University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

(USC Thesis Other)

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP 1

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP:
THE INFLUENCE OF NONPROFIT MANAGERS ON COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

by

Donna Gallup

___________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Donna Gallup

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to nonprofit managers and everyone they lead in service to
individuals and communities in need. Human services nonprofit managers work tirelessly to
improve the lives of others, are committed often in ways no one else understands, and give so
much to others often without much acknowledgment or appreciation. I would also like to
dedicate this study to everyone who support nonprofits in their work of giving voice and care to
many who have been lost or are invisible in our society.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my family for their love, encouragement and support during
this challenging and rewarding journey. There are truly no words to describe how it feels when
your husband, children, and parents believe in you when you doubt yourself the most. I am so
grateful to have had all of you stand by my side when many signs were telling me to give up. To
my colleagues in USC OCL Cohort 6, you are amazing in the ways you made this program better
and helped me grow as a professional. I appreciate all of you and know you will make an
incredible impact on the world. Finally, I could not have done this without my faith in God, who
I know had to carry me many times to get to the finish line. I look forward to seeing the path He
has for me in the future.
To my dissertation committee, Dr. Monique Datta, Dr. Lawrence Picus, and Dr. Don
Murphy, I am so grateful for your feedback and guidance in making this a strong learning
experience and dissertation. Dr. Datta, you have been an inspiration to me since my first OCL
class, and your advice and cheerleading me through so many challenges and changes will never
be forgotten. I could not have completed this program without you. Dr. Picus, thank you for
serving on my committee and providing me with some truly valuable insight. I am honored that
you served on my committee. Dr. Murphy, when I was ready to give up and was lost, you put
me back on track and wouldn’t give up on me. I am so appreciative for the extra effort and time
you gave me so many Saturdays.
To the dedicated leaders of the Network for Social Work Management, especially CEO,
Lakeya Cherry, and Board Member, Gary Bess, a sincere thank you for helping me distribute the
survey for this study. Your work and commitment to developing social work leaders is so
critically important. Thank you to everyone who participated in this study and shared your
insights and stories. Finally, but certainly, not last, to my Azusa Pacific University (APU) social
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

4
work colleagues who encouraged and supported me during my research and analysis, thank you
for listening to my frequent questions and always addressing my concerns. My APU peers
literally kept me going and always focused me on the goal of completing my doctorate.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 10
Chapter 1: Introduction 11
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 11
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Organizational Goal 14
Related Literature 15
Importance of the Evaluation 16
Description of Stakeholder Groups 17
Stakeholder Performance Goals 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 18
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 19
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 20
Definitions 20
Organization of the Dissertation 21
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 22
Overview of the Literature 22
Partnerships in the Nonprofit Sector 22
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 27
Conceptual Framework 42
Conclusion 46
Chapter 3: Methodology 47
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 47
Participating Stakeholders 47
Data Collection and Instrumentation 51
Data Analysis 54
Credibility and Trustworthiness 55
Validity and Reliability 56
Ethics 57
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 60
Study Participants 61
Results 64
Findings 85
Summary 89
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

6
Chapter 5: Recommendations 92
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 92
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 102
Program Evaluation 107
Data Analysis and Reporting 115
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 118
Limitations 119
Future Research 120
Conclusion 120
References 123
Appendices 137
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter 137
Appendix B: Informed Consent/Information Sheet 138
Appendix C: Survey Items 140
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 143

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Organizational Mission and Goals 18
Table 2. Stakeholder Knowledge Influences 32
Table 3. Stakeholder Motivation Influences 37
Table 4. Stakeholder Organizational Influences 42
Table 5. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 93
Table 6. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 97
Table 7. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 100
Table 8. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 104
Table 9. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 105
Table 10. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 106
Table 11. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 110
Table 12. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 111
Table 13. Sample: Evaluation Tool Immediately After Training 113
Table 14. Sample: Delayed/blended Evaluation 115
Table 15. Sample Monthly Dashboard: June 116

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Study conceptual framework: Modified Clark and Estes gap analysis 45
Figure 2. Respondents’ organizational role and level of responsibility 62
Figure 3. Respondents’ length of time as a nonprofit manager 62
Figure 4. Annual revenue of organizations respondents worked for 63
Figure 5. Nonprofit partnerships lead to greater community impact than the individual 66
organizations can achieve alone
Figure 6. Managers’ skills determine their organization’s ability to develop partnerships 68
with other nonprofits
Figure 7. The establishment of partnerships requires nonprofits to mutually agree upon 69
norms, vision, and measurements
Figure 8. It is important for nonprofit managers to reflect on their own skills and 71
knowledge in forming partnerships before starting a new collaborative
Figure 9. I am confident in my ability to form new community partnerships on behalf 72
of my organization
Figure 10. I believe I can effectively hold my organization accountable for meeting the 74
goals of partnerships
Figure 11. An essential part of my role as a manager is the development of new 76
partnerships
Figure 12. My organization’s executive management team believes that partnerships 77
expand our organization’s ability to reach more people
Figure 13. My organization values partnering with community nonprofits over working 78
alone to meet our mission
Figure 14. I receive clearly defined goals from my organization’s executive leadership 80
to work with other community nonprofits
Figure 15. My agency’s board of directors support efforts of our organization to work 81
with other nonprofits
Figure 16. Forming partnerships with other nonprofits results in less funding for my 83
organization

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

9
Figure 17. I have adequate resources, such as time, support staff, or technology, to 84
effectively establish partnerships with other nonprofits
Figure 18. Training plan and evaluation cycle 117

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

10
ABSTRACT
With increasing service needs, demand for more accountability, and limited resources, nonprofit
human services organizations are being asked to collaborate with others. Nonprofit managers are
not necessarily trained or experienced in developing partnerships, which can be a barrier to
achieving shared outcomes and goals. Examining the knowledge, motivation, or organizational
barriers nonprofit managers face in establishing community partnerships, this dissertation
utilized a mixed methods approach to studying this problem of practice. The data was derived
from 100 online surveys of nonprofit managers and 6 interviews. The study revealed nonprofit
managers are knowledgeable and motivated to form collaboratives, but there are areas for
enhanced learning in the procedural steps of partnership development. The most significant
finding was in the area of organizational barriers. Nonprofit managers are not being given clear
goals to develop community partnerships and a lack of organizational resources makes it difficult
to invest the needed time to foster new relationships and collaboratives. Addressing the
recommendations would improve the ability of nonprofit human services organizations to
address complex societal problems.

