personnel throughout the
Health Department; Medical Services activities, which include Emergency Medical
Services, Indigent Healthcare, Detention Medical Services, and Children’s Services, do
not have personnel assigned to administer services. Instead, the Health Department
outsources corresponding services to external vendors, such as California Medical
Forensic Group, Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Partnership
Health Plan, and the University of California, Davis Medical Center. The Health
Department found success in its move beyond direct service provision by developing the
capacity to purchase services from external vendors. After 2009, the Health Department
79
also had to do without Tobacco Tax Funds—a longstanding source of funding that
averaged $184,367. Table 17 reports the funds allocated to the activities for the Health
Department.
Figure 11. Health Department Budget
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
Figure 12. Health Department FTE Levels
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
80
Figure 13. Health Department Organizational Chart
Source: 2012-2013 Yolo County Budget
Despite fiscal and operational challenges, the Health Department also
demonstrates the power of resiliency and innovation. To date, the Health Department’s
operating budget is greater than it was at the height of the Great Recession; perhaps
personnel discovered their ability to innovate through instability and crisis. Interestingly,
Yolo County departments experienced the Great Recession differently. This section
illustrated aspects of the Library department’s experience from 2007 to 2012. The
assessment presented fluctuations in both finances and personnel that inform assumptions
about how environmental shifts impacted the department’s service strategy. Section 3.2.3
looks at the Library department through the same lens and examines its approach to
promoting collaboration as a means to enhance civic engagement and participation.
81
Table 17. Health Department Budget Overview
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Adult-Juvenile Medical Detention Services $2,895,472 $3,186,572 $3,341,547 $3,388,716 $3,314,702 $3,214,201
Children’s Medical Services $2,220,125 $2,093,649 $1,952,437 $1,922,770 $1,958,317 $2,171,303
Community Health $7,619,793 $7,327,577 $5,542,575 $3,685,974 $3,990,621 $5,527,981
Elder Care $40,000 $40,000 $44,000 $0 $20,000 $25,400
Emergency Medical Services $752,804 $1,068,776 $2,225,000 $2,817,000 $2,817,000 $2,817,000
Environmental Health $3,116,619 $2,850,801 $2,918,578 $2,760,166 $3,058,627 $3,249,750
Indigent Care $5,219,053 $4,907,057 $3,045,087 $4,447,168 $11,000,000 $6,659,078
Tobacco Tax Funds $210,647 $217,421 $134,033 $0 $0 $0
Total $22,074,513 $21,691,853 $19,203,257 $19,021,794 $26,159,267 $23,664,713
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
82
3.2.3 Library Department
The Library department is part of Yolo County’s General Government operations.
According to the 2012 Budget report to the Board of Supervisors, the Library
department’s mission is to “provide access for all to books, information technology and
other media to inform, entertain, and inspire.” The Library department’s goals for 2012-
13 include:
1. Champion job creation and economic activities;
2. Preserve and support agriculture through the Farm-to-School program;
3. Collaborate to maximize success;
4. Enhance and sustain the safety net; and
5. Provide fiscally sound and dynamic responsive services.
Notably, the Library department is the only one from this study to list collaboration as a
goal. The list of goals also demonstrates the Library department’s ability to go beyond
traditional library services. In every respect, the Library department is the smallest of the
three involved in this study.
To address fiscal challenges, Library department personnel and County
administrators worked together to find ways to avoid problems that could impact service
quality. During 2008-09, for example, the Library department used revenue from parcel
taxes to cover expenses. Similarly in 2009-10, the Library department “received three
percent of their revenue from the general fund and seven percent from the use of
reserves” (2009-10 Budget, p. 276). Library department personnel successfully sought
alternate ways to fund their operations; some of the fundraising ideas included leveraging
and maximizing existing assets to augment their work, such as Friends of the Library,
83
Library Advisory Board, and other advocacy and support organizations (p. 276). Unlike
other departments, the Library’s budget experienced minimal losses; its operating budget
has enjoyed relative stability since 2007 (see Figure 14 and Table 18).
Figure 14. Library Budget Overview
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
A sign of the Library department’s growing fiscal stability since 2007, FTE levels
remained relatively unchanged (see Figure 15). Unlike the other two departments in this
study, the Library, on the surface, appears to have emerged from the height economic
downturn virtually unscathed. The reason for their success, based on a review of reports
to the Board of Supervisors, is personnel’s ability to 1) staff Library sections
strategically; 2) mobilize a supportive community network; 3) provide a diversity of
services, such as free income tax preparation and community volunteers to teach a variety
of workshops; and 4) offer YoloLink/211 (a free resource for the community to identify
and access social services). Another reason for the Library department’s success is the
strategic nature of their 2012-2013 goals, which include: “the creation of economic
84
opportunities; advance innovation; collaborate to achieve success; and provide fiscally
sound and dynamic response services” (p. 153). The organizational chart in Figure 16 for
the Library department illustrates the manner in which personnel staff the various
subsections.
Figure 15. Library Department FTE Levels
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
Figure 16. Library Department Organizational Chart
Source: 2012-2013 Yolo County Budget
85
Employing perhaps the most community-centered of all approaches, the Library
manages to maintain a broad service foundation. With the help of residents as volunteers,
Library department administers services the community needs to improve the quality of
their lives. Programs, such as those that offer free income tax preparation and literacy
assistance for farmworkers, serve to close the gaps in the safety net that the economic
downturn caused. The Library department, in a facilitative role, demonstrated the ways
innovation and inclusiveness address the sort of problems too complex for any
organization to solve alone.
By 2012, the three departments were fiscally stronger despite a few turbulent
years; the Planning and Public Works (Planning) department, however, enjoyed the most
noteworthy fiscal windfalls. Section 3.2.4 showcases strategies the Planning department
undertook to maintain service quality and employ sound business practices to safeguard
public resources.
86
Table 18. Library Department Budget Overview
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Library $4,671,972 $4,928,211 $6,045,005 $5,701,563 $5,595,102 $5,966,045
Archives and Records Center $144,999 $153,559 $128,903 $118,054 $123,229 $132,268
211 Yolo $52,912 $72,579 $62,883 $72,613 $112,625 $134,520
Total $4,869,883 $5,154,349 $6,236,791 $5,892,230 $5,830,956 $6,232,833
Source: Compilation of official budget records
87
3.2.4 Planning and Public Works Department
One of the largest departments within Yolo County, the Planning and Public
Works (Planning) is responsible for maintaining the County’s infrastructure and
development activities. The Planning department’s mission is to “provid[e] road
maintenance, land-use planning, building inspections, County Service Area Services,
integrated waste management and fleet services in Yolo County through excellent
customer service and responsible financial management” (2012-2013 Planning Budget, p.
61). The 2012-13 Planning department goals include:
1. Effective planning/building services with balanced regulations;
2. Safe, efficient, fiscally manageable county roadway system;
3. Operation of a fully integrated county/city waste management system;
4. Fleet operations that ensure customer satisfaction and cost effective asset
management; and
5. Develop organizational efficiencies for diminishing budgets/services.
The list of goals underscores the Planning department’s commitment to employing sound
business practices that enhance and preserve service quality. Compared to the other two
departments, which address grand community-wide impact, the list of goals for the
Planning department is more specific and service and task oriented.
In light of noticeable reductions in personnel, the Planning department continually
seeks ways to increase revenue. For example, the Roads and Integrated Waste
subsections secured grants that contributed to increases the Planning department’s overall
operating budget. The grants support fifteen capital development projects for activities
that include road widening, railroad safety enhancements, and bridge construction and
88
repair. Figure 17 shows the Planning 2012-13 budget is over $50.8 million, an increase
of nearly $14 million from 2007.
Figure 17. Planning and Public Works Department Budget Overview
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
Given an unstable economic landscape, Planning department managers and
frontline personnel had to implement strategies to better manage stakeholders’ increasing
demands for services. Facing shortfalls in 2010, the Planning department personnel
decided to keep certain positions vacant due to “continued flatness in regional economic
development activity.” The list of unfilled positions includes principal planner, code
enforcement officer, building inspector, and principal counter technician (2009-2010
Yolo County Budget, p. 94). Figure 18 shows the shifting personnel numbers from 2007;
Figure 19 highlights where personnel work within Planning.
Through a review of the 2012-13 Budget, it appears as though an emphasis on
streamlining operations to create efficiencies and effective competitive bid process
allowed the Planning department to optimize both resources and assets (see Table 19).
With a larger operating budget and fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel on hand,
89
the Planning department proved that doing more with less is possible without
compromising service quality.
Figure 18. Planning and Public Works Department FTE Levels
Source: Compilation of official department records
Figure 19. Planning and Public Works Department Organizational Chart
Source: 2012-2013 Yolo County Budget
In summary, service outsourcing and collaborative service provision shape the
narrative that describes what has transpired since 2007. The three departments in this
study experienced the impact of the Great Recession in their own way. To some degree,
however, leaner departments discovered ways to innovate themselves into positions
where they now enjoy greater financial stability. Doing more with less is a common
90
theme among the three departments and defines the new normal within which the
departments operate. Service provision, resource management, and the functions of both
internal and external stakeholders have also changed: some are became volunteers, some
became partners, and others became vendors. What is clear from analyzing public
records is that the departments navigated economic uncertainty in relative ways unique to
their mission, vision, and capacity.
The remainder of this chapter describes the manner in which data explains the
state of collaboration within the three respective departments beyond reports and budgets.
In Section 3.3, I introduce the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (CFI) as a means
to complete such an in-depth examination. As a proven resource to study collaboration,
the CFI is an appropriate tool for this study; below, I argue for both its effectiveness and
applicability to this dissertation and offer details about the sources of data for this study
as well as its limitations and strengths.
91
Table 19. Planning and Public Works Department Budget Overview
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Building and Planning $3,142,484 $2,959,537 $3,110,733 $2,428,034 $2,013,422 $2,927,937
County Surveyor $38,150 $30,900 $31,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000
Integrated Waste $12,369,974 $10,398,746 $12,049,055 $11,909,938 $9,901,658 $14,264,615
Transportation $281,038 $290,000 $280,055 $280,949 $296,927 $275,555
Roads $20,898,788 $20,526,570 $25,160,750 $23,742,483 $17,443,242 $28,157,750
Fleet Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,483,912 $1,883,613
County Service Area $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,161,417 $3,185,329
Total $36,730,434 $34,205,753 $40,631,593 $38,431,404 $34,370,578 $50,764,799
Source: Compilation of official budget documents
103
3.3 Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory
Using the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory, quantitative data facilitated
analysis of the elements of intradepartmental collaboration at Yolo County. Available
online and free of charge through the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, Mattessich,
Murray-Close, and Monsey (2001) developed the survey to assess collaboration
effectiveness. The authors permit the use of the survey tool for noncommercial purposes
(Derose, Beatty, & Jackson, 2004). Describing the instrument, the Foundation’s website
(www.wilder.org) noted:
The inventory takes about fifteen minutes to complete. It can be distributed to a
small group of leaders in the collaborative, during a general meeting, or via email
to all members for the most complete picture. You can tally your score manually
or online.
My dissertation committee, Yolo County executives, and I agreed that the survey
satisfied our data collection needs and met our research expectations. In the original
version of the instrument, Mattessich et al. (2001) listed 40 questions that assessed 20
factors that coincide with six overarching categories, which Derose et al. (2004)
suggested, “contribute to success of collaboration” (p. 52). The six Wilder categories
include organizational environment; member characteristics; process and structure;
communication; purpose; and resources. The final version of the survey instrument
contained 39 Likert-type questions; I deleted one item because I agreed with Yolo
County personnel that it was redundant. The five scale response options included: 5
(strongly agree); 4 (agree); 3 (no opinion/neutral); 2 (disagree); and 1 (strongly disagree).
104
To maximize the study’s richness and offer greater analysis, the survey instrument
also collected participants’ demographic data, such as tenure, sex, age, position,
department and corresponding subsection. The survey also contained dropdown menus
with preloaded response options to these multiple-choice questions in an effort to avoid
data entry errors.
In their influential report, “Evaluation of Community Voices in Miami: Affecting
Health Policy for the Uninsured,” Derose et al. used the Wilder instrument as their
primary evaluation tool. Derose et al. demonstrated the tool’s adaptability and diversity.
Ultimately, in the Miami study, the instrument informed their recommendations for
policymakers and practitioners alike. Table 20 organizes and summarizes the
collaboration factors the survey assesses.
The Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory is a reliable instrument. Multiple
researchers have used the tool to assess both the strengths and weaknesses of
collaborative practice (Hill, Guernsey de Zapien, Stewart, Whitmer, Caruso, Dodge,
Kirkoff, Melo, & Staten, 2007). Townsend and Shelley (2008) credit Derose et al. (2004)
for their work; they stated their work “provided additional support to the structure of the
Wilder instrument as an appropriate measure of collaborative efforts” (p. 104).
Regarding the 20 collaboration factors, Townsend and Shelley also stated that Derose et
al. clearly established the reliability of 17 of the 20 factors; they did not analyze the
remaining three factors because only one question was used to measure them (p. 104).
105
Table 20. Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory
Wilder Category 20 Wilder Factors (Number of Corresponding Questions)
Environment 1. History of collaboration or cooperation in the community
(2)
2. Collaborative group seen as a legitimate leader in the
organization (2)
3. Favorable political and social climate (2)
Membership
characteristics
4. Mutual respect, understanding, and trust (2)
5. Appropriate cross-section of members (1)
6. Members see collaboration as in their self-interest (1)
7. Ability to compromise (1)
Process and structure 8. Members share a stake in both process and outcomes (3)
9. Multiple layers of participation (2)
10. Flexibility (2)
11. Development of clear roles and policy guidelines (2)
12. Adaptability (2)
13. Appropriate pace of development (2)
Communication 14. Open and frequent communication (3)
15. Established informal relationships and communication
links (2)
Purpose 16. Concrete, attainable objectives (3)
17. Shared vision (2)
18. Unique purpose (2)
Resources 19. Sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time (2)
20. Skilled leadership (1)
Adapted from Townsend & Shelley (2008); Derose et al. (2004)
Using the Wilder inventory makes sense because researchers have demonstrated
its benefits and reliability; along with the prior research I noted above, several recent
doctoral dissertations, such as those by McCollum-Cloud (2008), Greene (2010), Nugent
(2011), Culver-Dockins (2012), and Czajkowski (2006), have demonstrated the Wilder
instrument’s applicability to rigorously studying the complex and diverse practice of
collaboration.
106
In summary, there is no other existing validated survey instrument with which to
study collaboration. Prior research based on the CFI has proved its reliability and
provided support for its use in this project. Ultimately, the survey instrument is both
practical and feasible given the subject and the project’s context; more importantly, it
yields quality data without compromising standards of rigor for exploratory research.
Having discussed the intricacies of the survey instrument, the following section provides
greater detail about the study’s subject, Yolo County, and the corresponding departments:
Health, Library, and Planning and Public Works.
3.3.1 Data Sources
This dissertation uses two data sources and collection techniques. First, through
an online search, I gathered and analyzed publicly available information about Yolo
County. Specifically, I examined official annual reports from the chief administrative
officer to the Board of Supervisors; then I focused my attention on notable changes in
two key areas that occurred between 2007 and 2013. The first, fiscal performance,
allowed me to observe how Yolo County fared during the Great Recession. The focus of
the analysis was to identify and assess the degree to which changes in full-time
equivalent personnel (FTEs) and budget allocations impacted service provision and
public management strategies. Similarly, a focus on strategic resource development
informed my assumptions about the way in which personnel adapted to shifts in the
external environment, e.g., by establishing new partnerships to offset costs and improve
efficiency and effectiveness, seeking alternate forms of funding, or incorporating
revenue-sharing activities, etc. A records review, along with discussions with Yolo
107
County personnel, helped me decide which departments to engage as well as assess their
ability to implement recommendations resulting from the study.
Hoping that results would be generalizable throughout Yolo County, the units of
analysis were both full- and part-time personnel from three departments: Planning and
Public Works, Health, and Library. Initially, however, only Planning and Public Works
was going to participate in the study. I added the other two—Library and Health—after
recommendations from Yolo County executives and members of my research committee,
respectively. Notably, Library Department personnel have actively led collaboration
efforts and task forces involving internal and external stakeholders; their experience in
this work yielded useful insights.
I conferred with my research committee and Yolo County executives to adapt the
Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory to fit this study. Together, we modified the pre-
existing instrument to more appropriately assess attitudes and perspectives toward
collaborative practice within the three departments. A copy of the original Wilder
Collaborations Factor Inventory is located in the Appendix. With the help of department
managers, personnel received a personalized letter that introduced the study, outlined its
benefits, and likely outcomes. The online survey, without incentives for participation,
was active for two weeks (Deutskens, Ruyter, Wetzels, & Oosterveld, 2004). After
vetting several online survey options, I chose SurveyMonkey.com because Yolo County
personnel frequently use the service for training purposes. In his book, “Research
Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,” Creswell (2009)
noted the prevalence of online survey collection services and identified
SurveyMonkey.com as one viable data collection option.