Keywords: nonprofit manager, partnerships, human services leadership

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

11
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
A market economy that relies solely on competition and profits will not meet all the
needs of a society. Unregulated competition can lead, instead, to market failure resulting in
inefficient or inequitable outcomes, which requires the intervention of the government (Wheelan,
2010). In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) established regulations for the
formation of nonprofit agencies as private, self-governing organizations that serve a public
benefit to the community and do not distribute a profit (Hammack, 2002). Nonprofits are found
in multiple sectors, including but not limited to religious, educational, and human services.
Since the 1980s, nonprofits experienced competition from for-profit entities, an increase in
demand for services, and a decrease in resources resulting in the formation of alliances to ensure
their viability (Salamon, 2010). The development of collaborations provided security for human
services organizations at risk during these turbulent times. In addition, economic changes result
in fluctuations of funding at the same time increases in the number of human services
competitors was increasing (Nandan, London, & Bent-Goodley, 2015). While the legal structure
of the nonprofit could not change, the way human services organizations operated in the United
States began to shift.
In order to overcome these threats, external stakeholders and funders focused their
attention and interest in nonprofits working together as a solution to the new problems.
Proponents of collaboration further argued that the alignment of multiple entities’ work resulted
in a greater community impact and improved outcomes than each individual organization could
achieve alone (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006). The changes in the 1980s also exacerbated a
growing reality of the day-to-day challenges of financial sustainability nonprofits face (Sontag-
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

12
Padilla, Staplefoote, & Morganti, 2012). Annual increases in the number of human services
organizations competing for stagnant funding created a new risk to revenue streams previously
relied upon. Nonprofits have been urged to form both in-sector and cross-sector collaborations
as a way to improve efficiencies in service delivery and better utilize limited resources
(MacIndoe & Sullivan, 2014). Human service organizations could not only benefit financially
from partnerships, they also could address service deficits. Nonprofit managers collaborate to
meet service gaps through the improvement, enhancement, or expansion of programs (Clay,
2012). With partnerships and collaborations thrust upon the nonprofit sector, nonprofits leaders
realized new competencies and organizational efforts were required to address the demands.
The management skills, motivations and organizational supports that are needed to meet
the changes in the sector was less clear. Cândido and Santos (2015) outlined these complexities
and challenges in measuring and documenting the success of partnerships and the implications
for management practices. Nonprofit partnerships face additional challenges due to a
documented leadership deficit in the sector (Tierney, 2006) and inadequate talent systems (Stahl,
2013). It is difficult to effect large scale organizational change when the leadership system is
weak. The nonprofit sector faces barriers to recruiting, retaining, and training its managers
(Nonprofit HR Solutions, 2016; Pitman, 2016). While nonprofit leadership is the foundation of
the development of community partnerships, the human services sector currently faces a
dilemma of how to address the societal pressures to collaborate to meet growing demand for
services and a leadership deficit simultaneously.
Organizational Context and Mission
Predating the formation of the United States, voluntary charitable organizations existed to
fill the gap in meeting human services needs where the government could not (Arnsberger,
Ludlum, Riley, & Stanton, 2008). Through religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, nonprofit
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

13
charitable organizations have a wide range of missions and purposes that have knit together the
fabric of our nation’s decentralized, competitive delivery of services (Hammack, 2002). The
nonprofit sector under the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), organized as 501c3 tax exempt,
is made up of 30 categories of charitable organizations designated to serve the public good
(Meckstroth & Arnsberger, 1998). As of 2016, the IRS had over 1.5 million tax-exempt
organizations registered (National Center for Charitable Statistics [NCCS], 2018). The nonprofit
sector is large in numbers as well as economic impact. Not only do nonprofits assist millions of
people, protect animals and the environment, and help build communities, but public charities
also contributed $878 billion to the economy in 2012, or about 5.4% of the GDP (National
Council of Nonprofits, 2018). Up 9% from 2007, employment in the nonprofit sector increased
to 10.3% of total private U.S. private sector employment (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014).
The economic impact also comes from the significant involvement of volunteers in nonprofits.
With about one quarter of the U.S. volunteering at a nonprofit and philanthropic giving
increasing (Giving USA Foundation, 2016), the public has a vested interest in nonprofits being
effectively managed.
In contrast to a robust, growing nonprofit sector, recruitment, retention, and training of
nonprofit leaders has not changed. In fact, the percentage of grant dollars invested in nonprofit
staff development fell over the last decade from 1.4% to 0.8%, as unrestricted income was
utilized to support programs rather than develop talent (Stahl, 2013). Furthermore, 2016 study of
1006 nonprofit leaders reported 77% of the agencies did not have a leadership program (Pitman,
2016). Research shows nonprofits undervalue formal training and rely more on experience for
leadership development, which limits nonprofits from developing talent from within (Benevene
& Cortini, 2010; McKee & Froelich, 2016). In addition, a survey by Nonprofit HR Solutions
(2016) reported nonprofits do not plan strategically for leadership development, and 78% of
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

14
nonprofits indicate they could not name a successor if the executive were to leave without notice
(Larcker, Donatiello, Meehan, & Tayan, 2015). At a time when there is a documented leadership
deficit, the importance of nonprofit managers and their role in the development of community
partnerships cannot be overstated.
Organizational Goal
The issue of an expanding nonprofit leadership deficit in U.S. nonprofits can negatively
affect the mission delivery of mission, long-term health of organizations, and community impact
(Cornelius, Corvington, & Ruesga, 2008). One way to mitigate this deficit is through human
service organizations partnering. Collaborations can support nonprofit leadership in delivering a
collective impact when committed groups with different agendas come together to solve a
societal problem (Kania & Kramer, 2011). At the same time, executive leadership turnover can
lead to a new direction for the nonprofit, which impacts external relationships with stakeholders
and partners (Ban, Drahnak-Faller, & Towers, 2003). Having formalized collaborations can
reduce the risks to the agency’s service delivery during these times of change. In response to
increased demand for services, the Nonprofit Finance Fund (2018) also reported over 60% of
nonprofits collaborated to increase services and reduce administrative expenses. In addition,
collaboration is highly valued by nonprofit funders (Sowa, 2009), and accordingly, organizations
often collaborate to gain legitimacy in the eyes of these funders (Bunger, 2013). Without
funding and commitment to formal leadership development, nonprofits fail to engage staff and
morale is diminished (Sarti, 2014), which impacts the sector’s ability to deliver the expected
community benefit. The organizational goal of human services partnering to strengthen financial
sustainability and service provision can only be achieved through its leadership.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

15
Related Literature
For over 50 years, the management field has been documenting the importance of the
human skills of working with others as critical to being an effective administrator (Katz, 1955).
While nonprofit management has been less studied and documented than in the for-profit sector,
the existing literature demonstrates that there is a leadership deficit resulting from many sources
(Pitman, 2016; Tierney, 2006). A lack of leadership skills is rooted in nonprofit reliance on
learning while on the job. In a comparison of 300 small- and medium-sized for-profits and
nonprofits, Thach and Thompson (2007) showed that while both place a high priority on
developing staff, the differences in leadership competencies reflects that nonprofits managers
lack formal training and development. This difference is supported by other nonprofit studies.
Cornelius et al.’s (2008) research showed only 4% of emerging leaders are receiving the training
and development needed to be the next generation of executives. The knowledge and skills of
nonprofit managers are imperative to navigating complicated bureaucracy and utilizing scarce
resources (Sullivan, 2016). Addressing the changes in the nonprofit sector, human services
organizations with specialized leadership skills are better able to respond to external pressures of
measuring and achieving outcomes (Barman & MacIndoe, 2012). The ability to be outcome
focused is a key component of partnership development.
Nonprofit leaders require skills, motivation and organizational support to develop
partnerships. Social services managers require an understanding of people and of how to relate
and engage with others at all levels, as well as knowledge of building and managing teams to
meet the needs of the organization (Bell, 2016; Bish & Becker, 2016; Carter, 2016; Clements,
2013; Kearns, Livingston, Scherer, & McShane, 2015; Sevilla, 2014; Vetter, 2012). Being able
to work with others is also identified by nonprofit executives as a critical competency. In a study
of nonprofit chief executives, social performance was the number-one-reported leadership skill
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

16
needed (Kearns et al., 2015). O’Brien, Littlefield, and Goddard-Truitt (2013) further
demonstrated that a leadership-action program improved accountability and collaborative skills,
which were positively correlated with more effective work and improved outcome achievements.
Working collaboratively with others is not only desirable within the nonprofit, it also supports
efforts with external partners. In a survey of over 311 government and nonprofit entities, it was
found that managers collaborated to improve services and build a stronger community (Gazley &
Brudney, 2007). Nonprofit managers and their ability to establish partnerships directly align
with the organizations’ goals and the larger sector role of public benefit.
Importance of the Evaluation
The national movement to encourage or require partnerships among nonprofits is
consistent with the sector’s charge to deliver public benefit to the community (Mendel, 2010). A
leadership deficit in the nonprofit sector can not only impact organizations’ ability to deliver on
their mission and utilize resources effectively, but it can also impact the national financial
impacts. Growing by more than 10% between 2008 and 2013, the nonprofit sector needs to
invest in strong leadership and positive community outcomes to ensure an effective use of scarce
and invaluable national resources (McKeever, 2015). In a report by the Nonprofit Finance Fund
(2018), 86% of nonprofits indicated an anticipated increase in demand for their services but only
43% believe they can meet the demand. Given these challenges, collaboratives can provide
some potential relief. Nonprofit partnerships lead to efficiencies in the use of resources,
enhanced service delivery, and increased reach for programs (Brinkerhoff, 2002). A deficit in
nonprofit leadership is not only a risk to the individual nonprofit organizations, but without a
pipeline of leaders being developed to handle the challenges of partnering, the sector will fail to
deliver on its mandate to serve the community and provide public benefit to those most in need.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

17
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are three primary stakeholder groups in human services nonprofits, who directly
contribute to their formation of partnerships with other community organizations: Board of
Directors, funders, and nonprofit managers. Nonprofits are governed by a volunteer Board of
Directors, who are the fiduciaries responsible for the strategic direction, legal governance, and
financial management policies of the agency. Nonprofit organizations rely on a variety of
sources of revenue. The stakeholder group comprised of government and private sources
contribute to the financial viability and sustainability of the nonprofit agency. This stakeholder
group is more diverse in that they are made up of private foundations, government bodies in
addition to individual and corporate donors. Board of Directors, staff, and funders are not only
interested and concerned about the organization and its work, but they also are critical to the
long-term success of the agency being able to achieve its mission.
While the Board of Directors and funders ensure the strategic and financial viability of
human service agencies, the group most influential on the formation of partnerships and delivery
of community impact is the nonprofit manager. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(2018), from 2016 to 2026, the employment of social and community service managers is
expected to grow faster than the average occupation with about 18% projected in expansion. The
growth in nonprofit human services managers demonstrates the importance of examining this
group in this study. The various levels of nonprofit managers from chief executive
officer/executive directors to managers that oversee programs and services are charged with
delivery of the public benefit and their organization’s mission. Developing partnerships supports
and expands the potential of the managers to meet these goals and have a greater impact than can
be achieved by any one organization alone (Clay, 2012). With the responsibility to deliver on
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

18
the organization’s mission and commitment to the community, the nonprofit manager is a critical
stakeholder.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1 provides an overview of the study’s organizational performance goal as well as
the key stakeholder goal.

Table 1
Organizational Mission and Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of charitable nonprofits organizations is to fulfill activities that
provide public benefit (National Council of Nonprofits, 2018).
Organizational Performance Goal
Nonprofits will increase the number of partnerships with other community charitable
organizations to improve service delivery and utilization of resources.
Nonprofit Manager Goal
With organizational support, nonprofit leaders will build partnerships
to enhance the delivery of services and community impact.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
While a complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes,
the stakeholder that was the focus of this study is the nonprofit manager. Specifically, nonprofit
managers who are also members of the Network for Social Work Management (NSWM) was the
stakeholder group studied. The majority of the NSWM membership is 63% white with 72%
holding a masters’ degree (NSWM, 2017). According to Nandan et al. (2015), social workers
are trained to identify and understand social issues and address them through the development of
genuine relationships and partnerships. Thus, this professional association was aligned with the
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

19
study’s purpose. In addition, nonprofit managers need skills to develop partnerships to be able to
negotiate a competitive funding environment (Crawford, 2010). Examining the role of the
human services social work manager in developing partnerships with other organizations may
illuminate the one aspect of the leadership deficit that undermines the sector’s ability to deliver
outcomes and community impact. Developing nonprofit leaders will not only help meet the
sector’s leadership deficit, but can also expand partnerships that lead to greater public benefit,
which is at the core of charitable organizations.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
With the nonprofit sector growing and resources tightening, there is an increase in
interest and demand for human services organizations to partner to more efficiently use available
funding and increase impact. This study’s purpose was to assess the nonprofit manager’s role in
the forming of collaborations developed to achieve mutually agreed upon goals. Following an
action research model outlined by Stringer (2014), the study sought to make a difference in the
social service sector by providing data on the relationship between nonprofit managers and
community partnerships. The study’s methodology and rationale were aligned with the purpose
of the project.
The three research questions that guided this study were as follows
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
nonprofit managers building partnerships to enhance the delivery of services and
community impact?
2. What is the interaction between nonprofit organizational culture and context and
management’s knowledge and motivations?
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