108
I pretested the survey instrument with a select group of five experienced public
managers. The purpose of a pretest is to ensure “that the questions are clear, and that the
instrument as whole ‘works’ [and] is an essential step in increasing the validity and
reliability of the measures” (McDavid & Hawthorn, 2006). During the pretest phase,
respondents suggested that I reword some of the questions for clarity, consider removing
redundant questions, and compare and contrast select online survey services, e.g., Google
Forms, SurveyMonkey.com, and Polldaddy.com. A few pretest responders also
recommended a two-week window for Yolo County personnel to complete the survey
along with periodic reminders.
The feedback from the pretest informed the final version of the survey instrument.
After the pretest, the survey instrument needed to undergo one other formal review
process: Institutional Review Board (IRB). To protect respondents from either real or
perceived harm and to uphold ethical research practices, USC’s IRB reviewed and
approved the survey instrument. As a result of the IRB review, the data collection
process ensures participants’ rights and upholds their expectation of privacy. All in all,
the process reflects honest intent (Creswell, 2008).
I initiated the online survey with the help of three department managers. They
agreed to distribute an email containing the letter in which I introduce the survey and
describe its benefits and likely outcomes. The intent behind this approach was to avoid
the appearance of an unsolicited email invitation from a stranger; I believed this would
also promote a higher rate of response. The letter contained a custom
SurveyMonkey.com hyperlink (www.surveymonkey.com/s/YoloCounty-Collaboration)
that directed recipients to the online version of the Wilder Collaboration Factors
109
Inventory. All full- and part-time personnel from the three departments, 201 individuals
had the opportunity to participate in the study, out of which 68, or 31 percent, completed
the survey. An overall response rate above 30 percent for online surveys is appropriate
(University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2010). From the 68 respondents, six started but did
not complete the online survey—those that did not finish the survey completed only the
demographic questions (N=62).
Among the demographic questions, participants had the option to self-identify
their professional capacity within the County. I asked them to identify whether they
worked as a manager or as front-line personnel. I defined management, simply, as
responsible for supervising employees. In addition, I defined front-line personnel as
those responsible for administering day-to-day County business with no supervisory
obligations. Differentiating between the personnel types was important for measuring
perceptions and interpretations of collaborative practice from their respective
experiences. Table 21 illustrates the distribution of responses among the three
departments.
110
Table 21. Data Sources and Response Rates
Department and Subunits Response (Actual) Response (%)
Health (76 FTEs)
Indigent Healthcare 1 5%
Community Health 9 47%
Emergency Medical Services 3 16%
Children’s Medical Services 1 5%
Environmental Health 5 26%
Health Department Total N=19/76 FTEs 25%
Response Rate
Library (47 FTEs)
Library Branches 16 73%
Central Library Administration 2 9%
YoloLink/211 1 5%
Central Library Technical Services 3 14%
Library Department Total N=22/47 FTEs 47%
Response Rate
Planning (78 FTEs)
Public Works & Roads 9 43%
Fleet Services 2 10%
Integrated Waste 8 38%
Building & Planning 2 10%
Planning Department Total N=21/78 FTEs 27%
Response Rate
The online survey captured information from each department, as Table 21
demonstrates. With a 47 percent response rate, personnel from the Library Department
participated in greater numbers than the other two departments: 27 percent for Planning
and 25 percent for Health. Perhaps the Library achieved a higher response rate because
maximizing collaboration is one of its goals for 2012-13 or because they are more heavily
concentrated in fewer subsections. Given survey participation levels and our collective
efforts to design a useful instrument, it is necessary to consider both the strengths and
limitations of the data sources. The following section describes the steps I took to ensure
academic rigor and avoid potentially jeopardizing validity and reliability.
111
3.3.2 Limitations and Strengths of Data Sources
A proactive approach to ensure “strong methodological integrity” increases
confidence in the final research product (Wholey, Hatry, & Newcomer, 2010). To
enhance comprehension, this section defines both the limitations and strengths of the data
sources from this study. Expanding upon the limitations, this study identifies the
considerations that influenced, in general, the steps necessary to yield balanced
“statistical and practical” results (Wholey et al., p. 573). Admittedly, as the researcher, I
empathized with Yolo County personnel and wanted to ensure they, as an organization,
realized useful value that enhances their practice. Therefore, I adapted two data
collection strategies from Bryer’s (2007) dissertation to avoid research pitfalls related to
bias and reliability. I also incorporated a third strategy that I devised through my
experience as a management consultant.
First, to avoid bias during the analysis process, I enlisted the help of an
experienced, objective researcher; he was responsible for independently processing
survey data (Bryer, 2007). Together, he and I collaborated to “draw conclusions from the
results for the research questions…and the larger meaning of the results” (Creswell,
2008). Second, Bryer also identified the potential for social pressure to influence the way
respondents approach the survey instrument, specifically, and the study altogether—
resulting in a “Hawthorne Effect” that—because of the study’s nature—we are genuinely
unable to either prove or disprove (p. 60). Recognizing that senior managers promoted
participation within their respective departments, it is plausible to assume that some
respondents distrust the level of anonymity and answered as if managers had access to the
raw data. To avoid this pitfall, I guaranteed, in the letter introducing the study to
112
participants, that I would control access to data, which includes Internet protocol (IP)
addresses.
Finally, through a series of discussions with Yolo County senior executives, I
selected the departments that best represent the current attitudes and perceptions toward
collaboration within the organization. In an effort to appropriately generalize results, I
worked closely with Yolo County managers and key staff to identify and engage the
departments most likely to willingly participate in the study, to appreciate the findings,
and to find ways to incorporate the recommendations to improve their practice. The data
collection process ensures that this study produced meaningful and realistic data.
Careful consideration of the limitations and strengths of the data collection
process validates results and also reflects a high degree of academic rigor. Table 22
identifies the steps I took into account to both balance and offset the limitations and
strengths of data collection activities for this study.
Table 22. Limitations and Strengths of Data Collection
Limitations Strengths
Bias during the process to interpret survey
responses (Bryer, 2007, p. 59)
Hawthorne Effect – based on participants’
awareness of being monitored by
managers (Bryer, 2007, p. 60)
Pretested survey instrument (Wholey et
al., p. 563; McDavid and Hawthorn, p.
155)
Allowed appropriate time for respondents
to examine and respond to the survey
(Wholey et al., p. 561)
Clarified expectations prior to initiating
data collection (Wholey et al., p. 562;
Creswell, 2008)
Enlisted the help of an objective and
experienced analyst (Wholey et al, p.
564)
Engaged research subject (Wholey et al.,
p. 562)
113
3.4 Chapter Summary
The departments address staffing and budgetary concerns in unique ways that
aligned with their values, objectives, and culture. The 2012 versions of each department
are leaner, have larger budgets, and focused on achieving results through collaboration.
The methods outlined in this chapter capture insights that capture the story of the
qualitative review of publicly available documents leave behind. The methods for this
project are feasible, realistic, and pragmatic. I selected the methods for the advantages to
Yolo County. I believe this research approach is suitable because it is affordable,
convenient, less complicated, and provides a timely turnaround (Creswell, 2008).
Equipped with an understanding of what data I am collecting, from where the data
is coming, and the manner in which the data informs the study, I am better prepared to
make informed assertions about what factors facilitate collaborative practice within the
three subject departments. Chapter 3 provides the space to describe my data collection
plan; in Chapter 4, I demonstrate my knowledge and ability to implement the plan and
report findings from the survey instrument.
114
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter reports the results of the data collected through administering the
Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (CFI). The purpose of this chapter is to present
relevant and logical conclusions as well as to draw the findings in a clear, concise
manner. The data will make it possible to identify the statistically significant factors that
either promote or hinder collaborative practice within the three subject departments:
Health (N = 19), Library (N = 22), and Planning and Public Works (N = 21). With help
from Yolo County administrators, 62 of 201, or 31 percent, of the potential participants
completed the CFI.
The approach to the data analysis makes it possible to assess respondents’
attitudes and perceptions about what fosters a collaborative culture within their respective
departments. The chapter presents detailed demographic statistics (Section 4.2.1), scale
reliabilities and descriptive statistics (Section 4.2.2 and 4.2.3), statistical results by
category (Section 4.3), and analyses of variance (Section 4.4). In the latter, the statistical
significance of differences as a function of respondents’ characteristics, such as
department, tenure, age, gender, and position are reported.
4.2 Descriptive Statistics
4.2.1 Respondent’s Demographics
Table 23 describes respondents’ demographic and professional characteristics.
All respondents completed the demographic portion of the CFI. In the version of the CFI
participants completed, the tenure and age variable consisted of six categories each.
Originally, tenure consisted of the following: 0 to 12 months; one to five years; six to 10
115
years; 11 to 15 years; 16 to 20 years; and 21 to 25 years. Similarly, the age variable
asked respondents to select one of the following categories: 18 to 24 years; 25 to 34; 35
to 44; 45 to 54; 55 to 64; and 65 to 74. The two demographic characteristics were
condensed to facilitate detailed and precise analyses.
Table 23. Respondents' Demographic Characteristics
Department Frequency Percent of Respondents
Health 19 30.6%
Library 22 35.5%
Planning and Public Works 21 33.9%
Tenure Frequency Percent of Respondents
0 to 12 months 14 22.6%
1 to 5 years 26 41.9%
> 6 years 22 35.5%
Age Frequency Percent of Respondents
18 to 34 years 16 25.8%
35 to 54 years 31 50.0%
> 55 years 15 24.2%
Gender Frequency Percent of Respondents
Female 39 62.9%
Male 23 37.1%
Position Frequency Percent of Respondents
Management 22 35.5%
Non-Management 40 64.5%
The distribution across the three subject departments was evenly spread between
30 and 35 percent. At 35.5 percent, personnel from the Library department represented
the largest part of the sample. The table suggests that the median respondent was female,
between 35 and 54 years of age, who has worked at Yolo County for one to five years
and did not have supervisorial responsibilities.
4.2.2 Scale Reliabilities
An assessment of the reliabilities of the scales comprising the CFI revealed that
four of the six categories received adequate scores. Table 24 demonstrates that
Environment, Process and Structure, Communication, and Purpose achieved alpha (α)
116
scores above .70, which Kopalle (1997) argues is an acceptable level of internal
consistency for instruments gathering respondent data using a Likert scale. Kopalle,
citing Peterson (2004), stresses the relationship between the number of items and
reliability score. He states, “in general, the larger the number of items in a scale, the
more reliable the scale” (p. 195). Generally, Cronbach scores below .70 imply that the
sample size is too small to appropriately calculate interitem correlations; another reason
is that the items are not correlated, in general. Kopalle argues that alpha scores for
categories will improve by eliminating “lower correlated items” to improve overall scores
(p. 190). In the case of five of the six categories, Cronbach alpha scores improved when
at least one item was removed. Table 25 below illustrates reliability scores when an item
is eliminated; the most noticeable changes were to the Communication, Purpose, and
Resources categories. Eliminating any item from the Environment category would
negatively impact the α score below—it would drop to .75 from .77. Because the
reliability scores improve only slightly, no items were removed from any scales.
Table 24. Reliability Statistics
Category
(# of corresponding factors)
Cronbach’s
Alpha (α)
Cronbach’s α Based on
Standardized Items
N of
Items
Environment
.77 .78 6
Membership Characteristics
.60 .61 5
Process and Structure
.86 .86 13
Communication
.79 .78 5
Purpose
.73 .73 7
Resources
.34 .34 3
39
117
Table 25. Cronbach's Alpha Scores if Items Deleted
Category Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α if item deleted Item #
Environment .77 N/A N/A
Membership Characteristics .60 .61 27
Process and Structure .86 .87 33
Communication .79 .82 34
Purpose .73 .79 13
Resources .34 .41 19
4.2.3 Descriptive Statistics
In this section, the data allow the reader to observe CFI responses in a broader
context, that is, without consideration to respondent’s demographics or the role they play
in the organization. From this vantage point, one may notice that, once aggregated,
average Likert-scale responses for all six categories were below 4.0 for the sample as a
whole (see Table 26). Respondents contributed the highest mean score to the Purpose
category and, conversely, the lowest to the Resources category, 3.78 and 2.99,
respectively.
In broad terms, respondents agreed more frequently to statements that addressed
topics related to clarity of objectives, a unified sense of identity, and a vision of collective
efficacy. Low responses to the Resources category suggest tension that causes or sustains
conflicting perspectives within the three participating departments. Respondents largely
disagreed with statements associated with this category, which indicate perceived
problems with personnel’s capacity to meet departmental goals. Responses to items from
this category also reflect opinions about a department’s ability to manage human and
material assets, such as time, money, and people with the “right” skill sets.
118
Table 26. Summary Statistics for All Categories
Category N Mean Min Max SD
Environment 59 3.65 3.53 3.90 .603
Membership Characteristics 60 3.51 3.13 4.27 .630
Process and Structure 60 3.57 2.90 4.40 .611
Communication 60 3.57 3.25 4.00 .760
Purpose 59 3.78 3.46 4.19 .562
Resources 60 2.99 2.55 3.54 .790
Table 27 presents the CFI items that received mean scores over 4.00. Here, the
reader may quickly determine which factors are likely to enhance collaboration within
departments. Conversely, Table 28 presents the CFI items that received mean scores
below 3.00. These items represent the factors that hinder collaboration. In general, items
that reinforce a department’s sense of purpose, promote inclusive processes, and
communicate effectively characterize the aspects that foster effective intradepartmental
collaboration. Arranged in descending order, Table 29 provides mean scores and
descriptive statistics for all items in the survey.
119
Table 27. Highest CFI Mean Scores
Item
#
Category Wilder Factor Statement Mean
Score
22 Process and
Structure
Members share a
stake in both process
and structure
Members of my department
want their projects to succeed.
4.40
36 Membership
Characteristics
Members see
collaboration as in
their self-interest
Personnel in my department
benefit from collaborating
with one another.
4.27
13 Purpose Unique Purpose What we are trying to
accomplish in my department
would be difficult for any
individual to accomplish by
him or herself.
4.19
14 Process and
Structure
Members share a
stake in both process
and outcome
Individuals from my
department are committed to
their work.
4.19
2 Communication Established informal
relationships and
communication links
Communication among
people in my department
happens both formally and
informally.
4.00
Table 28. Lowest CFI Mean Scores
Item
#
Category Wilder Factor Statement Mean
Score
5
Process and
Structure
Appropriate Pace of
Development
My department takes on the
right amount of work at the
right pace.
2.90
1 Resources Sufficient funds,
materials, and time
My department has adequate
“people power” to get done
all that it wants to accomplish.
2.83
35 Resources Sufficient funds,
materials, and time
My department has adequate
funds to do what it wants to
accomplish.
2.55
120
Table 29. Descriptive Statistics by Mean Score for All Items
Wilder Category Mean
Score
Item
#
N Minimum Maximum Std.
Deviation
Process & Structure 4.40 22 57 3.0 5.0 .593
Membership Characteristics 4.27 36 56 2.0 5.0 .674
Purpose 4.19 13 57 1.0 5.0 .990
Process & Structure 4.19 14 57 2.0 5.0 .667
Communication 4.00 2 60 1.0 5.0 .920
Purpose 3.98 31 56 2.0 5.0 .842
Purpose 3.91 20 57 1.0 5.0 .872
Environment 3.90 9 59 1.0 5.0 .781
Membership Characteristics 3.88 32 56 1.0 5.0 .955
Purpose 3.84 18 57 1.0 5.0 .841
Process & Structure 3.80 26 56 1.0 5.0 .923
Process & Structure 3.80 3 60 1.0 5.0 1.005
Communication 3.73 34 56 1.0 5.0 .863
Environment 3.73 6 59 1.0 5.0 1.048
Process & Structure 3.68 21 57 1.0 5.0 .967
Process & Structure 3.67 25 57 1.0 5.0 1.041
Purpose 3.66 38 56 1.0 5.0 .996
Environment 3.65 12 57 1.0 5.0 .767
Process & Structure 3.64 28 56 2.0 5.0 .841
Environment 3.60 39 56 1.0 5.0 .888
Purpose 3.57 30 56 1.0 5.0 .783
Environment 3.54 15 57 1.0 5.0 1.036
Resources 3.54 19 57 1.0 5.0 1.151
Environment 3.53 23 57 2.0 5.0 .734
Communication 3.48 37 56 1.0 5.0 1.160
Purpose 3.45 8 59 1.0 5.0 .934
Process & Structure 3.42 16 57 1.0 5.0 1.149
Process & Structure 3.39 17 57 1.0 5.0 1.146
Process & Structure 3.35 24 57 1.0 5.0 .876
Process & Structure 3.34 7 59 1.0 5.0 1.011
Communication 3.30 29 56 1.0 5.0 1.174
Communication 3.25 10 59 1.0 5.0 1.108
Membership Characteristics 3.25 11 57 1.0 5.0 1.057
Membership Characteristics 3.14 27 56 1.0 5.0 1.052
Membership Characteristics 3.13 4 60 1.0 5.0 1.097
Process & Structure 3.10 33 56 1.0 5.0 1.039
Process & Structure 2.90 5 60 1.0 5.0 1.115
Resources 2.83 1 60 1.0 5.0 1.210
Resources 2.55 35 56 1.0 5.0 1.143
121
Table 30, as in Derose et al. and Townsend and Shelley, combines reliability and
mean scores for the 20 factors corresponding to the six Wilder categories. Reliability
scores, as noted earlier, allow the reader to determine the degree to which items relate to
one another within their respective factors.