20
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that
will support nonprofit managers in developing community partnerships and
collaborative efforts?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
To close performance gaps and achieve organizational and stakeholder goals, causes of
the gaps must be identified and the appropriate solutions applied (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model is a systematic, analytical method comprised of a
framework that includes the alignment of three key areas critical to achieve organizational goals:
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. A modified version of the Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis model was used as the framework for this study to evaluate and
identify the presence of gaps, versus the causes of gaps, in the key areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. A mixed methodology was used for this study
through both quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interviews) approaches to complete the
analysis and provide recommendations.
Definitions
Network for Social Work Management (NSWM): An international professional
organization whose mission is to strengthen leadership in health and human services.
Nonprofit charitable organization: A corporation organized and operated exclusively for
tax-exempt purposes and public benefit according to IRS section 501 (c) 3.
Partnership: When two organizations work together to address problems through
mutually agreed upon effort, shared resources, and joint decision making that delivers greater
impact than can be achieved by either agency alone.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

21
Social and human service managers: Employees of nonprofits that coordinate and
supervise social service programs and community organizations and manage workers who
provide social services to the public.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided an overview of
the study problem of practice and research questions about the influences of nonprofit managers
on the development of partnerships critical to social service delivery improvements and
community impact. In addition, Chapter 1 included the methodological framework,
organizational context, mission, and goals, as well as the key stakeholder description. Chapter 2
includes a review of relevant literature related to the problem of practice and a review of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impacting nonprofit managers and
partnerships. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the conceptual and methodological framework
of the study and details strategies to address sampling, data analysis, validity, and reliability. In
Chapter 4, the data and results are described and analyzed, and the key study’s findings
identified. This dissertation concludes with solutions and recommendations for practice in
Chapter 5.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

22
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Overview of the Literature
This literature review examined the leadership deficit in the nonprofit sector that impacts
community partnerships achieving agreed-upon goals and outcomes. The review begins with
general research on the challenges human services managers have in developing and maintaining
community partnerships. This section is followed by an overview of the underlying challenges
nonprofit leaders face in forming partnerships that benefit individuals, families, and
communities. The review then presents a discussion of factors that influence the ability of
nonprofit managers to lead effective partnerships. Following the general research literature, the
Gap Analysis Framework is presented (Clark & Estes, 2008). Specifically, the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on human services managers when they
consider forming partnerships and what is needed for the collaborations to achieve the desired
goals and outcomes that brought the entities together.
Partnerships in the Nonprofit Sector
Measuring and documenting partnership outcomes are both complex and challenging,
which makes it difficult to assess the impact of management practices (Cândido & Santos, 2015).
Large social issues calling for nonprofits to partner to achieve impact often fail because leaders
cannot agree on desired outcomes (Crawford, 2010). Nonprofit partnerships face additional
challenges due to a documented leadership deficit in the sector (Tierney, 2006) and lack of
expertise to train and retain new nonprofit managers (Pitman, 2016). The formation and long-
term survival of a partnership throughout the life cycle depends on an investment of human
capital and professional expertise of each of the joined entities (Schmid & Almog-Bar, 2016).
The investment of organizational resources allows the partners to develop relationships based on
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

23
trust, effective communication, and aligned goals (Alexander, Brudney, Yang, & Gazley, 2010).
Furthermore, the relationship elements necessary to achieve collaborative outcomes and results
are dependent on cooperation and coordination efforts led by partnership managers (Gulati,
Wohlgezogen, & Zhelyazkov, 2012). Public charities, the third-largest U.S. employer, managing
more than $3 trillion in assets (McKeever, 2015), rely on leaders to not only achieve shared
human services goals through partnerships, but to also develop collaborations to effectively
utilize increasingly limited resources (MacIndoe & Sullivan, 2014).
History of Partnering in the Nonprofit Sector
Historically, nonprofits and government entities serving the community have operated
alone without any need or incentive to work with other organizations. While the practice of
helping others has existed since biblical times, the sector of U.S. nonprofit organizations started
with a tax-exempt status built around money and funding (Meckstroth & Arnsberger, 1998).
Functioning autonomously to compete for resources since the sector was established, nonprofits
began collaboration as an aligning of efforts to address a societal problem and as a response to
external stakeholder calls for accountability and cost savings (Selsky & Parker, 2005; Van Slyke,
2007). The nonprofit sector developed an emphasis on autonomy and acquisition of resources
that delivered fragmented services to those in need.
With increasing demands for more data and evidence showing results of nonprofit work,
funders unintentionally created an even deeper divide as nonprofits independently work to create
solutions to major societal issues and deliver community services in isolated impact (Kania &
Kramer, 2011). The literature outlines how nonprofits traditionally functioned alone without a
need to collaborate with other community organizations due to revenue structures and
organizational autonomy (Babiak & Thibault, 2009). Limited available resources and misuse of
public funds have resulted in greater demand for accountability and documented outcomes,
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

24
further incentivizing nonprofit partnerships (Ebrahim, 2010). On the other hand, nonprofits are
not likely to shift their practices unless the external pressures are combined with the internal
leadership capacity to make the needed adjustments (Barman & MacIndoe, 2012).
Trends in Nonprofit Partnerships
Due to decreasing availability of resources for community-based programming and
increasing demand for services in the nonprofit sector, there is more pressure on nonprofits and
leaders to be more collaborative (Grant & Crutchfield, 2007; Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2018).
Since nonprofits are not naturally inclined to work together due to competition for funding and
internal struggles with organizational autonomy, the motivation to do so had to come from
external pressures (Babiak & Thibault, 2009). Nonprofit stakeholders, funders, communities,
and donors have begun to expect nonprofits to work more collaboratively to better utilize
resources and deliver more results. External forces requiring partnerships resulted in both
challenges and failures, but when the agencies focus on community impact, development of trust,
and shared vision, there is both better problem-solving and performance (Wei-Skillern & Silver,
2013). Delivering better outcomes through working collaboratively was not anticipated by
nonprofit leaders, but organizations that partnered were able to show improved performance
metrics. Additionally, achieving shared leadership was seen as a key component to sustained
community transformation (Farnsworth et al., 2014). Partnerships are more likely to achieve
desired goals when the relationship is not simply coerced, but rather when they are also based on
mutually-developed trust and shared vision developed by leaders (Jang, Valero, Kim, & Kramb,
2012). Collaborative community efforts result in higher levels of performance and greater
community impact than can be achieved when nonprofit organizations work alone and
autonomously.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

25
Stages of Partnership Formation
Although the literature on the formation of partnerships varies, there are consistent
themes of stages during the life cycle of partnerships. Understanding the life cycle of a
partnership is critical to ensuring a positive outcome from collaborating. According to Schmid
and Almog-Bar (2016), the process variables (administrative arrangements and procedures) and
the partnership outcomes (goal attainment) are directly impacted by the investment in the cultural
and human-capital aspects of the partnership during the initial stages of the relationship’s
formation. The importance of the efforts in the early stages of collaboration cannot be
overestimated. Establishing the guiding principles of connection and communication between
partners, congruency of mission, clarity of purpose, creation of value, continual learning, and
commitment are critical to collaborating organizations becoming more competitive in the market
(Hettche & Walker, 2010). The partnership life cycle relies on the heavy investment of
resources during formation and on shared values, vision, culture and commitment to support
effective operational processes in later stages.
Key Components of Partnerships
The literature identifies partnership life cycle stages and outlines components critical to
effective collaboration. While key partner selection characteristics include organizational
resources, previous collaborative experience, nonprofit types, stakeholder representation, power
dynamics, cultural fit, and potential partner reputation, essential process components include
shared vision, reaching consensus and conflict resolution, accountability, building of trust and
norms, and cultivating effective leadership (Gray & Stites, 2013). Successful partnership
development relies on achieving mutually agreed upon assumptions and future goals, as well as
on celebrating differences and ensuring cultural fit. According to Meirovich (2010), successful
collaborations understand the differences and similarities of each other’s cultures while
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

26
simultaneously agreeing on overarching routines, norms and values that allow for organizational
autonomy. Partnering organizations need to not only establish shared values, effective
communication practices, trust and commitment, they also need to appreciate and value the
entities’ differences and respect each other’s autonomy (Babiak & Thibault, 2009).
Leader Role in Partnerships
While there are key organizational and cultural considerations in partnership
development, partnership leaders have a key role and must break away from traditional
leadership models to more collaborative ones. The Network for Social Work Management
(2016) identifies developing partnerships and collaborating with complementary agencies as core
management competencies that are needed to enhance the delivery of services and achieve
organizational mission. A study of 21 nonprofit managers across hierarchical levels affirmed
they are expected to develop partnerships with external stakeholders (Bish & Becker, 2016).
Grover and Lynn (2012) studied 155 U.S. leaders who completed a collaborative training
program and found the program enhanced the negotiating skills necessary to build effective
partnerships. Conversely, most nonprofit managers are trained ineffectively to lead hierarchical
systems, instead utilizing controlling behaviors to influence employees (Atwood, Mora, &
Kaplan, 2010; Cornelius et al., 2008). A longitudinal literature review showed that having
skilled management in collaborations results in positive outcomes, demonstrating a need for
specific leadership training on partnerships (Varda, Shoup, & Miller, 2012). Technical
managerial skills of negotiation, strategic management and evaluation are critical to seeing
positive outcomes with the nonprofit partnership.
Leader Competencies Effect on Partnership Outcomes
Leadership facilitation competencies have significant impact on the partnership’s
performance. In particular, leaders with effective communication processes increase the value of
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

27
the partnership and potential for achieving goals. Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer (2012) argue
that leaders with strong group facilitation foster open communication and diverse deliberation
and encourage meaningful participation that support partnership formation and longevity.
Additionally, leader and co-facilitation strategies that support effective communication impact
the performance of the partnership. A study of nonprofit partnership performance highlighted
the importance of leaders’ skills that strengthen dialogue, including prioritizing, focusing on
infrastructure, visioning to build consensus, and using examples and experts (Collins-Camargo,
Armstrong, McBeath, & Chuang, 2013). In order for the nonprofit sector trend to collaborate
and partner in achieving outcomes and greater community impact, leaders need to facilitate
dialogue that encourages free expression, as well as dissention, and need to be competent in
creating shared priorities, vision and culture.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Through the use of a conceptual framework, Clark and Estes (2008) provide a mechanism
for determining the causes of performance gaps. The approach developed by Clark and Estes
(2008) focuses on clarifying organizational and stakeholder goals, determining a performance
gap exists, and then proposing solutions and evaluation. The framework asserts at the core of the
performance gaps are stakeholder knowledge deficits, lack of motivation, and organizational
barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008). Performance goals can be met through four types of knowledge:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). To achieve performance
goals, motivation is the necessary catalyst for individuals to utilize their knowledge (Mayer,
2011). According to Pajares (2008), there are three facets of motivation: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. In addition to knowledge and motivation deficits, organizational
factors, such as work process, resources, and culture, can also prevent individuals from achieving
their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

28
The knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences framework (Clark & Estes,
2008) that impact performance of nonprofit managers in forming and sustaining partnerships to
achieving mutually agreed upon goals is addressed in this section. Specifically, the knowledge
and skills nonprofit managers need to support partnerships that reach mutually agreed upon goals
are considered. What motivates nonprofit leaders to form and invest in the goals of a
collaboration are then explored. Finally, the organizational influences that impact the ability of
nonprofit managers to reach their goals is discussed. The knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on the nonprofit manager and their ability to achieve partnership
performance goals are outlined in detail below.
Knowledge and Skills
This section will review the knowledge influences that affect nonprofit managers’ ability
to develop the partnerships needed to expand organizational reach and increase community
impact. Analyzing the knowledge needed to achieve organizational goals is critical to
understanding performance problems (Rueda, 2011). A review of the knowledge influences will
assist with identifying gaps in nonprofit leadership that may be a barrier to partnership
development and continuation. Productivity depends on employees having the knowledge to
perform successfully in their roles and reach defined goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). In a market
highly competitive for dwindling resources, nonprofits are becoming more dependent on
partnerships with others to address complex community and societal issues. The research shows
that nonprofits rely on having effective leaders (Campbell, 2002; Grover & Lynn, 2012; Stahl,
2013). Without the conceptual and procedural knowledge to develop and sustain partnerships
with other nonprofits, managers will not be able to support their agency in achieving larger
community impact goals.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