Table 30. Overview of CFI Mean and Reliability Scores for Factors
Categories 20 Wilder Factors
(Corresponding CFI Items)
Score
(α)
Mean
Score
Environment
History of collaboration or cooperation in
the community (6, 39)
.79 3.67
Collaborative group seen as a legitimate
leader in the organization (12, 23)
.74 3.59
Favorable political and social climate (9, 15) .74 3.72
Membership
Characteristics
Mutual respect, understanding, and trust (4,
32)
.54 3.50
Appropriate cross-section of members (27) N/A 3.14
Members see collaboration as in their self-
interest (36)
N/A 4.27
Ability to compromise (11) N/A 3.25
Process and Structure
Members share a stake in both process and
outcomes (14, 22, 24)
.86 3.98
Multiple layers of participation (3, 16) .86 3.61
Flexibility (21, 25) .85 3.68
Development of clear roles and policy
guidelines (7, 28)
.85 3.49
Adaptability (17, 26) .84 3.60
Appropriate pace of development (5, 33) .86 3.00
Communication
Open and frequent communication (10, 29,
34, 37)
.74 3.44
Established informal relationships and
communication links (2)
N/A 4.00
Purpose
Concrete, attainable objectives (8, 20, 38) .65 3.68
Shared vision (18, 30) .66 3.71
Unique purpose (13, 31) .79 4.09
Resources
Sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time
(1, 35)
.41 2.69
Skilled leadership (19) N/A 3.54
122
4.3 CFI Results by Category
This section presents results for the six categories from the Wilder Collaboration
Factors Inventory (CFI). The purpose of this section is to showcase responses as they
relate to their respective categories and draw conclusions from the data through a
narrowing lens. Each subsection within this section offers the reader a brief explanation
of one of the categories. Comparing present results to those from Derose et al.’s (2004)
seminal work, and also to prior findings by Townsend and Shelley (2008), makes it
possible to better understand responses from the present study. Table 31 below compares
mean scores from this study to those found by Derose et al. and Townsend and Shelley.
The comparison is useful because the mean scores for the six categories are similar. The
similarities afford credibility to the assertions and assumptions derived from the CFI for
this study.
In their research, Derose et al. found that the organizations working together to
impact community health outcomes engaged more frequently in coordination of services
but failed to implement collaboration. The authors measured service delivery against
Mattessich et al.’s (2001) definition of collaboration, which states:
Collaboration is the mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into
by two or more organizations to achieve common goals. The relationship
includes commitment to mutual relationships and goals; a jointly developed
structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for
success; and sharing of resources and rewards.
Derose et al. noted, “the CVM [Community Voices Miami] project team became known
in the community as good facilitators, able to build bridges between organizations that
123
might not otherwise work together” (p. 82). Despite significant accomplishments, the
coalition studied, according to Derose et al., experienced significant shortcomings in the
areas of “leadership, goal-setting, and operational strategies” (p. 86). Stakeholders, in
essence, were unable to establish a degree of trust to embark in true collaboration (p. 60).
Townsend and Shelley’s (2008) work found that organizations working together
to improve access to workforce development programs and services were unable to
accomplish their goals because aspects of their collective work were underdeveloped.
Areas of concern in their study include the lack of “open and frequent communication,
having multiple layers of participation, and the adequacy of resources” (p. 101). As with
Derose et al., a key finding was that, although collaborating organizations “held mutual
respect for one another, trust had not yet been established” (p. 109).
Table 31. Results by Category Compared to Prior Studies
Yolo County
(2013)
(N = 62)
Townsend & Shelley
(2008)
(N = 572)
Derose et al.
(2004)
(N = 62)
Environment 3.65 3.67 3.40
Membership Characteristics 3.51 3.69 3.40
Process & Structure 3.57 3.46 3.56
Communication 3.57 3.36 3.60
Purpose 3.78 3.62 3.83
Resources 2.99 3.04 2.90
4.3.1 Environment Category
Derose et al. note that the Environment category “describe[s] how effectively
groups have worked together in the past, the current political and social climate in which
groups work, and the community’s perception of the collaboration’s leadership” (citing
Mattesich et al., 2001, p. 59). Based on responses to Item 9 (3.90), participants mostly
agree that the political and social climate favors collaborative action (see Table 32).
124
Responses to Item 15 (3.54) expand upon Item 9 and suggest that, although the current
political and social climate favors collaborative practice, now is not the time to start new
projects. Results for Items 15 and 23 are cause for concern as the organization is, based
on an examination of public records, rapidly expanding its service base; the tension that
the pace of growth is causing within departments may also play a role in respondents
disagreeing with the organization’s intent to start new projects. Low mean scores for
statements in the Resources category, upon which I expand later in this chapter, both
explain and confirm assumptions about widespread aversion to growth and development.
Table 32. Results by Environment Category
Item Statement N Mean SD
6 Individuals from my department have a history of
working together.
59 3.73 1.048
9 The time is right to collaborate in my department. 59 3.90 .781
12 Managers and supervisors in the organization who are
not part of my department seem hopeful about what we
can accomplish.
57 3.65 .767
15 The political and social climates are right for starting
projects that require collaboration with individuals from
my department.
57 3.54 1.036
23 Staffs from other departments generally agree that
individuals from my department are the right ones to
accomplish its goals and objectives.
57 3.53 .735
39 Trying to solve problems through collaboration has been
common in my department.
56 3.60 .888
4.3.2 Membership Characteristics Category
According to Derose et al., the Membership Characteristics category captures the
way in which respondents “relate to perceptions and attributes of collaborative group
members, ability of members to compromise, and members’ level of self-interest and
investment in the group” (p. 60). Survey respondents largely agree with the benefits of
125
collaborative practice; their mean response to Item 36 (4.27) is among the highest in the
entire sample and represents a key strength (see Table 33).
Despite a strong belief in the benefits of collaboration, however, respondents
indicated that trust is missing among collaborating actors. Most of the responses to items
in this category suggest a general lack of mutuality or reciprocity among department
personnel. Responses to Items 4 (3.13), 11 (3.25), and 27 (3.14) suggest that the state of
distrust within departments is probably also due to two central issues: 1) the absence of
compromise as an attitude to resolve problems and 2) insufficient investment in resources
to achieve departmental goals and objectives. Interestingly, responses indicate that,
despite low levels of trust within departments, respondents maintain a higher degree of
respect for members from other departments within the organization (Item 32 received a
3.88 mean score).
Table 33. Results by Membership Characteristics Category
Item Statement N Mean SD
4
People in my department trust one another.
60 3.13 1.097
11
People in my department are willing to compromise on important
aspects of their work.
57 3.25 1.057
27
In my department, we usually have all the individuals we need to
collaborate effectively on projects or tasks.
56 3.14 1.052
32
Personnel in the department respect members from other
departments.
56 3.88 .955
36
Personnel in my department benefit from collaborating with one
another.
56 4.27 .674
4.3.3 Process and Structure Category
Derose et al. describe the factors that comprise the Process and Structure category
as those that “include layers of participation and decision-making, tools for developing
consensus, adaptability, and pace” (p. 61). Items from this category received responses
that spread across the Likert-scale spectrum (see Table 34). Respondents, for example,
126
provided some of the highest and lowest responses in the entire sample, 2.90 to 4.40.
Participants responded positively to statements that suggest the benefits of taking
ownership of shaping, or in some way influencing, departmental processes and outcomes.
Mean scores for items within this Wilder factor indicate respondents’ high degree of
commitment to their work. Responses with mean scores above 4.00, Items 14 (4.19) and
22 (4.40), both correspond to the members indicating that they share a stake in both
process and outcome factors.
In a similar light, items with mean scores between 3.99 and 3.50, which represent
five of the items in this category, suggest that the following factors influence
intradepartmental collaboration less: multiple layers of participation (Item 3); flexibility
(Items 21 and 25); adaptability (Item 26); development of clear roles and policy
guidelines (Item 28). The responses to these items highlight opportunities to improve
collaboration. Conversely, five items within this category received mean scores between
3.49 and 3.00. These responses illustrate threats to effective intradepartmental
collaborative practice.
Respondents largely disagreed with the statement suggesting that the rates at
which their respective departments are growing is both appropriate and strategic. The
responses to Item 5 (2.90), among the lowest in the sample, suggest that these
departments do not have the appropriate human and material resources to sustain growth.
The nature of the responses to items in this category makes it possible to assert that
decision-making processes involving strategic choices to take on new endeavors fail to
satisfy members’ need for transparency. Based on these responses, it is also possible that
decision-making processes are misaligned or fail to include a diversity of stakeholders
127
from the organization. Derose et al. argue, “Individuals not attending meetings may have
information pertinent to the efforts of the collaboration; a lack of sufficient time to reflect
and engage others reduces the overall effectiveness of the process” (p. 61).
Table 34. Results by Process and Structure Category
Item Statement N Mean SD
3
Individuals in my department that participate in decisions are
empowered to speak on behalf of the section they represent
60 3.80 1.005
5
My department takes on the right amount of work at the right
pace.
60 2.90 1.115
7
The process of making decisions is clear to department members.
59 3.34 1.011
14
Individuals from my department are committed to their work.
57 4.19 .667
16
Before making major decisions, individuals from my department
have time to confer with colleagues about what the decision
should be.
57 3.42 1.149
17
In my department, we constantly address change to facilitate
skillful transitions.
57 3.39 1.146
21
People in my department openly consider different ways of
working to achieve their objectives.
57 3.68 .967
22
Members of my department want their projects to succeed.
57 4.40 .593
24
Individuals in my department invest the right amount of time in
our collaborative efforts.
57 3.35 .876
25 There is flexibility when we make decisions; people in my
department are open to discussing different options.
57 3.67 1.041
26
My department is able to adapt to changing conditions, e.g.,
budget shortages, changing political climate, change in
leadership, etc.
56 3.80 .923
28
People in my department have a clear sense of their roles and
responsibilities.
56 3.64 .841
33
We are currently able to keep up with the work necessary to
coordinate all the people and activities related to my department's
mission and objectives.
56 3.11 1.039
4.3.4 Communication Category
Derose et al. argue that the “focus of communication factors is on inter-participant
communication, information dissemination by leadership, and leadership-participant
communication” (p. 62). They also note, “Communication is essential to effective
collaboration; group efforts require open exchange of ideas” across participants (p. 62).
128
Within this category, respondents contributed the highest mean score to Item 2 (4.00),
which suggests that individuals communicate in both formal and informal ways (see
Table 35). Based on a review of scores for the remaining four items, it is clear that, at a
basic level, communication occurs. The quality of information exchanges, however, fails
to satisfy the needs of department personnel. Three of five items within this factor
received scores below 3.50; results, therefore, indicate problems in the manner in which
individuals communicate. The results are important because of the general ways
communication impacts, as Brunner (2008) notes, “trust, control mutuality, relationship
commitment, and relationship satisfaction” (p. 74). Brunner defines control mutuality as
“the degree of agreement that exists between an organization and its publics about who
has the power to influence the other” (p. 75). In this case, the implications are likely to
affect relationships between stakeholders in departments.
Table 35. Results by Communication Category
Item Statement N Mean SD
2
Communication among people in my department happens both
formally and informally.
60 4.00 .921
10
People in my department communicate well with one another.
59 3.25 1.108
29
Personnel from the department are informed as often as they
should be about what goes on in my department.
56 3.30 1.174
34
Personnel frequently have informal conversations about their
work with others in my department.
56 3.73 .863
37
People who lead my department communicate well with staff.
56 3.48 1.160
4.3.5 Purpose Category
The purpose category presents items that address respondents’ motivation to work
toward achieving goals that advance an organization’s collaborative efforts. Derose et al.
state, “Members will devote time and effort to the collaboration only if they are
convinced that the goals are reasonable and concrete and that other members share them”
129
(p. 63). Achieving a mean score of 4.19, among the highest in the sample, responses to
Item 13 indicate that respondents agree that joint action is needed for success (see Table
36). No other items received a mean score over 4.00 in this category.
Item 31, which belongs to the Unique Purpose factor, received a high overall
mean score, 3.98. Responses to Item 31 suggest a heightened and aligned sense of
uniqueness. The responses to this item suggest opportunities to improve
intradepartmental collaboration through shared vision and concrete, attainable goals and
objectives. Other items with mean scores between 3.50 and 4.00 include, “People in my
department believe we can accomplish our objectives” (Item 18, 3.84), “I understand
what my department is trying to accomplish” (Item 20, 3.91), “My ideas about what we
want to accomplish in my department seem to be the same as the ideas of others” (Item
30, 3.57), and “People in my department know and understand our collective goals” (Item
38, 3.66).
Within the Purpose category, participants provided the lowest mean scores in this
category to Item 8 (3.46), which reads, “People in my department have established
reasonable goals for themselves.” Contrary to the mean score for Item 38, which also
involves goals, it is possible that responses to Item 8 highlight problems between macro
and micro level goal development and clarity. Based on the mean score for Item 8, it is
possible that respondents understand their goals at the organizational level but lack clarity
at a more personal level that addresses day-to-day operations.
130
Table 36. Results by Purpose Category
Item Statement N Mean SD
8
People in my department have established reasonable goals for
themselves.
59 3.46 .934
13
What we are trying to accomplish in my department would be
difficult for any individual to accomplish by him or herself.
57 4.19 .990
18
People in my department believe we can achieve our objectives.
57 3.84 .841
20
I understand what my department is trying to accomplish.
57 3.91 .872
30
My ideas about what we want to accomplish in my department
seem to be the same as the ideas of others.
56 3.57 .783
31
No other department within the organization is trying to do exactly
what we are trying to do.
56 3.98 .842
38
People in my department know and understand our collective
goals.
56 3.66 .996
4.3.6 Resources Category
Derose et al. explain that the items in this category address the state of human and
material assets in these departments, e.g., personnel, time, money, and leadership ability.
Specifically, the authors identified the following as resources necessary to advance
collaboration: “human capital, people power, and networking skills” (p. 63).
Respondents gave some of the lowest mean scores to items from this category;
furthermore, responses indicated a general disagreement with statements that departments
have sufficient capacity and ability to accomplish their goals (see Table 37). Responses
to the three corresponding items further suggest poor planning approaches and frequent
decisions that compromise the mission. Notably, respondents agreed that departments
are ill equipped to administer their responsibilities.
Responses to Items 1 (2.83) and 35 (2.55) imply that tangible resources to
accomplish their objectives, such as personnel and funds, are in short supply.
Departments, on the other hand, are led by managers with the necessary leadership skills
to collaborate with others. This position is evident by the mean score for Item 19, which
131
received the highest mean score in this category: 3.54. While the highest in this category,
this score is low relative to scores in two of the other categories, Environment and
Purpose, and is a rather middling score in the remaining three.
Table 37. Results by Resources Category
Item Statement N Mean SD
1
My department has adequate "people power" to get done all that
it wants to accomplish.
60 2.83 1.210
35
My department has adequate funds to do what it wants to
accomplish.
56 2.55 1.143
19
The people in leadership positions in my department have the
required skills for working with others.
57 3.54 1.151
4.4 Analysis by Category and Respondent Characteristics
Because it is important to fully understand the results, this section compares mean
scores among subsets of the sample based on the following five demographic
characteristics: 1) department; 2) tenure; 3) age; 4) gender; and 5) position. Intent on
fostering greater understanding, Table 38 examines all Wilder category scores for the
various subgroups defined by these characteristics. The table also presents the ANOVA
results for all categories.
132
Table 38. Summary of Responses by Category and Demographic Characteristic
Environment Membership
Characteristics
Process and
Structure
Communication Purpose Resources
Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N
Department
Health
Library
Planning
3.65
3.93
3.38
.626
.441
.616
19
20
20
3.49
3.72
3.32
.665
.451
.706
19
20
21
3.62
3.77
3.35
.543
.409
.762
19
20
21
3.80
3.55
3.39
.766
.601
.865
19
20
21
3.95
3.91
3.47
.469
.474
.615
19
20
20
3.11
2.90
2.98
.729
.810
.846
19
20
20
ANOVA F(2, 56) = 4.862,
p = .011
*
F(2, 57) = 2.113,
p = .130
F(2, 57) = 2.690,
p = .076
F(2, 57) = 1.519,
p = .228
F(2, 56) = 5.253,
p = .008
*
F(2, 57) = .324,
p = .724
Tenure
<12 mos.
1 - 5 yrs.
>6 yrs.