29
Knowledge influences. A review of the literature relevant to nonprofit managers’
knowledge and skills needed in partnerships requires an understanding of knowledge taxonomy.
According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is the most basic information, and conceptual
knowledge interrelates these foundational elements into a larger structure, allowing them to
function as a whole (Krathwohl, 2002). The third type of knowledge, procedural, describes how
one performs a task or action given the factual and conceptual knowledge at hand (Rueda, 2011).
Lastly, developed throughout the lifespan, metacognition is the awareness and control of an
individual’s own cognitive process and his or her ability to self-regulate (Baker, 2002).
Collectively, performance-related knowledge influences are important as they define the human
capital of the organization (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Furthermore, competent nonprofit
managers with a strong knowledge base are the foundational base for high-performing
organizations and for developing partnerships that address larger community issues.
Conceptualizing partnerships. Before beginning to identify and form new partnerships,
nonprofit managers should conceptually understand the best practices in identifying and
developing relationships with potential external community organizations. During the formation
of new partnerships, leaders need to fully understand and align the strengths and weaknesses of
the organization’s resources, experience, and reputation (Gray & Stites, 2013). Simply
comparing organizational facts is not sufficient during the process of forming a collaboration.
Leaders must know what to look for in a partner and how the information will determine if there
is a good cultural and mission fit between the two organizations. A study of 63 partnerships
showed that synergy between or among organizations was key to their collective success (Weiss,
Anderson, & Lasker, 2002). One cannot assume that a factual understanding of another agency
alone will result in a connection between or among organizations, and leaders must have a
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

30
deeper understanding of how the collected data is interrelated to their shared goals. The
evidence shows that in-depth knowledge of the structural dimensions of partnerships is the
foundational knowledge needed to form effective relationships (Thomson & Perry, 2006).
Nonprofit managers should be able to incorporate what they learn about potential new partners
from a variety of sources to determine if there is a useful and complimentary alignment between
two previously unconnected organizations.
There are many aspects to developing the full understanding of another organization
needed to create new alliances, and there is evidence that community partnerships are weak in
many areas. For example, Campbell (2002) found one barrier to conceptual knowledge in
community work is leaders having difficulty articulating and defining outcomes and goals of
programs focused on work with others. Knowing the various interrelated tasks to developing a
process to arrive at mutually agreed upon outcomes and goals is the basis for starting a
formalized multi-organizational partnership. Assessing and training leaders on these skills to
ensure everyone has the same foundational knowledge can also be a challenge, as being able to
understand the interdependent dimensions of partnerships must be supported in a way that results
in the transfer of the knowledge (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Mastery of this conceptual
knowledge about partnerships allows nonprofit managers to overcome naturally occurring
collaborative barriers by ensuring they can transfer gained information to new situations and
apply it to different contexts.
Establishing partnerships. Conceptually understanding the principles of forming
partnerships is foundational knowledge nonprofit managers need to achieve partnership goals.
Nonprofit managers also need to procedurally know how to establish and sustain partnerships
with agreed upon norms, vision, and measurements. A literature review of 275 publications
revealed that nonprofit partnerships may be strategic in formation, but the norms are weak and
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

31
outcomes are never discussed (Gray & Stites, 2013). Nonprofit managers should have the
procedural knowledge on the steps necessary to establish new working relationships, which
includes negotiating mutually agreed upon clearly defined outcomes and goals for all
collaborators. Taking steps to develop an effective shared mission and goals with key
stakeholders of the partnership while incorporating important data and outcome measurements is
a critical part of this process (Carnochan, Samples, Myers, & Austin, 2014). Nonprofit managers
must be able to fully understand the best practice strategies to create new partnerships with
mutually agreed upon mission, terms, and performance outcomes if their goal of forging new
partnerships is to be attained.
Once managers have established the collaboration, the process of forming the foundation
for sustaining the relationship begins. The partnership’s shared mission, goals and synergy are
furthered through leadership understanding and appreciating differences, empowering each
other, and defining strong boundaries (Weiss et al., 2002). These activities require a
sophisticated comprehension of relationship processes. To establish long-lasting partnerships,
the Centers for Disease Control (2018) outlines guiding principles for partner collaboration
which includes how and when to monitor progress, create reports, and adjust outcomes beyond
simply measuring participation. Creating a continuous improvement and review process,
nonprofit managers can ensure open communication that will support long term collaborative
efforts and success. Effective communications combined with aligned and well-articulated goals
for the partnership are correlated with partnership satisfaction (Alexander et al., 2010). The
long-term success of partnerships relies on managers following procedures that are evidenced-
based. Using a socio-cultural model based on trust and relationships, leaders can emulate and
replicate successful partnerships to achieve organizational goals (Marsh & Farrell, 2015).
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

32
Assessing nonprofit managers’ knowledge base will inform the likelihood of partnerships
reaching long-term goals and community impact.
In summary, various knowledge influencers affect the stakeholder goal of nonprofit
managers developing partnerships with other community organizations. Table 2 highlights the
assumed knowledge influences and potential knowledge influence assessments framed within the
declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge types.

Table 2
Stakeholder Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Influence Assessment
Declarative
(Factual) Nonprofit managers need to know
the affect partnerships have on community
impact.
Nonprofit partnerships lead to greater
community impact than the individual
organizations can achieve alone. (4 point
Likert scale)
(Conceptual) Nonprofit managers need to
understand the leadership skills that result in
the development of relationships with
partners.
Managers’ skills determine their
organization’s ability to develop partnerships
with other nonprofits. (4-point Likert scale)
Procedural
Nonprofit managers need to know the
processes that support effective partnerships
with the development of agreed upon norms,
vision, and measurements.
The establishment of partnerships depends on
the nonprofits to mutually agree upon norms,
vision, and measurements. (4-point Likert
scale)
Metacognitive
Nonprofit managers need to know how to
reflect on their own knowledge and level of
skills in developing new partnerships to reach
organizational and community goals.
It is important for nonprofit managers to
reflect on their own skills and knowledge in
forming partnerships before starting a new
collaborative. (4-point Likert scale)

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

33
Motivation
Humans are inclined to underestimate the power of motivation on individual and group
performance. Being equipped with knowledge and skills is not sufficient to complete tasks or
reach outcomes without the motivation necessary to apply them (Mayer, 2011). The way an
individual perceives their skills in relation to the task is critical. In fact, the ability of individuals
to reach goals depends as much on the belief that the individual or group can achieve the goals as
it does on the skills (Bandura, 2000). Human motivation is complex, however, and comprised of
three distinct aspects: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
three motivational components of starting, continuing, and completing tasks critical to the
stakeholder success in achieving their goals also reflects the beliefs of the individual about their
abilities (Rueda, 2011). Motivation is, therefore, a key element to assess and measure when
looking at organizational and stakeholder goals and performance. The motivational influences of
the nonprofit manager that impact their ability to successfully develop and support new
partnerships will be discussed in this section. Motivational influences, self-efficacy and utility
value, were the focus as they relate to the nonprofit manager’s ability to effectively apply the
knowledge and skills outlined in the previous section.
Self-efficacy and expectancy value theory. Believing and anticipating that your actions
will achieve the desired results is an important motivational influence. Self-efficacy defined as
the belief in the ability to perform a behavior and expectancy that the behavior will produce a
specific outcome is derived from mastery experiences and social persuasion affected by
emotional and psychological states (Pajares, 2008). These beliefs have a significant impact on
motivation and one’s ability to perform at the highest level even armed with both knowledge and
skills to reach defined goals. The interdependence between performance and self-efficacy as an
increase or decrease in one affects the other in a cyclical nature and further impacts the collective
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

34
impact of the group (Bandura, 1977). This described self-efficacy spiral must be rooted in the
individual or group’s valuing the outcome or goal. According to Wigfield and Eccles (2000),
expectancy value theory is comprised not only of whether individuals believe they can do the
task but also whether they want to do the task. The value and meaning an individual ascribes to
an activity also drives interest which influences motivation (Mayer, 2011). Higher levels of
motivation that result from greater interest and participation also lead to increased performance
(Alexander et al., 2010). Nonprofit organizations are more likely to succeed if they value the
shared group and organizational tasks linked to mission and are able to effectively use their
knowledge and skills, which increases their feeling self-efficacious.
Management and self-efficacy. Research indicates that self-efficacy aids in motivating
employees to believe their capabilities can effectively contribute to successfully achieving goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Nonprofit managers must believe they are capable of
effectively developing new community relationships that will result in formalized partnerships so
that they can expand their reach and community impact. Before establishing the formal
partnership, however, managers should start with assessing the motivations of key stakeholders
as well as their own motivation for developing the relationship (Gray & Stites, 2013). Being
transparent about the reasons for collaborating supports the collective feelings unpinning
motivation and success. Because partnerships are resource intensive, one study shows
organizations should not proceed until there is a mutual education and agreement by both parties
on the process involved, which provides the positive experience needed to increase self-efficacy
of the group (Thomson & Perry, 2006). To achieve their stakeholder goals, nonprofit leaders
needs to believe not only that they can form partnerships, they also need to experience success
through collective impact.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

35
Partnerships can be a challenging endeavor. Individuals with high self-efficacy can see
opportunities that assist them in exercising control over their environment even in the face of
challenges (Bandura, 2000). Demonstrating a high level of self-efficacy ensures nonprofit
leaders can discreetly choose the right organizations to explore and establish partnerships with
and be able to disengage from those that are dysfunctional or not viable. Research has confirmed
that high self-efficacy is directly correlated with the sharing of knowledge and trust required for
collaboration and partnerships (Babiak & Thibault, 2009; Castañeda Z, 2015). Ensuring that
nonprofit managers individually feel self-efficacious in relationship development is key to the
group’s overall ability to relate and impart critical knowledge to others during the formation and
continuation of the partnership. A study of 903 educators in various districts in Iran
demonstrated that trust significantly impacts teamwork and decision-making (Shagholi et al.,
2010). When nonprofit managers in partnerships can trust each other, they also experience
improved performance which further feelings of self-efficacy. Ultimately, being high in self-
efficacy ensures nonprofit leaders are able to overcome challenges inherent to partnerships and
create a trusting environment where collective sharing of information and decision-making can
achieve larger organizational goals.
Partnerships and the value for management. Feeling efficacious will only have positive
outcomes if the individual or group also sees the value in the activity or process needed to reach
the stakeholder goal of developing new partnerships. The value one attributes to the expected
outcome influences whether one wants to perform the behavior (Bandura, 1977). Leaders who
value performance and achieving organizational goals are able to persist after choosing to engage
(Clark, 2012). Nonprofit managers need to see the importance of taking the time to thoroughly
assess potential new community partners, including creating the vision, norms, data, and
outcome measures between organizations. Many nonprofit leaders are often not motivated to
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

36
create mechanisms for tracking data out of fear that there will be negative personal or
organizational consequences, such as loss of funding for lack of performance (Campbell, 2002).
Valuing partnerships must outweigh the revenue and reputation risks nonprofits face if there is
poor program performance.
The benefits to partnerships must be important enough to support stakeholders to persist
through challenges in reaching mutually agreed upon goals. Because partnerships are
demanding on resources of both parties and can conflict with agency autonomy, leadership
valuing the relationship is a key motivational factor to the organizations’ continuing through
difficulties and challenges that are likely to arise (Thomson & Perry, 2006). With competing
demands to perform at higher levels with less and less, nonprofit leaders must be motivated to
share limited resources of leadership and expertise with others to work together to increase
performance and reach larger organizational goals (Grant & Crutchfield, 2007). If the nonprofit
managers see the value in finding the right partners and in working to formalize the relationship
between agencies, the persistence and mental effort are reinforced to form and create the systems
required to sustain mutually beneficial long term-relationships.
To summarize, various motivation influences impact the stakeholder goal of nonprofit
managers developing partnerships with community organizations. Table 3 highlights the
assumed influences and potential assessments framed within the self-efficacy theory and utility
value theory.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

37
Table 3
Stakeholder Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy Theory:
Nonprofit managers need to believe they
are capable of effectively developing new
community relationships that result in
partnerships and holding others
accountable for partnership goals.
I am confident in my ability to form new
community partnerships on behalf of my
organization. (4-point Likert scale)
I believe I can effectively hold my
organization accountable for meeting the goals
of partnerships. (4-point Likert scale)
Utility Value Theory:
The management team needs to see the
value in developing community
partnerships.
An essential part of my role as a manager is
the development of new partnerships. (4-point
Likert scale)
My organization’s executive management
team believes that partnerships expand our
organization’s ability to reach more people. (4-
point Likert scale)