3.82
3.70
3.48
.445
.581
.699
14
25
20
3.71
3.55
3.32
.494
.636
.679
14
26
20
3.86
3.61
3.33
.428
.552
.711
14
26
20
4.01
3.62
3.21
.487
.637
.901
14
26
20
4.02
3.87
3.49
.513
.474
.600
14
25
20
2.98
3.15
2.80
.756
.881
.670
14
26
20
ANOVA F(2, 56) = 1.522,
p = .227
F(2, 57) = 1.732,
p = .186
F(2, 57) = 3.493,
p = .037
*
F(2, 57) = 5.454,
p = .007
*
F(2, 56) = 4.725,
p = .013
*
F(2, 57) = 1.146,
p = .325
Age
18 - 34
35 - 54
>55
3.58
3.62
3.81
.577
.508
.784
16
28
15
3.56
3.40
3.67
.682
.635
.559
16
29
15
3.59
3.55
3.60
.633
.523
.771
16
29
15
3.63
3.63
3.39
.688
.703
.946
16
29
15
3.85
3.71
3.83
.587
.431
.749
16
28
15
3.00
3.00
2.98
.869
.781
.771
16
29
15
ANOVA F(2, 56) = .697, p
= .503
F(2, 57) = .961, p
= .389
F(2, 57) = .036, p
= .965
F(2, 57) = .542, p
= .584
F(2, 56) = .403, p
= .670
F(2, 57) = .004,
p = .996
Gender
Female
Male
3.75
3.49
.531
.683
36
23
3.64
3.30
.469
.795
37
23
3.68
3.41
.460
.778
37
23
3.65
3.44
.707
.840
37
23
3.87
3.62
.487
.643
36
23
3.06
2.88
.789
.795
37
23
ANOVA F(1, 57) = 2.728,
p = .104
F(1, 58) = 4.194,
p = .045
*
F(1, 58) 2.904, p
= .094
F(1, 58) = 1.061,
p = .307
F(1, 57) = 2.842,
p = .097
F(1, 58) = .726,
p = .398
Position
Manager
Non-
Manager
3.92
3.49
.524
.594
22
37
3.63
3.44
.539
.674
22
38
3.81
3.44
.354
.687
22
38
3.81
3.43
.564
.830
22
38
3.98
3.65
.418
.602
22
37
2.79
3.11
.820
.756
22
38
ANOVA F(1, 57) = 7.987,
p = .006
*
F(1, 58) = 1.209,
p = .276
F(1, 58) = 5.499,
p = .022
*
F(1, 58) = 3.531,
p = .065
F(1, 57) = 5.321,
p = .025
*
F(1, 58) = 2.436,
p = .124
133
4.4.1 Department
Of the six categories examined by department, only two had significant
differences among them in the ANOVA: Environment, F(2.56) = 4.862, p = .011, and
Purpose, F(2, 56) = 5.253, p = .008 (see Table 38). For the Environment category, a
Scheffé post hoc comparisons test of the three departments indicated that only the
difference in responses between Library (M = 3.93, 95% CI [3.72, 4.14]) and Planning
and Public Works (Planning) (3.38) is significant (see Table 39). Additionally, the
results of the ANOVA indicated that there were significant differences among
departments in the scores for items from the Purpose category. The post hoc comparison
indicated that there were significant response differences between Planning (3.47) and
both Health (M = 3.95, 95% CI [3.73, 4.18]) and the Library (M = 3.91, 95% CI [3.69,
4.14]) (see Table 39). No other comparisons between groups were statistically
significant at p < .05.
In summary, differences in mean scores between groups give meaning to
personnel’s attitudes and perceptions about how the work environment and sense of
purpose impact intradepartmental collaboration.
134
Table 39. Scheffé Post Hoc Test of Responses by Department and Wilder Categories
Category (I)
Department
(J)
Department
Mean Difference
(I – J)
Std.
Error
Sig.
Environment
Health
Library
Planning
-.284
.274
.181
.181
.301
.327
Library Planning .558 .179 .011
*
Purpose
Health
Library
Planning
.041
.487
.168
.168
.971
.020
*
Library Planning .446 .166 .033
*
*
. Variance is significant at the 0.05 level
4.4.2 Tenure
Examining mean scores on Table 38 by tenure, it is obvious that respondents with
more years in their current position are more likely to disagree with statements from the
CFI. Respondents with more than six years in their current position represented 35.5
percent of the overall sample; their responses suggested more frequent disagreement with
the items in all six Wilder categories. The group of respondents with less than one year
in their current position, on the other hand, tended to provide high mean scores for the
Wilder categories. The tenure group with one to five years provided responses that
mostly fell between the scores of the other two groups.
A one-way ANOVA revealed that the differences among the mean scores of the
three tenure groups were statistically significant for the following three categories:
Process and Structure (F(2, 57) = 3.493, p = .037); Communication (F(2, 57) = 5.454, p =
.007); and Purpose (F(2, 56) = 4.725, p = .013). The Scheffé post hoc test was conducted
to better understand the differences between groups of respondents based on their time in
current position. The results in Table 40 below suggest that the differences in mean
scores between respondents with less than one year and those with more than six years
were statistically significant for the three categories noted above. For the Process and
135
Structure category, participants from the group with less than one year in their current
position gave significantly higher agree responses (M = 3.86, 95% CI [3.62, 4.11]) than
individuals with more than six years of experience (3.33). The newer participants also
gave higher agree responses to the Communications category (M = 4.01, 95% CI [3.73,
4.30]) than the group with the longest tenure (3.21). Similarly, participants with less than
one year in their current position contributed significantly higher agree responses to the
Purpose category (M = 4.02, 95% CI [3.72, 4.32]) than the longest-tenured group (3.49)
(see Table 40)
Table 40. Scheffé Post Hoc Test of Responses by Tenure and Wilder Categories
Category (I)
Tenure
(J)
Tenure
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Process and
Structure
0 - 12 months
1 - 5 years .256 .194 .425
6 - 25 years .534 .204 .040
*
1 - 5 years 6 - 25 years .278 .174 .288
Communication
0 - 12 months
1 - 5 years .399 .235 .245
6 - 25 years .809 .247 .007
*
1 - 5 years 6 - 25 years .410 .211 .160
Purpose
0 - 12 months
1 - 5 years .155 .176 .683
6 - 25 years .528 .184 .022
*
1 - 5 years 6 - 25 years .373 .159 .072
*
. Variance is significant at the 0.05 level
4.4.3 Age
The data were also examined by respondents’ age, which, to facilitate analysis,
was organized into three groups: 1) 18 to 34 years of age; 2) 35 to 54 years of age; and 3)
more than 55 years of age. Based on the data presented in Table 38, it is clear that age
did not have a significant impact on responses. Because there were no statistically
significant differences at p < .05 in the ANOVA for any of the categories, a post hoc test
was unnecessary.
136
4.4.4 Gender
Table 38 presents mean scores from both males and females. On average, female
respondents provided mean scores that were .25 higher than their male counterparts.
However, a one-way ANOVA revealed that the difference in responses between males
and females is statistically significant only for the Membership Characteristics category
(F(1, 57) = 4.194, p = .045). Female respondents gave statistically significantly higher
agree responses (M = 3.64, 95% CI [3.48, 3.80]) than males (2.96). A post hoc test was
not performed for responses from the gender variable, as the test is only for categories
with three or more comparison groups.
4.4.5 Position
Table 38 presents a detailed overview of responses from both managers and non-
managers. On average, managers provided responses that were .34 higher than their non-
manager counterparts; the results suggest that managers and non-managers differentially
experience collaboration and the conditions that either promote or hinder joint action
within their respective departments. The greatest disparity was present in responses to
items from the Environment category: the difference in mean scores between managers
(3.92) and non-managers (3.49) is .43. The differences between managers and non-
managers were statistically significant for Environment (F(1, 57) = 7.987, p = .006) as
well as two other Wilder categories, namely, Process and Structure (F(1, 58) = 5.499, p =
.022), and Purpose (F(1, 57) = 5.321, p = .025).
For the Resources category, managers provided a 2.79 mean score while non-
managers contributed a 3.11 mean score. Although not statistically significant, the mean
scores for this category imply that one’s position shapes the lens by which the condition
137
of departmental resources is evaluated. Because managers are more frequently involved
with resource attainment and management of resources, rather than the delivery of direct
services, they are better positioned to recognize the potential impact of instability or
uncertainty upon a department’s ability to effectively accomplish its mission.
4.5 Summary of Key Findings
Examining the results, first by Wilder category and subsequently by demographic
variable, presents an opportunity to understand intradepartmental collaboration within
three departments in Yolo County. By category, it is evident that the factors related to
sense of belonging and purpose, those that promote transparency and inclusion, as well as
those that describe the benefits of collaboration fared well. An opportunity to improve
intradepartmental collaboration by addressing pace of growth and capacity development
also emerged.
A closer look at responses from the perspective of professional and personal
demographics yielded the following insights: the factors that contribute to
intradepartmental collaboration are more present in the Health department, individuals
with less time in their current positions tend to be more optimistic, as do younger, female
respondents and those with managerial responsibilities—individuals sharing these
characteristics at Yolo County are likely to favor the state of collaboration within their
respective departments. Essentially, the demographic and professional variables do
impact the manner in which respondents gauge the prevalence of the factors that promote
intradepartmental collaboration. By taking into account individual characteristics, it is
possible to craft assumptions about how participants in other departments throughout the
138
organization are likely to view collaborative practice, its benefits and challenges, and the
degree to which joint action advances mission accomplishment.
The results of prior studies using the CFI yielded similar findings. Taken
together, the work by Derose et al. and Townsend and Shelley demonstrated both the
need and opportunity to explore collaborative practice comprehensively. Analysis by
category and respondents’ demographic characteristics yielded insights into the inner
workings of three departments adapting to work more closely with external stakeholders.
Chapter 5 uses the findings to propose actionable recommendations to improve
collaboration practice within the three departments. By posing a series of questions and
corresponding propositions for action, Chapter 5 presents information in a way that offers
stakeholders the tools to lead comprehensive discussions about how to leverage internal
resources, one’s commitment to public service, and the political and social climates to
achieve a state of intradepartmental collaboration that advances the organizations’
strategic goals and objectives.
139
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND PROPOSITIONS FOR FUTURE PRACTICE
5.1 Introduction
In light of economic uncertainty and resource scarcity, the modern practice of
public service has transformed into a pursuit of professional management mechanisms
that celebrate procurement of funds and collaboration with external stakeholders instead
of creating or expanding efforts to improve the ways in which individuals within a single
organization engage in joint action. Current changes in the environment that shape
organizational operations have, in varying degrees, influenced the collaborative dynamics
among public servants.
In summary, the findings and results from this study highlight the need to pay
special attention to the ways individuals interpret collaboration based on their tenure and
position within a department. Respondents from the three subject departments
contributed responses that outline the likely presence of fractured, unclear, or
misunderstood growth and collaboration strategies. Individuals without supervisorial
responsibilities, specifically, agreed that the pace of growth is mismanaged and that
limited or lacking resources present the most significant problems in their departments.
This group of respondents also noted that they are not well equipped to keep up with the
rate at which their respective departments are growing. Overall, the differences in results
showcased the impact of misaligned perspectives toward intradepartmental collaboration.
Similar response patterns were visible between respondents with less than one year in
their current position and those with six or more years. In an effort to simplify the
discussion and propositions for future practice, the focus of this chapter will be on
respondent’s position rather than on tenure.
140
From the perspective of an individual’s role within his or her department, the
questions and propositions create opportunities to address real or perceived collaboration
barriers. The chapter is outlined to guide the reader through a series of questions and
propositions likely to improve the factors that contribute to effective intradepartmental
collaboration.
A practical, action orientation ensures the questions and propositions from
Section 5.2, Propositions for Future Practice, highlight aspects of collaboration that both
managers and non-managers should address to bridge capacity gaps, inform one another’s
perspective, and improve formal and informal communication. Section 5.3, Implications
for the Public Management Field, confronts the implications that the results of this study
are likely to have on the public management field of practice. The corresponding
subsections explain the strategic benefits and operational challenges associated with
public-sector leadership as well as the need to shape interactions between managers and
their direct reports. Section 5.4, Options for Improved Intradepartmental Practice, offers
a series of recommendations that support successful implementation activities to improve
collaboration within public-sector departments.
Given the generalizability of the study results, the ultimate purpose of this chapter
is to introduce questions and propositions to prescribe conditions that support effective
intradepartmental collaboration practice. The need to contribute toward improving
collaboration throughout the field of public practice is a significant factor driving the
study. Ultimately, the chapter seeks to derive meaning from responses to encourage
audiences to proactively engage in joint action that results in advancing strategic, clear,
and mutually beneficial objectives.
141
5.2 Propositions for Future Practice
At Yolo County, the future is bright with opportunity to improve
intradepartmental collaboration practice. A question precedes each proposition to
establish the context within which respondents should consider appropriateness and
relevance to their work. The questions also serve as a means to uncover issues one may
encounter in future intradepartmental collaboration efforts. Notably, the questions and
propositions in Table 41 below offer a wide variety of implementation options likely to
maximize individuals’ willingness and commitment to public service. The propositions
are based on a universal theme that effective intradepartmental collaboration occurs after
individual and organizational needs are understood, balanced, and met.
The analysis of the findings from Chapter 4 yielded questions and propositions
that facilitate exploring alternate ways in which managers could better engage their direct
reports. Based on the question and proposition framework Bryer (2007) used in his
dissertation research, I also suggest ways in which factors determine the quality of
collaborative practice among department personnel (p. 153). Notably, the corresponding
sections begin with a question, provide context, and end with a proposition that
articulates the implications of one’s actions.
142
Table 41. Questions and Propositions for Future Practice
Questions about/for
Managers or Non-
Managers
Propositions: Intradepartmental collaboration occurs after
individual or organizational needs are understood, balanced,
and met.
Are non-managers free
to openly discuss
capacity and ability?
P1: The more managers are open to understanding non-
managers’ perspectives, the less likely it is that department
strategies are going to be misaligned and contribute to
increased feelings of stress, uncertainty, and failure on the
front lines.
P2: The more managers reinforce hierarchical barriers, the
less likely they are to agree on the quality of departmental
assets.
Do current incentive
structures promote the
“right” kind of
collaboration?
P3: The more managers are capable of clarifying objectives
that result in collective, measurable impact, the more they
can hold themselves accountable for facilitating learning
from performance indicators.
What is important to
you?
P4: The more non-managers feel managers value their
contributions to the mission, the more likely non-managers
are to commit themselves to their work.
What are our collective
concerns?
P5: The more managers and non-managers engage in
conversations about crucial department operations, the more
likely they are to share the responsibility to succeed.
Are we working in
silos?
P6: The more managers seek candid feedback from
personnel, the more likely they are to increase levels of trust,
which, over time, could result in improved communication
across roles.
P7: The more managers participate in informal
communication, the more insight they will gain from one
another.
How do we know who
and what skill sets are
missing?
P8: The more managers promote diversity, the more likely
they are to attract and retain a creative, competitive
workforce.
How do we know that
we trust one another?
P9: The more activities are focused on strengthening
relationships among personnel, the more likely they are to
establish a foundation based on mutuality and a common
sense of purpose.
How well do we handle
conflict?
P10: The more intentional personnel are about identifying
and responding to the root causes, rather than the symptoms,
of conflict, the more likely they are to foster an
organizational culture that values diversity of ideas and
leverages individual differences to affect change.
How well do we address
change?
P11: Organizational cultures that are grounded on resiliency,
adaptability, and creativity are more likely to demonstrate
high-quality, effective collaborative practice.
143
5.2.1 Questions and Propositions for Managers
Are non-managers free to openly discuss capacity and ability? Denhardt and
Denhardt (2011) suggest that contemporary public managers should have a set of skills
that focus on the humanistic elements of an organization. Specifically, they propose a
move away from more rigid, process-based abilities and toward more organic approaches
that enhance service quality and address both interests and needs. The list of humanistic
elements they present includes the following: empathy, consideration, facilitation,
negotiation, and brokering (p. 141). Discussing communication as it relates to public
management, Denhardt and Denhardt also note that participants should seek
communication approaches that “engage in dialogue, not monologue” (p. 100).
Suggesting that a primary goal of communication between managers and their direct
reports should be to promote openness and build trust, Denhardt and Denhardt further
argue, “dialogue must be free of domination or distortion” (p. 100).
Worthwhile conversations about capacity and ability ensure both managers and
non-managers readily express opinions about department conditions from their unique
perspectives. Non-managers, for example, typically play limited roles in planning and
organizing activities; as key implementers, they enjoy the advantage of directly observing
the degree to which strategic decisions and actions affect the community at large. On the
front lines, non-managers are responsible for solving problems quickly; they are also
likely to be first to face decisions on how to use available internal and community
resources. Managers should have the confidence to solicit candid capacity assessments,
ideas to improve existing systems, and recommendations to enhance integration of new
policies or procedures. Given the sensitive nature of the discussions about a department’s
144
capacity and its abilities, managers should consistently work to ensure that non-managers
feel comfortable to contribute to processes that inform decisions about how to best
allocate resources to avoid unnecessary disruptions to carrying out the organization’s
mission.
Proposition One: The more managers are open to understanding non-
managers’ perspectives, the less likely it is that department strategies are
going to be misaligned and contribute to increased feelings of stress,
uncertainty, and failure on the front lines.
While the first proposition depends on managers to adopt open communication
mechanisms to promote inclusion, the second highlights the need to make role-specific
communication boundaries “more permeable” (Morese, 2007). Indeed, it is critical that
department personnel understand the state of their collective capacity and ability in real
time; managers should, therefore, implement information exchange strategies that invite
non-managers to express themselves without fear of retaliation or ridicule. Such an
operational change may clash with traditional hierarchical cultures; it makes sense, then,
to consider incremental adaptations to deemphasize hierarchical structure as a means to
elicit longstanding support.
From the realm of public participation research, Creighton (2005) states that
engagement is perpetual and, thus, requires significant investment. Adapted to fit this
study, Creighton’s research suggests the following participation strategies:
1. Inform: Educate non-managers to ensure they have “complete and objective
information on which to base their judgments” (p. 9);
2. Listen: Create various communication avenues for non-managers to express
145
themselves, e.g., in writing, during a team meeting, via an online portal, etc.;
3. Engage in problem solving: Allow personnel to “clarify [their] positions” and
understand the nature of relevant decisions (p. 10); and
4. Develop agreements: Build consensus around decisions and ensure non-
managers recognize the “good-faith-effort” involved in actions (p. 10).
The second proposition encourages managers to engage with non-managers as people and
not as direct reports in the interest of understanding a department’s capacity.
Proposition Two: The more managers reinforce hierarchical barriers, the
less likely they are to agree on the quality of departmental assets.
Do current incentive structures promote the “right” kind of collaboration? It is
plausible to consider that current incentive structures promote quality external
collaboration with stakeholders outside of a department or the organization. The issue
with identifying the “right” kind of collaboration is that, in light of the environmental
changes and pressures, managers are increasingly likely to reinforce performance
mechanisms that favor external collaboration outcomes while ignoring, or completely
discounting, internal collaboration (Van Dooren, 2011).
Absent processes to assess internal collaboration quality, it is possible that
managers fail to fully understand what is/is not working within departments. It is also
likely that managers, because of the external nature of the data they are collecting, are
unable to tell the difference between successful or failed intradepartmental collaboration
approaches (Van Dooren, p. 423). Managers, therefore, should 1) seek to promote
learning from best intradepartmental collaboration practices, adjust tactics when and
where it is necessary to avoid failed strategies and 2) strive to recognize the importance
146
of understanding the differences between internally- and externally-centered
collaboration because the practice serves as a way to give additional meaning to their
collective work. The third proposition suggests the need for management approaches that
align performance and outcomes to advance intradepartmental collaboration.
Proposition Three: The more managers are capable of clarifying objectives
that result in collective, measurable impact, the more they can hold
themselves accountable for facilitating learning from performance
indicators.
5.2.2 Question and Proposition for Non-Managers
What is important to you? Generally, respondents contributed some of the
highest responses to CFI items that asked about the importance of feeling a sense of
belonging at work. The question and proposition in this section are designed to identify
the meaningful aspects of non-manager’s work. Non-managers, therefore, should
consider engaging managers in conversations about the elements of their work that matter
most and the reasons why. Such conversations serves as mechanisms to assess whether
an individual feels his or her contributions to the department’s objectives are significant.
The question for non-managers addresses issues relating to organizational justice,
which include power, equity, and fairness in the workplace. Simmons and Lovegrove
(2005), citing Aryee et al. (2002) argue, “Organizational justice constitutes individual or
group perceptions of fairness within an organization and behavioral reactions to such
perceptions” (p. 501). They further suggest that this form of “justice subsumes employee
views of equity in the distribution of resources” (p. 501). Non-managers should invest
the necessary time and effort to appropriately answer this question. By addressing the
147
question, “What is important to you,” non-managers proactively position themselves to
develop interpersonal relationships grounded on trust that, ultimately, underscore their
need to belong to the department as well as their sense of purpose.
Proposition Four: The more non-managers feel managers value their
contributions to the mission, the more likely non-managers are to commit
themselves to their work.
5.2.3 Questions and Propositions for both Managers and Non-Managers
What are our collective concerns? While the previous sections addressed
managers and non-managers separately, the questions in this subsection, posed to both
parties—ideally at the same time and in the same setting—are likely to clarify interests
and align expectations. The first question implies a misunderstanding of priorities based
on one’s position within a department. To merge perspectives, two of the
recommendations Simrell-King (2011) offers to improve the quality of decisions include
creating “openness” and “getting things unstuck” (p. 180). She suggests organizations
foster a constructive, inclusive atmosphere where individuals may “bring up all issues;”
similarly, her second recommendation instills a sense of action to avoid “analysis
paralysis.” Additionally, engaging managers and non-managers simultaneously ensures
intradepartmental collaboration strategies are, indeed, win-win and not inadvertently, or
otherwise, win-lose.
Although Simrell-King’s work focuses on citizen participation in a democratic
process, her ideas provide useful insight that may guide public servants in a direction
where credibility is based less on one’s position within an organization. As colleagues,
managers and non-managers should feel inclined to join forces; together, they will work
148
toward envisioning a “common future of genuinely common goals” (p. 23).
The disparities in CFI responses among managers and non-managers suggest
certain opportunities to improve upon this form of objective communication. To
effectively address assumptions and preconceived notions about departmental roles and
responsibilities, it is necessary that both managers and non-managers reach a state of
shared governance through dialogue. Without degrees of shared governance, an
institution is likely to compromise its overall ability to realize objectives (Birnbaum,
2004). Regardless of their positions, public managers should consider Birnbaum’s
argument and strive to share decision-making and governance processes to improve
collaboration. In his article, “The End of Shared Governance: Looking Ahead and
Looking Back,” Birnbaum argues:
The structures and processes of shared governance identify the rights of the
faculty to participate in making important decisions, thereby certifying their status
and importance. People are concerned about their status in groups because high
status within a group validates their own self-identity (p. 14).
Birnbaum’s argument for shared governance in academia is universal—its precepts apply
to other sectors. Proposition Five should encourage personnel to, with intention, commit
to working together on difficult problems their departments face. By sharing
responsibility and accountability for performance, the dynamic between the two groups is
likely to involve the sort of reciprocity that sustains long-term success and strategic
relevance.
149
Proposition Five: The more managers and non-managers engage in
conversations about crucial department operations, the more likely they
are to share the responsibility to succeed.
Are we working in silos? Low CFI responses suggest that quality, open and
frequent communication is uncommon within the three departments in this study. A
direct result of ineffective communications is the likely presence of departmental silos
within organizational silos. The question requires both managers and non-managers to
identify operational, supervisorial, and strategic stopgaps, which are barriers that may
prevent making the best use of departmental human and material assets. The question is
also intended to assess elements of an organization’s culture that either promote or hinder
sharing or using knowledge. Bundred (2006) warns against hording knowledge,
especially in the public sector, because it stifles mission accomplishment. He asserts:
Barriers to knowledge sharing are common to all types of organizations, but a
distinctive feature of the public sector is its division into fiercely independent
professional silos which represent a serious impediment to good knowledge
management, and which have prevented public bodies from working well together
(p. 126-7).
Based on CFI results, knowledge barriers are impacting the degree to which managers
and non-managers work together within their respective departments. Breaking through
such information barriers will shape organizational culture from one that protects and
keeps information to one that recognizes and values learning through sharing. To
effectively gather and share information, trust among individuals—regardless of
position—must be high.
150
Proposition Six: The more managers seek candid feedback from
personnel, the more likely they are to increase levels of trust, which, over
time, could result in improved communication across roles.
High mean scores on statements about informal communication suggest that
participants realize the impact it has on their performance, sense of belonging, and trust
that formal organizational structures “fail to reflect” (Fischback, Schoder, & Gloor,
2009). Similarly, Rainey (2009), expanding upon work by other researchers, suggests,
“most communication in bureaus is subformal” (p. 377). Subformal communication is
another way of describing informal communication; the terms in this dynamic are
interchangeable. In their highly cited article, Fish, Kraut, Root, and Rice (1993) state,
“informal communication cuts across...organizational boundaries and often happens
spontaneously” (p. 50). They continue, “Informal communication is often more frequent,
expressive and interactive than formal communication” (p. 50). Asserting that personnel
seek out informal channels in which to interact, Rainey states that this form of
communication “increases with greater interdependence among activities, with
uncertainty, and with time pressure, but decreases between subunits in sharp conflict with
one another” (p. 377). Proposition Seven, thus, presents managers and non-managers
with an opportunity to incorporate the strengths and benefits of informal communication
channels into regular departmental operations.
Proposition Seven: The more managers participate in informal
communication, the more insight they will gain from one another.
How do we know who and what skill sets are missing? CFI demographic data
revealed that department assignments are split along gender roles, e.g., there are more
151
females working in Library and Health than there are in Planning and Public Works
(Planning). Interestingly, the available data from Yolo County suggest that there are no
female managers in the Planning department; the lack of gender diversity at the
management level may prevent personnel from fully activating internal assets to
maximize success. In a study of gender heterogeneity in management, Richard, Barnett,
Dwyer, and Chadwick (2004) argue:
[T]he results suggest that totally homogeneous groups may not thrive in an
environment requiring decision speed and aggressive competitive behavior. As
management group diversity approaches a moderate level, however, its positive
effects may yield performance advantages in a high-risk strategic context (p. 264).
Similarly, Cox, Lobel, and McLeod (1991), citing Copeland (1998), Nelton (1988), and
Schmidt (1988), state that organizations that fail to effectively manage diversity will
“find themselves at a competitive disadvantage” (p. 827). Proposition Eight highlights
personnel’s responsibility to develop competencies that support workforce diversity as a
means to ensure organizations grow with intent and purpose and encompass a variety of
perspectives (Miller & Katz, 2002). Departments should regard diversity as an important
and necessary element of their operational strategy.
Proposition Eight: The more managers promote diversity, the more likely
they are to attract and retain a creative, competitive workforce.
How do we know that we trust one another? Low response scores for CFI
statements that address trust call for managers and non-managers to resolve this problem
together. To understand degrees of trust among individuals within departments, perhaps
they should work to examine and address the barriers thwarting trust. In a conference
152
paper, Blomqvist and Seppanen (2003) argue that the following four components define
trust in organizations:
Capability: Individuals and organizations develop the technical, business, and
collaboration abilities.
Goodwill: Describes a partner’s “moral responsibility and positive intentions
toward the other” (p. 8).
Behavior: Individuals exhibit ideal behavior (Kouzes & Posner, 2011).
Self-reference: Offering others opportunities to understand one’s values and
knowledge base (p. 9).
Managers and non-managers should know when they trust one another so that
conversations in which they engage address real or perceived problems impacting
department operations. Forrester (2003) suggests that individuals should trust and respect
one another enough to ask questions that matter, such as, “What do we know that we
don’t know? What will happen if we do nothing? What can we do now?” (p. 72). In this
spirit, Proposition Nine intends to guide managers and non-managers toward realizing a
stronger “we” attitude. A collective attitude also ensures that both parties equally
contribute to discussions about the state of internal capacity and to reaching agreement on
the pace at which to take on additional work. It is imperative that managers and non-
managers consider this proposition because statements addressing availability of
resources, time, people, and funds, along with the pace of growth, received the lowest
mean scores in the CFI.
Proposition Nine: The more activities are focused on strengthening
relationships among personnel, the more likely they are to establish a
153
foundation based on mutuality and a common sense of purpose.
How well do we handle conflict? Considering work by Jun (2006), it is possible
for public managers to recognize the ways their perspective impacts their ability to deal
with conflict. Jun argues, “An administrator who appreciates other voices integrates
these voices into a new meaning of the situation, problem definition, and formulation of
decisions” (p. 84). Depending on the individual, one’s role within a department and the
sense of urgency, integrating other voices may be thought of as difficult or unfeasible.
Jun suggests public managers should work toward developing 1) an “appreciation of
relevant actors” as a value and 2) “an orientation toward conflict resolution, problem
solving, and change” (p. 84). To proactively deal with conflict in the public sector, Jun
advocates for a social design approach to solving problems in organizations. He argues
that social design involves “multiple actors,” is inclusive and open, requires stakeholders
to consider both short- and long-term objectives and encourages the sharing of
responsibility (p. 94).
Understanding the ways in which managers and non-managers resolve conflict is
important, to say the least. When internal stakeholders seek to achieve this
understanding, it is likely that they will arrive at a place where they feel and act like a
community; where managers and non-managers develop the competencies to face
virtually any problem; where trust yields meaningful, reciprocal connections that unite
individuals across roles; where there exists a high degree of commitment to the mission;
and where individuals foster genuine communication to effectively coordinate activities
that consider capacity and ability (Horne & Orr, 1998).
Proposition Ten: The more intentional personnel are about identifying and
154
responding to the root causes, rather than the symptoms, of conflict, the
more likely they are to foster an organizational culture that values
diversity of ideas and leverages individual differences to affect change.
How well do we address change? In a fast-paced environment with increased
competition for scarce resources, public managers should remain aware of their attitudes
toward uncertainty and change. Effectively navigating the environment in which they
serve may depend strongly on public managers’ ability to identify and align unique, role-
specific bottom lines, which, according to Milward and Provan (2003), may include
“efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, responsiveness, and equity” (p. 17). The way
that public managers interpret and deal with change may depend largely on their role.
The question informing Proposition Eleven, then, seeks to spark conversations about
strategic uncertainty, operational flexibility, and departmental resiliency.
In a blog post about collective impact, Hanleybrown, Kania, and Kramer (2012)
stress that changes in strategies and service approaches should “clearly link back to the
common agenda and shared measures, as well as link to each other” (p. 8). Maintaining a
constant, disciplined connection to mission is one way to both create and manage change
within organizations. The key lesson for public managers is to institutionalize adaptable
management systems. Similarly, public managers should feel free to shift existing
paradigms and make change happen as a means to meet community needs; bureaucratic
infrastructure, then, has to be nimble enough to facilitate action. Working through the
difficulties associated with organizational change is the basis for Proposition Eleven.
155
Proposition Eleven: Organizational cultures that are grounded on
resiliency, adaptability, and creativity are more likely to demonstrate high-
quality, effective collaborative practice.
5.3 Implications for the Public Management Field
This section addresses issues relevant to public managers as a result of this study.
The first subsection highlights the leadership implications of intradepartmental
collaborative practice within the public sector; the second offers insights about the nature
and quality of interaction among and between managers and non-managers. This section
also asks public administrators, both managers and non-managers, to consider
incorporating collaboration models that promote decision-making centered on a
department’s mission, strategy, capacity, outcomes, and impact.
5.3.1 Public Management and Leadership
The discussion about leadership in the public sector is cluttered with anecdotes.
Formulaic, theoretical approaches often fail to capture the inherent complexities of
working in an environment where each stakeholder is right, each cause is a priority, and
each act is susceptible to scrutiny. The challenge for public managers, regardless of
whether they maintain supervisory responsibilities, is to identify and leverage internal
assets and take proactive stances in their approach to serving the public within the context
of an uncertain and fast-paced sector.
Ultimately, results of the Collaboration Factors Inventory (CFI), a review of
relevant literature, and my suppositions only matter if the field of practice is willing to
entertain ways to incorporate changes into existing workplace cultures. Low mean
scores, instead of serving as an attack on respondents’ ability, present opportunities to
156
call one another to act; the sense of urgency is both present and clear. A spirit of
leadership, therefore, is necessary to guide change. Fundamentally, today’s field needs
enlightened individuals capable of both mitigating and managing external forces that
drive public organizations to grow too quickly.
Based on findings, departments from this study should commit to work to “build a
collaboration capability to leverage resources” (Fawcett, Magnan, & Fawcett, 2010).
Public managers should fight to “unfreeze” behaviors that fail to celebrate and enable
collaboration through leadership (Schein, 2010). Schein (2004) rightly posits that leaders
should be perpetual learners; he provides the following six characteristics that positively
shape an organization’s culture:
1. New levels of perception and insight into the realities of the world and also
into themselves;
2. Extraordinary levels of motivation to go through the inevitable pain of
learning and change, especially in a world with looser boundaries in which
one’s own loyalties become more and more difficult to define;
3. Emotional strength to manage their own and other’s anxiety as learning and
change become more and more a way of life;
4. New skills in analyzing and changing cultural assumptions;
5. Willingness to involve others and elicit their participation; and
6. Ability to learn the assumptions of a whole new organizational culture (p.
170).
Needless to say, today’s public sector needs leaders to push them beyond mediocrity.
Because changes are occurring faster than ever, public managers, despite their position in
157
a department, should accept the challenges associated with strengthening interpersonal
relationships and genuinely commit to functioning as a team.
5.3.2 Interaction between Managers and Non-Managers
Adopting new behaviors is difficult; that is why they are worthwhile. The public
sector is experiencing predictions Cleveland (1972) made about organizations. He
argued that hierarchical pyramids with control concentrated at the upper echelons are
“obsolete” (as cited in Ferlie, Lynn, & Pollitt, 2005). The interactions between managers
and non-managers should reflect civil society principles they seek to implement in their
relationships with external stakeholders. Hierarchy serves a purpose within the public
sector; the challenge, however, is to optimize organizational structures to unleash internal
stakeholders’ potential and commitment to public service.
The findings from the CFI depict a bifurcated collaboration and governance
culture within departments: managers have noticeably more positive feelings about
collaboration quality than their direct reports. For departments to operate as the public
and other stakeholders expect them to, the nature of the interaction between managers
and non-managers needs to change. Despite the talk about participatory decision-making
and collaboration among internal stakeholders, CFI results suggest less-than-open
systems are in effect.
CFI findings imply that a kind of dissonance exists within departments. For the
most part, as much as managers agree with statements that affirm aspects of
intradepartmental collaboration, non-managers largely disagree and suggest the opposite.
Below, Figures 20 and 21 demonstrate the difference between what is actually and what
should be occurring within departments. In Figure 20, managers enjoy the authority to
158
establish a department’s core purpose; non-managers are, for the most part, the
implementers of decisions. Figure 21 demonstrates an approach in which mission,
resources, capacity, outcomes, strategies/tactics unite both managers and non-managers.
In interconnected organizational structures, managers and their direct reports
should create bridges of understanding. Within reason, both sets of department
stakeholders should contribute toward defining and shaping mission, strategies, capacity,
resources, and outcomes. To do otherwise will inflict damages visible in turnover, levels
of job satisfaction, and, in some cases, service quality. Inclusive governance approaches
make it possible to improve attitudes toward CFI items that received low mean scores,
such as those from the Resources and Process and Structure categories.
159
Figure 20. Hierarchical Intradepartmental Collaboration Structure
Figure 21. Participant-Asset Model of Collaboration
160
5.4 Options for Improved Intradepartmental Collaborative Practice
To improve intradepartmental collaboration, I offer public managers the following
practical options. The options are based on findings from the CFI; they require personnel
to be willing to experiment with different strategies to find and implement those that
align with capacity. Improved practice begins with adopting processes that build
collaboration habits through experimental learning and reflection. After the options, I
present three implementation strategies that facilitate ongoing capacity development and
engagement. Based on CFI results, I list the options in order of importance.
First, personnel must manage the pace of growth and development. The efforts
personnel enact should take into account as many perspectives as possible. Decisions to
take on new projects should explicitly outline their relevance to both mission and
strategy. Decision-making processes should be inclusive and routinely involve capacity
assessments to align potential activities with resource availability. Looking at capacity
holistically is important: managers should take into account how it relates to personnel’s
ability to influence policymakers; manage and sustain resources; possess skills necessary
to be successful; work with internal and external stakeholders; and build networks
(Glickman & Servon in DeFelippis & Saegert, 2008).
This option for improved collaboration performance should alleviate stress and
promote increased focus on long-term goals and objectives. Addressing pace of growth
within the context of capacity and resources is necessary because of the implications it
has on employee commitment to an organization’s overall objectives. Similarly, Bakker
and Demerouti (2006), arguing the influence resources have on work performance, note
that “[they] have motivational potential to lead to high work engagement, low cynicism,
161
and excellent performance” (p. 313). Together, managers and non-managers should
define appropriateness of growth; they should also strive to balance pace with capacity.
Second, personnel should identify methods to encourage work-related informal
forms of communication within and across departments. In a study of communication
channels in a public organization, Johnson, Donohue, Atkin, and Johnson (1994) found
that participants found informal forms of communication more useful to their jobs
because the content tends to be described in terms that address practical applicability,
relevance, and usability (p. 113). Based on high CFI mean scores on items related to
information communication, the most likely benefit of this option is increased connection
to a department’s goals and objectives. It is important that personnel, managers and non-
managers alike, work to design activities that bring people together to talk in a relaxed
atmosphere without a formal organizational agenda.
Third, commit to improve diversity at all levels of the organization. To enhance
performance, managers should be conscious about skills and perspectives missing within
their ranks. One way to ensure diversity is to coordinate with human resources personnel
to conduct a thorough audit; the results of the assessment should, then, drive future
recruitment efforts. Because CFI results indicate that departments lack the “right” people
to accomplish goals and objectives, it is important that managers prioritize this option.
To show support for diversity, managers should also identify performance benchmarks
toward this goal in an effort to make it part of a department’s culture.
Careful implementation of the options to improve practice is crucial. Below, I
offer three ways to ensure administering the options works. The first implementation
strategy asks public manager to consider applying the principles of action research into
162
collaboration practice. Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, and Maguire (2003) argue that the
principles of action research support habits that create communities of practice within
organizations. Working together, these communities of practice make way for
organizational and personal changes through reflection and improved participation (p.
14). Action research invites stakeholders to “identify problems, gather relevant data,
interpret data, act on evidence, evaluate results, and [identify] next steps” (p. 9). The
cyclical process ensures that participants continually take advantage of opportunities to
learn, apply, evaluate, and repeat.
The second implementation strategy asks public managers to administer processes
that gauge changes in attitudes toward intradepartmental collaboration. Because the CFI
is free of charge, and a modified version already exists, personnel could opt to retake the
survey periodically. Realizing the pressure to perform with limited resources, this option
takes into account the fact that personnel may have limited time to conduct a full
investigation (Cooper, 2012). The key to this implementation strategy, however, is in the
manner in which individuals facilitate unbiased dialogue—it should be objective, held in
a safe place, and yield actionable next steps. The point of this activity is to create the
opportunity for both managers and non-managers to speak openly about their respective
experiences.
The final implementation strategy asks department personnel to incorporate
frequent reflection and feedback as a method to improve learning ability. With one hour
of reflection, as Wood-Daudelin (1996) suggests, participants will “significantly increase
the learning from [a] situation” (p. 47). Candid, quality feedback during reflection may
yield the insight necessary to improve overall performance and, at the same time, build
163
trust among participants. Schermerhorn et al. (2010) provide the following steps to guide
the giving of feedback:
Give it directly and in a spirit of mutual trust;
Be specific, not general; use clear examples;
Give when the receiver is most ready to accept;
Be accurate; check its validity with others;
Focus on things the receiver can control; and
Limit how much the receiver gets at one time (p. 258).
Similarly, Jun (2006) suggests that the public sector needs self-aware administrators—
those “more sensitive to and aware of the moral consequences of their acts” (p. 137). He
further asserts that, through reflective practice, administrators are more likely to act with
a higher sense of purpose and self-discipline (p. 137).
Because participants are accustomed to administering their responsibilities
through collaboration, these options ask them to think more deeply about what happens
within their departments. Implementation is, notably, the most difficult part of any
process; supporting this assertion, Cooper (2012) notes, “the characteristics of the
organizational structure and culture may encourage or impede acting on the decision” (p.
38). He also asks public managers to explore other necessary changes to the
organizational culture as well as the developmental intricacies of likely interventions (p.
39). The propositions and questions from this section may also provide public managers
with additional aspects to consider as they explore strategies to improve their practice.
164
5.5. Summary and Conclusion
The story of public service at the departmental level offers lessons on how to
work with people to achieve a common cause. Notably, the opportunities to enhance
practice are limited only by public managers’ willingness to share power, responsibility,
accountability, failures, and successes. Fear of failure or loss of creative control can no
longer be an excuse for avoiding unconventional solutions to wicked public-sector
problems. Neither the public nor the public manager can afford to operate in rigid
hierarchical structures.
The implications from the CFI’s findings illustrate both a structural and
conceptual divide based on one’s role. The divide suggests that one’s position, indeed,
influences the manner in which a person interprets or operationalizes strategy, tactics, and
performance objectives, for example, within his or her department. Across departments,
the difference in survey responses between managers and non-managers is both
significant and enlightening. Suggesting the need for discourse among personnel as a
means to build trust, the findings indicate that collaboration in an era of resource scarcity
and economic uncertainty is increasingly complex.
Changes in the environment influenced decisions to grow at a pace that public
managers feel compromises departmental mission, strategy, and objectives; it is possible
that this phenomenon is occurring in many other organizations. Likewise, integrating
processes that move away from direct service to program or project management may
have had unmitigated ripple effects that unwillingly disrupted longstanding, core
operations. Growth, therefore, should be strategic for the sake of both the organization
and the general public.
165
REFERENCES
Aarons, G. A. and Sawitsky, A. C. (2006). Organizational culture and climate and mental
health provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychological Services,
3(1), 61-72. doi: 10.1037/1541-1559.3.1.61.
Agryris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business
Review, 76(3), 98-105.
Ales, M. W., Rodrigues, S. B., Snyder, R., and Conklin, M. (2011). Developing and
implementing an effective framework for collaboration: The experience of the
CS2day Collaborative. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health
Professions, 31(S1), S13-S20. doi: 10.1002/chp.20144.
Alfonso, M. L., Nickelson, J., Hogeboom, D. L., French, J., Bryant, C. A., McDermott,
R. J., and Baldwin, J. A. (2008). Assessing local capacity for health intervention.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(2), 145-159. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.
2008.01.001.
Angle, H. L. and Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational
commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26(1), 1-14.
Armistead, C. and Pettigrew, P. (2004). Effective partnerships: Building a sub-regional
network of reflective practitioners. The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 17(7), 571-585. doi: 10.1108/09513550410562257.
Augsburg, B. and Fouillet, C. (2010). Profit empowerment: The microfinance
institution’s mission drift. Perspectives on Global Development, 9(3), 327-355.
doi: 10.1163/156914910x499732.
166
Austin, D. P. and McKendrick, L. B. (n.d.). Co-teaching and co-learning: Building a
collaborative learning organization through reciprocally –valuing relationship
(Working Paper 99-1). Retrieved from Case Western Reserve University
Weatherhead School of Management website http://weatherhead.case.edu/
departments/organizational-behavior/workingPapers/WP%2099-1.pdf.
Bakker, A. B. and Demerouti, E. (2006). The job demands-resources model: State of the
art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. doi:
10.1108/02683940710733115.
Bamford, J. D., Gomes-Casseres, B., and Robinson, M. S. (2003). Mastering alliance
strategy: A comprehensive guide to design management, and organization. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banderia, O., Prat, A., Sadun, R. and Wulf, J. (2011). Span of control of span of activity?
(Working paper 12-053). Retrieved from Harvard Business School website
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-053.pdf.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3
rd
ed.). New York, NY:
Free Press.
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Wise, C., Woods, P., and Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed
leadership: A review of literature. Nottingham: National College for School
Leadership.
Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
2(3). doi: 10.1177/002188636600200301.
167
Bennis, W. G. (2008). Change: The new metaphysics. In J. S. Ott, S. J. Parkes, & R. D.
Simpson (Eds.), Classic readings in organizational behavior (4
th
ed.) (pp 65-73).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (Reprinted from Managing the Dream, 2000).
Beslin, R. and Reddin, C. (2004). How leaders can communicate to build trust. Ivey
Business Journal, G1. Retrieved from http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/
topics/the-organization/how-leaders-can-communicate-to-build-
trust#.Uch_qD54a-V.
Beyerlein, M. M., Freedman, S., McGee, C. and Moran, L. The ten principles of
collaborative organizations. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 22(2), 51-63.
Bingham, L. B. and O’Leary, R. (2011). Federalist No. 51: Is the past relevant to today’s
collaborative public management? Public Administration Review, 71(Special
Issue), 78-82.
Binz-Scharf, M. C., Lazer, D., and Mergel, I. (2012). Searching for answers: Networks of
practice among public administrators. The American Review of Public
Administration, 42(2), 202-225. doi: 10.1177/0275074011398956.
Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back.
New Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 5-22. doi: 10.1002/he.152.
Blomqvist, K. and Seppanen, R. (2003). Bringing together the emerging theories on trust
and dynamic capabilities: Collaboration and trust as focal concepts. Unpublished
paper presented at the 19
th
Annual Industrial Marketing and Purchasing
Conference, Lugano, Switzerland: Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group.
Retrieved from http://www.impgroup.org/paper_view.php?viewPaper=4296.
168
Bogason, P. (2001). Postmodernism and American public administration in the 1990s.
Administration and Society, 33(2), 165-193.
Booher, D. E. and Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221-236. doi: 10.1177/0739456x
0202100301.
Boyne, G. A., James, O., John, P., and Petrovsky, N. (2010). Does public service
performance affect top management performance? Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 20(3), i261-i279. doi:
10.1093/jopart/muq024.
Brock, S. L. (2005). A case study of tenured teachers’ experiences with a new evaluation
plan in an urban school district (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska).
Retrieved from ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing.
Brotherton, B. (2008). Researching hospitality & tourism: A student guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Brunner, B. R. (2008). Listening, communication and trust: Practitioners’ perspectives of
business/organizational relationships. The International Journal of Listening,
22(1), 73-82. doi: 10.1080/10904010701808482.
Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., and Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action
Research, 1(1), 9-28. doi: 10.1177/14767503030011002.
Bryer, T. A. (2007). Negotiating bureaucratic responsiveness in collaboration with
citizens: Findings from action research in Los Angeles (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California). Retrieved from USC Digital Library database.
169
Bryer, T. A. and Cooper, T. L. (2012). H. Frederickson and the dialogue on citizenship in
public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), 108-116.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Middleton Stone, M. (2006, December). The design
and implementation of cross-sector collaboration collaborations: Propositions
from the literature. Public Administration Review, Special Issue, 44-55.
Bundred, S. (2006). Solutions to silos: Joining up knowledge. Public Money &
Management, 26(2), 125-130.
Byrne, A. and Hansberry, J. (2007). Collaboration: Leveraging resources and expertise.
New Directions for Youth Development, 114(Special Issue), 75-84. doi:
10.1002/yd.214.
Calista, D. J. and Melitski, J. (2007). E-government and e-governance: Converging
constructs of public sector information and communications technologies. Public
Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 87-120.
Castner, J., Foltz-Ramos, K., Schwartz, D. G., Ceravolo, D. J. (2012). A leadership
challenge: Staff nurse perceptions after an organizational TeamSTEPPS initiative.
The Journal of Nursing Administration, 42(10), 467-472.
Chandler, S. (2003). Writing proposals for capacity building. Los Angeles, CA: The
Grantsmanship Center. Retrieved from http://www.tgci.com/magazine/Writing
%20Proposals%20for%20Capacity%20Building.pdf.
Christensen, C. M., Marx, M., and Stevenson, H. H. (2006). The tools of cooperation and
change. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 72-79
Chung, V. C., Ma, P. H., Hong, L. C., and Griffiths, S. M. (2012). Organizational
determinants of interprofessional collaboration in integrative health care:
170
Systemic review of qualitative studies. PloS One, 7(11), 1-9. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0050022.
Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., and Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma.
American Journal of Education, 113(4), 515-548. doi: 10.1086/518487.
Cohen, M. P. (2011). Cities in times of crisis: The response of local governments in light
of the global economic crisis: The role of the formulation of human capital, urban
innovation and strategic planning (Working Paper 2011-01). Retrieved from
University of California, Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development
website http://www.iurd.berkeley.edu/publications/wp/2011-01.pdf.
Connelly, L. M. (2011). Cronbach’s alpha. MEDSURG Nursing, 20(1), 44-45.
Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the
administrative role (6
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A., Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public
management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 76-88.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural
differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on group task. Academy of
Management Journal, 34(1), 827-847.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3
rd
ed.) [Kindle for Mac 3 version]. Thousand, Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. and Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
171
Crow, D. A. (2012). Policy diffusion and innovation: Media experts in Colorado
recreational water rights. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 4(1), 27-
41. doi: 10.1080/19390459.2012.642635.
Cuijpers, M., Guenter, H., and Hussinger, K. (2011). Costs and benefits of inter-
departmental collaboration. Research Policy, 40(4), 565-575. doi: 10.1016/
j.respol.2010.12.004.
Culley, R. (2011, April 14). Executing and implementing strategic plans – Part I. Lecture
conducted from University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Culver-Dockins, N. (2012). An analysis of the collaborations between the California
Workforce Investment Boards and the California community colleges (Doctoral
dissertation, California State University, Fresno). Retrieved from ProQuest UMI
Dissertation Publishing.
Currie, G. and Lockett, A. (2011). Distributing leadership in health and social care:
Concertive, conjoint, or collective? International Journal of Management
Reviews, 13(3), 286-300. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.0038.x.
Czajkowski, J. M. (2006). Success factors in higher education collaborations: A
collaboration success measurement model (Doctoral dissertation, Capella
University). Retrieved from ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing.
Daft, R. L., Sormunen, J., and Parks, D. (1988). Chief executive scanning, environmental
characteristics, and company performance: An empirical study. Strategic
Management Journal, 9(2), 123-139.
172
Davis, J. (2005). Power, politics, and pecking order: Technological innovation as a site of
collaboration, resistance, and accommodation. The Modern Language Journal,
89(2), 161-176.
Davis, P. and West, K. (2009). What do public values mean for public action? Putting
public values in their plural place. The American Review of Public
Administration, 39(6), 602-618. doi: 10.1177/0275074008328499.
Davison, R. M., Martisons, M. G., and Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action
research. Information Systems Journal, 14(1), 65-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2575.2004.00162.x.
DeFelippis, J. and Saegert, S. (Eds.). The community development reader. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Denhardt, J. V. and Denhardt, R. B. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than
steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559.
Denhardt, J. V. and Denhardt, R. B. (2006). Public administration: An action orientation
(5
th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Denhardt, J. V. and Denhardt, R. B. (2011). The new public service: Serving, not steering
(3
rd
ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Denis, J. L., Lamonthe, L., and Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective
leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(4), 809-837.
Derose, K. P., Beatty, A., and Jackson, C. A. (2004). Evaluation of community voices
Miami: Affecting health policy for the uninsured. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
173
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.wilder.org/wilder-research/research-
services/pages/wilder-collaboration-factors-inventory.aspx.
Dess, G., Lumpkin, G. T., Taylor, M. L. (2005). Strategic management (2
nd
ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Retrieved from http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/
publications/strategic_management/pdf/01.pdf
Deutskens, E., Ruyter, K. D., Wezels, M., and Oosterveld, P. (2004). Response rate and
response quality of Internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Marketing
Letters, 15(1), p. 21-36.
Dietrich, P., Eskerod, P., Dalcher, D., and Sandhawalia, B. (2010). The dynamics of
collaboration in multipartner projects. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 59-78.
doi: 10.1002/pmj.20194.
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,
48(2), 147-160.
Donmoyer, R., Libby, P., McDonald, M., and Deitrick, L. (2012). Bridging the theory-
practice gap in nonprofit and philanthropic studies master’s degree program.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 23(1), 93-104. doi: 10.1002/nml.
Drenkard, K. (2013). Transformational leadership: Unleashing the potential. The Journal
of Nursing Administration, 43(2), 57-58. doi: 10.1079/nna.0b013e31827f1ea0.
Druskat, V. U. and Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building emotional intelligence of groups.
Harvard Business Review, 79-90. Retrieved from http://www.talentfactor.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/Building_The_Emotional_Intelligence_of_Groups_HBR
_spring_2008.pdf.
174
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., and Tinkler, J. (2006). New Public Management
is dead: Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 16(3), 467-494. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui057.
Durose, C. and Rummery, K. (2006). Governance and collaboration: Review article.
Social Policy and Society, 5(2), 315-321. doi: 10.1017/s147474640500299x.
Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among
street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
31(1), 115-130. doi: 10.1177/0899764002311005.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., and Balogh, S. (2011). An integrated framework of
collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
22(1), 1-29. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur011.
Estev, M., Boyne, G., Sierra, V., and Ysa, T. (2012). Organizational collaboration in the
public sector: Do chief executives make a difference? Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 1-26. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mus035.
Fawcett, S. E., Magnan, G. M., and Fawcett, A. M. (2010). Mitigating resisting forces to
achieve the collaboration-enabled supply chain. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 17(2), 269-293. doi: 10.1108/14635771011036348.
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Low Income Investment Fund (2012).
Investing in what works for America’s communities: Essays on people, place, and
purpose. San Francisco, CA: Authors.
Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E., and Pollitt, C. (2005). The Oxford handbook of public
management. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
175
Fernandez, S. and Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in
the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Fieldstone Alliance. (n.d.). Four keys to collaboration success. Retrieved from
http://www.fieldstonealliance.org/client/articles/Article-
4_Key_Collab_Success.cfm.
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. (2011). Financial crisis inquiry report.
Washington DC: National Commission.
Fischbach, K., Scholder, D., and Gloor, P. A. (2009). Analysis of informal
communication networks: A case study. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 1(2), 140-149. doi: 10.1007/s12599-008-0018-z.
Fish, R. S., Kraut, R. E., Root, R. W., Rice, R. E. (1993). Videos as a technology for
informal communication. Communications of the ACM, 36(1), 48-61. doi:
10.1145/151233.151237.
Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Foster-Fishman, P. G., Salem, D. A., Allen, N. E., Fahrbach, K. (1999). Ecological
factors impacting provider attitudes towards human service delivery reform.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 785-816.
Frederickson, H. G. (1973). Neighborhood control in the 1970s: Politics, administration,
and citizen participation. New York, NY: Chandler.
176
Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., and Licari, M. J. (2012). The public
administration theory primer (2
nd
ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design
choices and their consequences. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338-
367.
Getha-Taylor, H. and Morese, R. S. (2013). Collaborative leadership development for
local government officials: Exploring competencies and program impact. Public
Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 71-102.
Glaser, M. A., Hildreth, W. B., McGuire, B. J., and Bannon, C. (2011). Frederickson’s
social equity agenda applied: Public support and willingness to Pay. Public
Integrity, 14(1), 19-37. doi: 10.2753/PIN1099-99221401102.
Glickman, N. J. and Servon, L. J. (2008). More than bricks and sticks: Five components
of community development corporation capacity. In J. DeFilippis & S. Saegert
(Eds.), The community development reader (pp. 46-61). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Gliem, J. A. and Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-type Scales. Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/Gliem+&+Gliem.pdf?s
equence=1.
Gordon, G. G. and DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from
organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 783-798.
Graffy, E. A. (2008). Meeting the challenge of policy-relevant science: Bridging theory
and practice. Public Administration Review, 68(6), 1087-1100.
177
Gratton, L. and Erickson, T. J. (2007). Eight ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard
Business Review, 85(11), 11-20.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Gray, B. and Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to
theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22. doi:
10.1177/0021886391271001.
Greene, C. M. (2010). A case study of interagency collaboration as reported by the PREP
advisory committee (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hartford). Retrieved
from ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing.
Grindle, M. S. and Hilderbrand, M. E. (1995). Building sustainable capacity in the public
sector: What can be done? Public Administration & Development, 15(5), 441-463.
doi: 10.1002/pad.4230150502.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly,
13(1), 423-451.
Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., and Kramer, M. (2012). Channeling change: Making
collective impact work [Stanford Social Innovation Review, Nonprofit
Management Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/
channeling_change_making_collective_impact_work?utm_source=Enews12_03_
08&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=channeling_change.
Hansen, M. T. (2009). Collaboration: How leaders avoid the traps, create unity, and
reap big results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
178
Hardy, B. (2008). Collaboration, culture and technology. Knowledge Management
Review, 10(6), 18-23.
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., and Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role
of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management, 30(1), 158-
177. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.15281426.
Hardy, S. and Koontz, T. (2009). Rules for collaboration: Institutional analysis of group
membership and levels of action in watershed partnerships. The Policy Studies
Journal, 37(3), 393-414.
Healey, P. (1998). Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. The Town Planning
Review, 69(1), 1-21.
Heclo, H. (1975). OMB and the presidency: The problem of neutral competence. Public
Interest, 38(2), 80-98.
Hill, A., Guernsey de Zapien, J., Stewart, R., Whitmer, E., Caruso, Y., Dodge, L.,
Kirkoff, M., and Mello, E. (2008). Building a successful community coalition-
university partnership at the Arizona-Sonora border. Progress in Community
Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 2(3), 245-250.
Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., and Rast, D. E. (2012). Intergroup leadership in
organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of
Management Review, 37(2), 232-255.
Hoggett, P. (2006). Conflict, ambivalence, and the contested purpose of public
organizations. Human Relations, 59(2), 175-194. doi:
10.1177/0018726706062731.
179
Horne III, J. F. and Orr, J. E. (1998). Assessing behaviors that create resilient
organizations. Employment Relations Today, 24(4), 29-39.
Internal Revenue Service (2013). Small business health care tax credit questions and
answers: Determining FTEs and average annual wages. Retrieved from
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Small-Business-Health-Care-Tax-Credit-Questions-and-
Answers:-Determining-FTEs-and-Average-Annual-Wages.
International City/County Management Association. (2010). FTE to population industry
standard. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://icma.org/en/icma/
knowledge_network/kn/Question/20111.
Jimenez, B. S. and Hendrick, R. (2010). Is government consolidation the answer? State &
Local Government Review, 42(3), 258-270. doi: 10.1177/0160323X10386805.
Joaquin, M. E. and Greitens, T. J. (2012). Contract management capacity breakdown? An
analysis of U.S. local governments. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 807-
816.
Johansson, F. (2004). The Medici effect: Breakthrough insights at the intersection of
ideas, concepts & cultures. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Johnson, J. D., Donohue, W. A., Atkin, C. K., and Johnson, S. (1994). Differences
between formal and communication channels. Journal of Business
Communication, 31(2), 111-122. doi: 10.1177/002194369403100202.
Jun, J. S. (2006). The social construction of public administration: Interpretive and
critical perspectives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
180
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., and Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail
survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94-101. doi:
10.1093/poq/nfh006.
Keyes, L. C., Schwartz, A., Vidal, A. C., and Bratt, R. C. (1996). Networks and
nonprofits: Opportunities and challenges in an era of federal devolution. Housing
Policy Debate, 7(2), 201-229. Retrieved from http://content.knowledgeplex.org/
kp2/img/cache/kp/2242.pdf.
Kise, J. (2012). Give teams a running start: Take steps to build shared vision, trust, and
collaboration skills. Journal of Staff Development, 33(3), 38-42.
Kopalle, P. K. and Lehmann, D. R. (1997). Alpha inflation? The impact of eliminating
scale items on Cronbach’s alpha. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 70(3), 189-197.
Kotter, J. (2013, January 9). Management is (still) not leadership. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2013/01/management-is-still-
not-leadership.html.
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2011). The five practices of exemplary leadership (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp,
R. J., Cameron-Mitchell, R., Presser, S., Rudd, P. A., Smith, V. K., Moody, W.
R., Green, M. C., and Conway, M. (2002). The impact of “no opinion” response
options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public
Opinion, Quarterly, 66(3), 371-403.
181
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics II. Human Relations, 1(2), 145-153. doi:
10.1177/001872674700100201.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social
science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41. doi:
10.1177/00187267470000100103.
Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory.
Association for Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.
Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., and Hill, C. J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic
for empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Mannion, R., Davies, H. T., and Marshall, M. N. (2005). Cultures of performance in
health care. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Martinez, J., Smoke, P., and Vaillancourt, F. (2009). The impact of the 2008-2009 global
economic slowdown on local governments. Barcelona, Spain: United Cities and
Local Governments. Retrieved from http://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/
9225580315_(EN)_uclgcrisis(eng).pdf.
Mattesich, P. (2005). Collaboration: What makes it work. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research
Center. Retrieved from http://www.orau.gov/hsc/hdspinstitute/2005/
PlenarySessions/CollaborationPlenarySlidesSept2005fordisplay.pdf.
Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., and Monsey, B. (2001). Wilder collaboration factors
inventory. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research.
McCollum-Cloud, G. R. (2008). The city of collaboration: Keys to a successful
community-based nonprofit collaboration (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Phoenix). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing.
182
McDavid, J. C. and Hawthorn, L. R. (2006). Program evaluation & performance
measurement: An introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
McGarvey, N. (2001). Accountability in public administration: A multi-perspective
framework of analysis. Public Policy and Administration, 16(2), 17-29. doi:
10.1177/095207670101600202.
McGregor, D. M. (1957). The human side of enterprise. Management Review, 46(11), 22-
92.
McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and
how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(Special Issue), 33-43.
McLeod, L. (2012). Making SMART goals smarter. Physical Executive, 38(2), 68-70, 72.
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as
myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Miller, F. A. and Katz, J. H. (2002). The inclusion breakthrough: Unleashing the real
power of diversity. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Miller, R. (2009). Cooperation, coordination, and connection: Evaluating the
effectiveness of intersectoral collaboration through the lens of stormwater
management (Senior thesis, Eastern Michigan University). Retrieved from
http://commons.emich.edu/honors/173/.
Milward, H. B. and Provan, K. G. (2003). Managing networks effectively. Unpublished
paper presented at the National Public Management Research Conference,
Washington, DC, October 9-11, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.pmranet.org/
conferences/georgetownpapers/Milward.pdf
183
Milward, H. B. and Provan, K. G. (2006). A manager’s guide to choosing and using
collaborative networks. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of
Government.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of
organizations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Misener, K. and Doherty, A. (2009). A case study of organizational capacity in nonprofit
community sport. Journal of Sport Management, 23(4), 457-482.
Mitchell, P. F. and Pattison, P. E. (2012). Organizational culture, intersectoral
collaboration and mental health care. Journal of Health Organization and
Management, 26(1), 32-59. doi: 10.1108/147772612112211089.
Mizrahi, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E., Cohen, N. (2009). Trust, participation, and performance in
public administration: An empirical examination of health services in Israel.
Public Performance & Management Review, 33(1), 7-33.
Moore, S. B. and Wells, R. L. (1999). Interdepartmental collaboration in teacher
education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(4), 228-231.
Morrison, M. (2003). Leading through meaning: A philosophical inquiry. Torrance, CA:
University of Toyota.
Morse, R. S. (2007). Developing public leaders in an age of collaborative governance.
Unpublished paper presented at Leading the Future of the Public Sector: The
Third Transatlantic Dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.ipa.udel.edu/3tad/
papers/workshop4/Morse.pdf.
Mosher, F. (1968). Democracy and the public service. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
184
National Community Reinvestment Coalition. (2012). Summary of local responsible
banking ordinances. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ncrc.org/images/stories/pdf/research/summary_responsiblebank.pdf.
National Resource Center on Charter School Finance & Governance. (2009). Scaling up
charter school management organizations: Eight key lessons for success. Los
Angeles, CA: The Center for Educational Governance, University of Southern
California.
Nevarez, H., Portis, M., and McAfee-Bilsborough, L. (2012). Helping the homeless:
Intradepartmental collaboration to assist a growing population. Journal for Civic
Commitment, 18(1), 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.homelesshub.ca/
(S(rhfpcriofhn5sfaeqx1tnpuu))/Library/Helping-the-Homeless-Intradepartmental-
Collaboration-to-Assist-a-Growing-Population-54409.aspx.
Nugent, S. L. (2011). Building and leading a culture of collaboration: An analysis of the
influence of a company’s social networking tools on employee collaboration
(Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). Retrieved from ProQuest UMI
Dissertation Publishing.
O’Connell, B. (1999). Civil society: The Underpinnings of American democracy.
Lebanon, NJ: University Press of New England.
O’Leary, R., Choi, Y., and Gerard, G. M. (2012). The skill set of the successful
collaborators. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), 70-83.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and
performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766-788.
185
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial
spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Plume.
Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2000). Public-private partnerships: Theory and practice in
international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ott, J. S., Parkes, S. J., and Simpson, R. B. (Eds.) (2008). Classic readings in
organizational behavior (4
th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Overman, E. S. and Garson, G. D. (1983). Themes of contemporary public management.
Public Administration Quarterly, 7(2), 139-161.
Page, S. (2003). Entrepreneurial strategies for managing interagency collaboration.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 311-340. doi:
10.1093/jopart/mug026.
Palloff, R. M. and Pratt, K. (2005). Learning together in community: Collaboration
online. Unpublished paper presented at the 20
th
Annual Conference on Distance
Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.oakland.k12.mi.us/Portals/
0/Learning/04_1127.pdf.
Perrault, E., McClelland, R., Austin, C., Sieppert, J. (2011). Working together in
collaborations: Successful process factors for community collaboration.
Administration in Social Work, 35(3), 282-298. doi: 10.1080/03643107.2011.
575343.
Perry, J. L. (Ed.). (2010). The Jossey-Bass reader on nonprofit and public leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Phillips, S. D. (2004). The limits of horizontal governance: Voluntary sector—
Government collaboration in Canada. Society and Economy, 26(2-3), 383-405.
186
Pitts, D. W., Hicklin, A. K., Hawes, D. P., and Melton, E. (2010). What drives
implementation of diversity management programs? Evidence from public
organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 867-
886. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mup044.
Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Porumbescu, G., Park, J., and Oomsels, P. (2013). Building trust: Communication and
subordinate trust in public organizations. Transylvanian Review of Administrative
Sciences, 38(E), 158-179.
Provan, K. G., Veazie, M. A., Staten, L. K., and Teufel-Shone, N. I. (2005). The use of
network analysis to strengthen community partnerships. Public Administration
Review, 65(5), 603-613.
Provan, M. (2010, June 3). The power of building networks. Lecture conducted from
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations (4
th
ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reay, W. E. (2010). Organizational adaptation: Bridging the research to practice gap.
Administration and Policy and Mental Health, 37(1), 95-99. doi: 10.1007/s10488-
010-0275-2.
Reisel, W. D., Chia, S., Morales, C. M. (2005). Job insecurity spillover to key account
management: Negative effects of on performance, effectiveness, adaptiveness,
and esprit de corps. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(4), 483-503.
Rich, M., Giles, M., and Stern, E. (2001). Views from city halls and community-based
organizations. Urban Affairs Review, 37(2), 184-204.
187
Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in
management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial
orientation dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 255-266.
Roberts, N. C. (2001). Beyond smokestacks and silos: Open-source, web-enabled
coordination in organizations and networks. Public Administration Review, 71(5),
677-693. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02406.x.
Robertson, P. J. (1998). Interorganizational relationships: Key issues for integrated
services. In J. McCroskey and S. D. Einbinder (Eds.), Communities and
universities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next
century, (pp. 67-87). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Robertson, P. J. and Choi, T. (2007). Ecological governance: Organizing principles for an
emerging era. Public Administration Review, 70(Special Issue), 89-99.
Robinson, D. F., Savage, G. T., and Sydow-Campbell, K. (2003). Organizational
learning, diffusion of innovation, and international collaboration in telemedicine.
Health Care Management Review, 28(1), 68-78.
Rogers, C. R. and Roethlisberger, F. J. (1991). Barriers and gateways to communication.
Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 105-111.
Roussos, S. and Fawcett, S. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy
for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21(1), 369-
402. doi: 10.1146/annualrev.publhealth.21.1.369.
Royal, K. (2011). Understanding reliability in higher education student learning
outcomes assessment. Quality Approaches in Higher Education (2)2, 8-15.
188
Retrieved from http://rube.asq.org/edu/2011/12/best-practices/quality-approaches-
in-higher-education-vol-2-no-2.pdf.
Rusaw, A. C. (2007). Changing public organizations: Four approaches. International
Journal of Public Administration, 30(3), 347-361. doi:
10.1080/01900690601117853.
Ryan, C. and Walsh, P. (2004). Collaboration of public sector agencies: Reporting and
accountability challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management,
17(2), 621-631.
Saidel, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies
and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 543-553.
Sandel, M. J. (Ed.). (2007). Justice: A reader. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan
Management Review, 25(2), 3-16.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership (1
st
ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., Osborn, R. N., and Uhl-Bien, M. (2010). Organizational
behavior (11
th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schnobrich-Davis, J. and Terrill, W. (2010). Interagency collaboration: An administrative
and operational assessment of the Metro-LEC approach. Policing: An
189
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33(3), 506-530. doi:
10.1108/13639511011066881.
Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research
(5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Seaburn, D. B., Lorenz, A. D., Gunn, W. B., Gawinski, B. A., and Mauksch, L. B.
(1996). Models of Collaboration: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals
Working with Health Care Practitioners. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Selden, S. C., Sowa, J. E., and Sandfort, J. (2006). The impact of nonprofit collaboration
in early child care and education on management and program outcomes. Public
Administration Review, 66(3), 412-425.
Shafritz, J. M. and Hyde, A. C. (2012). Classics of public administration (7
th
ed.).
Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Shipman, C. R. and Volden, C. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American
Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 840-857.
Shipman, C. R. and Volden, C. (2012). Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and
practitioners. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 788-796. doi: 10.111/j.1540-
6210.2012.02610.x.
Simmons, B. A. and Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberation: policy diffusion in
the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98(1),
171-189. Retrieved from http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3157884/
Simmons_GlobalizationLiberalization.pdf.
190
Simmons, J. and Lovegrove, I. (2005). Bridging the conceptual divide: Lessons from
stakeholder analysis. Journal of Organizational Change, 18(5), 495-513. doi:
10.1108/095334810510614977.
Simonin, B. L. (1997). The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of
the learning organization. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1150-
1175.
Simrell-King, C. (2011). Government is us 2.0. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
Sowa, J. E. (2008). Implementing interagency collaborations: Exploring variations in
collaborative ventures in human service organizations. Administration & Society,
40(3), 298-323. doi: 10.1177/0095399707313701.
Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader, 2004(34), 7-11.
doi: 10.1002/ltl.94.
St. Katherine University. (2008). St. Kate’s Libraries Guides. St. Paul, MN.
Stillman II, R. J. (2010). Public administration: Concepts and cases (9
th
ed.). Boston,
MA: Wadsworth.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance and theory: Five propositions. International Social
Science Journal, 50(155), 17-28. doi: 10.1111/1468-2451.00106.
Svara, J. H. and Denhardt, J. V. (2010). The connected community: Local governments as
partners in citizen engagement and community building [White paper]. Retrieved
from http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/
301763/Connected_Communities_Local_Governments_as_a_Partner_in_Citizen_
Engagement_and_Community_Building.
191
Tahtinen, J., Mainela, T., Natti, S., Saraniemi, S. (2012). Intradepartmental faculty
mentoring in teaching marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 5-18.
doi: 10.1177/0273475311420245.
Takano, T., Nakamura, K., and Watanabe, M. (2002). Urban residential environments
and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: The importance of walkable
green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 56(12), 913-918.
Retrieved from http://jech.bmj.com/content/56/12/913.full.pdf+html.
Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International
Journal of Medical Education, 2(1), 53-55. Doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Thomson, A. M. (2001). Collaboration: Meaning and measurement (Doctoral thesis,
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana). Retrieved from ProQuest UMI
Dissertation Publishing.
Thomson, A. M. and Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box.
Public Administration Review, Special Issue, 20-32.
Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., and Miller, T. M. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring
collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 23-
56. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum036.
Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., and Miller, T. M. (2008). Linking collaboration processes
and outcomes: Foundations for advancing empirical theory. In L. B. Bingham and
R. O’Leary (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 97-120).
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Tichy, N. M. and Ulrich, D. O. (2008). The leadership challenge – A call for the
transformational leader. In J. S. Ott, S. J. Parkes, & R. D. Simpson (Eds.), Classic
192
readings in organizational behavior (4
th
ed.) (pp 65-73). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth. (Reprinted from MIT Sloan Management Review, 1984).
Todt, O. (2011). The limits of policy: Public acceptance and the reform of science and
technology governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6),
902-909.
Townsend, A. and Shelley, K. (2008). Validating instrument for assessing workforce
collaboration. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(2), 101-
112. doi: 10.1080/10668920701707813.
Tse, T. (2011). Shareholder and stakeholder theory: After the financial crisis. Qualitative
Research in Financial Markets, 3(1), 51-63. doi: 10.1108/17554171111124612.
University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2010). Survey fundamentals: A guide to designing
and implementing surveys. Madison, WI: Office of Quality Improvement.
Retrieved from http://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/uploads/resources/Survey
%20Guide%20v%202.0.pdf.
Van Dooren, W. (2011). Better performance management: Single- and double-loop
strategies. Public Performance & Management Review, 34(3), 420-433. doi:
10.2753/PMR1530-9576340305.
Velotti, L., Botti, A., and Vesci, M. (2012, December). Public-private partnerships and
network governance: What are the challenges? Public Performance &
Management Review, 36(2), 340-365.
Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the
next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5),
527-540.
193
Vilana, J. R. and Rodriguez-Monroy, C. (2010). Influence on cultural mechanisms on
horizontal inter-firm collaborations. Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, 3(1), 138-175. doi: 10.3926/jiem.2010.v3ni.p138-175.
Wang, X., Hawkins, C. V., Lebredo, N., and Berman, E. M. (2012). Capacity to sustain
sustainability: A study of U.S. cities. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 841-
853.
Weingart Foundation. (2010). Fortifying L.A.’s nonprofit organizations: Capacity-
building needs and services in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles, CA: TCC
Group. Retrieved from www.weingartfnd.org/files/Capacity-Report-Final.pdf.
Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., and Newcomer, K. E. (2010). Handbook of practical
program evaluation (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197-
222.
Winer, M. and Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and
enjoying the journey. Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Winter, G. (1966). Elements for a social ethic. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Wohlstetter, P., Mallow, C. L., Hentschke, G. C., and Smith, J. (2004). Improving service
delivery in education through collaboration: An exploratory study on the role of
cross-sectoral alliances in the development and support of charter schools. Social
Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1078-1096.
Wood-Daudelin, M. (1996). Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational
Dynamics, 24(3), 36-48. Retrieved from http://www.questsandsummits.com/
Learning.pdf.
194
Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A., and Wise, C. (2004). Variabilities and dualities
in distributed leadership: Findings from systematic literature review. Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, 32(4), 439-457.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zhuo, X. G. and Watanabe, S. (1999). Factor analysis of digestive cancer mortality and
food consumption in 65 Chinese countries. Journal of Epistemology, 9(4), 275-
284.
195
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Modified Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory
Department:
❏ Health
❏ Library
❏ Planning & Public Works
Statements about your Department
Statement
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
- No
Opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
Individuals from my department
have a history of working
together.
1 2 3 4 5
2
Trying to solve problems
through collaboration has been
common in my department.
1 2 3 4 5
3
Managers and supervisors in the
organization who are not part of
my department seem hopeful
about what we can accomplish.
1 2 3 4 5
4
Staffs from other departments
generally agree that individuals
from my department are the
right ones to accomplish its
goals and objectives.
1 2 3 4 5
5
The political and social climates
are right for starting projects
that require collaboration with
individuals from my
department.
1 2 3 4 5
6
People in my department trust
one another.
1 2 3 4 5
7
Personnel in the department
respect members from other
departments.
1 2 3 4 5
8
In my department, we usually
have all the individuals we need
to collaborate effectively on
projects or tasks.
1 2 3 4 5
9
Personnel in my department
benefit from collaborating with
one another.
1 2 3 4 5
10
People in my department are
willing to compromise on
1 2 3 4 5
196
important aspects of their
projects.
11
Individuals in my department
invest the right amount of time
in our collaborative efforts.
1 2 3 4 5
12
Members of my department
want their project(s) to succeed.
1 2 3 4 5
13
Individuals from my department
are committed to their work.
1 2 3 4 5
14
Before making major decisions,
individuals from my department
have time to confer with
colleagues about what the
decision should be.
1 2 3 4 5
15
Individuals in my department
that participate in decisions are
empowered to speak on behalf
of the section they represent.
1 2 3 4 5
16
There is flexibility when we
make decisions; people in my
department are open to
discussing different options.
1 2 3 4 5
17
People in my department
consider different ways of
working to achieve their
objectives.
1 2 3 4 5
18
People in my department have a
clear sense of their roles and
responsibilities.
1 2 3 4 5
19
The process of making
decisions to collaborate is clear
to department members.
1 2 3 4 5
20
My department is able to adapt
to changing conditions, e.g.,
budget shortages, changing
political climate, change in
leadership, etc.
1 2 3 4 5
21
In my department, we
effectively address change to
facilitate skillful transitions.
1 2 3 4 5
22
My department takes on the
right amount of work at the
right pace.
1 2 3 4 5
23
We are currently able to keep
up with the work necessary to
coordinate all the people and
1 2 3 4 5
197
activities related to my
department's mission and
objectives.
24
People in my department
communicate well with one
another.
1 2 3 4 5
25
Personnel in the department are
informed as often as they
should be about what goes on in
my department.
1 2 3 4 5
26
People who lead my department
communicate well with staff.
1 2 3 4 5
27
Communication among people
in my department happens both
formally and informally.
1 2 3 4 5
28
Personnel frequently have
informal conversations about
their work with others in my
department.
1 2 3 4 5
29
I understand what my
department is trying to
accomplish.
1 2 3 4 5
30
People in my department know
and understand our collective
goals.
1 2 3 4 5
31
People in my department have
established reasonable goals for
themselves.
1 2 3 4 5
32
People in my department
believe we can achieve our
objectives.
1 2 3 4 5
33
My ideas about what we want to
accomplish in my department
seem to be the same as the ideas
of others.
1 2 3 4 5
34
What we are trying to
accomplish in my department
would be difficult for any
individual to accomplish by him
or herself.
1 2 3 4 5
35
No other department within
Yolo County is trying to do
exactly what we are trying to
do.
1 2 3 4 5
36
My department has adequate
funds to do what it wants to
1 2 3 4 5
198
accomplish.
37
My department has adequate
"people power" to do what it
wants to accomplish.
1 2 3 4 5
38
The people in leadership
positions in my department
have the required skills for
working with others.
1 2 3 4 5
39
The time is right to collaborate
in my department.
1 2 3 4 5
Adapted from Amherst H. Wilder Foundation (2001)
199
Appendix B. Original Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory
200
201
202
Appendix C. Study Engagement Letter to Yolo County Personnel
December 14, 2012
Dear Participant:
I am a doctoral candidate at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of
Southern California. As part of my research requirement, I am conducting a study within
Yolo County to better understand the manner in which collaboration occurs within public
organizations.
I am interested in learning more about this topic because public organizations have
undergone drastic changes within recent years due to the economic downturn. As a
result, I am exploring how organizations like yours have adapted strategies to cope with
widespread economic uncertainty and resource scarcity.
The likely benefits to your department resulting from this project include increased
clarity about how factors such as strategy, leadership, and communication, for example,
impact collaboration among members of your particular department.
To better tell your department’s story, I would greatly appreciate it if you would
complete the online survey before Friday, March 22, 2013 at 5:00 P.M. You may
access the survey at the following link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YoloCounty-
Collaboration
In order for my findings to be valid, I need your help to achieve a high response rate.
Keep in mind that your anonymous responses may also reflect your feelings about a
particular question in light of having directly experienced a situation—select the response
that fits best.
The survey should take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
Should you have any questions or comments about the study, you may contact me either
via email at marcoram@usc.edu or cellphone at 909-560-6154.
Sincerely,
MARCO RAMIREZ
Doctoral Candidate
203
Appendix D. Responsible Banking Ordinance Media Advisory
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Collaboration is a continuum of opportunities (Creighton, 2005). As an emerging and frequently sought out practice, forms of collaboration among stakeholders from disparate organizations is evolving into a popular strategy to manage the negative impact of declining or limited resources and increased demands for service. Public organizations, especially, are engaged in efforts to share resources and assets to successfully navigate the changing environment without compromising their ability to accomplish the mission. Because there is insufficient evidence to describe the aspects of collaboration within public‐sector departments, this dissertation examines the factors that either promote or hinder intradepartmental collaboration for the purposes of improving the state of the field of practice. ❧ The findings unearth insight about collaboration in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty within three departments—Health, Library, and Planning and Public Works—at one public organization: Yolo County. This dissertation asks two questions: 1) What internal organizational factors contribute to intradepartmental collaboration? 2) How do external factors—those outside of an organization—impact the degree and quality of intradepartmental collaboration? ❧ To answer the questions, a modified version of the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (CFI) was used to assess perspectives and attitudes toward collaboration practice within departments. Arranged by respondents’ department, tenure, age, gender, and position, the analysis depicts the impact of the following six factors on intradepartmental collaboration: environmental conditions, communication, purpose, membership characteristics, process and structure, and resources. Findings from the study inform a series propositions designed to improve intradepartmental collaboration practice in the public sector. ❧ In summary, survey responses suggest that the role one plays, either as manager or non‐manager, in a department influences the degree to which they interpret the factors that advance effective joint action. Survey responses suggested that economic uncertainty and resource instability drove managers to implement less than inclusive, though efficient practices at the expense of hindering opportunities to effectively leverage internal capacity and uncover strategic blind spots. Due to the nature of their roles, managers and non‐managers experience economic‐ and resource‐related crises differently
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships
PDF
The effects of interlocal collaboration on local economic performance: investigation of Korean cases
PDF
Governing regional collaboratives: institutional design, management and leadership
PDF
The functions of the middleman: how intermediary nonprofit organizations support the sector and society
PDF
A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning
PDF
The institutionalization of nonprofit management: emergence, development, and legitimization
PDF
The spatial economic impact of live music in Orange County, CA
PDF
The economic and political impacts of U.S. federal carbon emissions trading policy across households, sectors and states
PDF
A framework for evaluating urban policy and its impact on social determinants of health (SDoH)
PDF
Health impact assessment, the concept, science, and application in China
PDF
How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea
PDF
Green healthcare, an environmentally sustainable methodology: an investigation of the ecological impacts of the healthcare industry and the role of green initiatives in sustainable medical services
PDF
The twilight of the local redevelopment era: the past, present, and future of urban revitalization and urban economic development in Nevada and California
PDF
The role of leadership and collaboration as a catalyst for regional economic development: a grounded theory study
PDF
Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...
PDF
Does collaborative R&D policy work? The effect of collaborative R&D policy on innovative activities of firms in Korea
PDF
Looking to the stars: perceptions of celebrity influence in the nonprofit sector
PDF
Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports
PDF
New public management in Chile (1990 - 2008): exploring its impact on public employees
PDF
The context of leadership in the development of California’s innovation hubs
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ramirez, Marco Antonio
(author)
Core Title
Intradepartmental collaboration in the public organizations: implications to practice in an era of resource scarcity and economic uncertainty
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publication Date
06/05/2014
Defense Date
04/21/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
collaboration,Communication,economic impact,leadership,Management,OAI-PMH Harvest,Planning,public organization,public sector,resources
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Robertson, Peter John (
committee chair
), Culley, Henry Rick (
committee member
), Lewis, Lavonna Blair (
committee member
), Lopez, Melissa (
committee member
)
Creator Email
marco.ramirez12@gmail.com,marcoram@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-417193
Unique identifier
UC11295461
Identifier
etd-RamirezMar-2529.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-417193 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RamirezMar-2529.pdf
Dmrecord
417193
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Ramirez, Marco Antonio
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
collaboration
economic impact
public organization
public sector
resources