Organizational Influences
In addition to knowledge and motivation influences, organizational supports and barriers
are related to performance. Although individuals within an organization may be knowledgeable
and motivated to complete their assigned tasks, organizational barriers can interfere with
individuals reaching their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Clark and
Estes (2008) explain that organizations are complex systems with their own culture from which
influences can arise leading to performance problems. This section of the review will examine
the cultural models and settings of nonprofits that influence the ability of managers to reach their
goal of developing community partnerships. The influences of organizational autonomy,
funding, and capacity can interfere with nonprofit managers from reaching this goal, which in
turn restricts nonprofits from collectively expanding their reach and community impact.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

38
Organizations need to have efficient and effective work processes with an adequate
supply of material resources to perform as expected (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational
barriers to reaching defined goals are influenced by both the culture and climate. Over time, an
organization’s culture forms from the beliefs, values, and artifacts that define for employees who
they are and how they perform their duties and responsibilities (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Driven
by policies, practices, procedures, and expected behaviors of those rewarded by the organization,
climate reflects the meaning individuals attach to interrelated groups of work experiences
(Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Often, organizational leaders focus improvements and
change on climate rather than the underlying culture that drives the workplace.
Cultural models and cultural settings. Through the experience of resolving external
problems and applying them internally over time, the organizational culture is shaped and passed
on to new group members as solutions to sets of problems (Schein, 2010). Culture affects how
individuals both think and behave. How an individual believes the world works or should work
organized into a common set of schemas is known as cultural models (Rueda, 2011). While one
may not be able to observe cultural models, cultural settings are observable. Kezar (2001)
describes cultural settings as the visible manifestations of an organization’s culture seen in an
individual’s behavior. While described individually, the various levels and facets of culture are
interrelated and interdependent where individuals are surrounded by groups which are in turn
influenced by the larger organization (Erez & Gati, 2004). This section will explore the cultural
models and settings, organizational autonomy, funding and capacity that can be barriers to
nonprofit managers establishing and sustaining community partnerships.
Autonomy. Establishing partnerships requires nonprofits to share all aspects of their
organization, and doing so can threaten both the boundary and identity of the agency. The work
of Schein (2010) points out that a major building block for organizational culture is attributable
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

39
to the early decisions founders make about structures and organizing principles. The cultural
model that follows this assumption for nonprofits is that the organization was founded to meet a
need no other entity could. This model is visible in the way nonprofit managers competing with
other organizations in the community and perceive sharing of work to be violation of autonomy.
Perrow (1972) argued that when the complexity of organizations is accounted for, however, the
human connectedness of the systems must be acknowledged. This perspective underscores that
nonprofits are not mechanical systems that can be manipulated, predictable, or wholly
independent, which makes finding the homeostasis between autonomy and interdependence a
leader’s challenge.
Balancing the organizational culture of protecting the autonomy of the nonprofit with the
need to work within the larger system can prevent nonprofit managers from seeking to
collaborate with external partners. In a literature review, Tsasis (2009) found that participation
in a collaborative activity results in the loss of at least some of an organization’s autonomy and is
cited as a chief barrier to the formation of partnerships. In addition, some partnerships such as
those with government entities can result in inconsistent or loss of funding undermining the
organization’s delivery of services (Never & de Leon, 2014). The climate that arises from the
founding organizational assumptions is one that focuses management on policies, procedures,
and behaviors that encourage autonomy over collaboration. Once nonprofits understand the
benefits of collaboration, blurring boundaries and giving up autonomy does not appear to be as
intimidating (Proulx, Hager, & Klein, 2014). Overcoming this barrier to establishing
partnerships, however, is exacerbated when nonprofits collaborate with similar organizations as
this action can be perceived as a threat not only to autonomy, but to long-term survival.
Funding. Survival is dependent not only on the nonprofit’s mission, work, and standing
in the community, nonprofits are also dependent on funding from external stakeholders for
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

40
financial viability. Illustrated by Kezar (2001), the evolutionary and institutional cultural models
explain how organizations manage change over time to survive and adapt to what is occurring
externally. The evolutionary model explains how the nonprofit sector has transformed from a
local faith based system to one that relies on government and private sector funding.
Institutional forces also drive nonprofits to collaborate in a shared response to problems that
cannot be dealt with at the individual organizational level (Sowa, 2009). When faced with
challenging economic times, the available financial resources for nonprofit community work are
limited. In a study of 20 interagency collaborations, Sowa (2009) found that resource scarcity
and financial instability led to collaborations to prolong organizational survival.
While there may be increased pressure on nonprofits to collaborate to survive, public and
private funding sources remain competitive and difficult for partnerships to navigate. A study of
more than 8000 charities found a significant loss of donations from private donors when
government sources are gained (Andreoni & Payne, 2011). Since private donors represent a
significant revenue base for nonprofits, leaders who steer their organizations toward government
and foundation funding and partnering risk a significant loss of funding. In a study of public-
nonprofit partnerships, Gazley and Brudney (2007) found nonprofits rationale for partnering was
primarily gaining financial resources. Given this culture of focusing on financial security and
competing for limited resources, nonprofit manager behavior becomes one of protecting
organizational funding rather than taking risks that may result in less available resources.
Capacity. Not only do external organizational resources impact the ability of nonprofit
managers from attaining their goal of forging new partnerships, nonprofit culture of doing more
with less can affect the human and financial resources allocated to partnering. The culture of a
newly created organization establishes how valuable resources are expended (Schein, 2010).
These assumptions inform nonprofit executives on how to dedicate resources and prioritize time
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

41
being spent on partnership development. Leadership accountability also includes ensuring that
there is organizational policy and fiscal alignment to support successful achievement of
performance goals (Delphin-Rittmon, Andres-Hyman, Flanagan, & Davidson, 2013). Nonprofit
managers need the support of the organization to dedicate time and staff resources to partnering,
which can be labor intensive.
The culture-embedding mechanisms of organizations pass down the way leaders express
their values and basic assumptions (Schein, 2010). If nonprofits value partnerships, resources
would be allocated to ensure managers are able to establish collaboratives with external entities.
However, nonprofit executives generally exhibit a stronger undercurrent of negativity toward
intersectoral partnership than do their public-sector counterparts (Gazley & Brudney, 2007).
Nonprofit executives, charged with fiscal oversight of the agency, view partnership as
competition for resources. While organizational culture may exist as an inclusive whole
organizational construct, there can also simultaneously be subcultures based on level in the
organization or occupation that can cause a lack of integration and culture fragmentation
(Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). For example, nonprofit managers may be striving to forge
new partnerships, but executive leaders also need to prioritize assigning resources and may be
reluctant to support sharing limited resources. Thus, a lack of nonprofit capacity due to not
dedicating sufficient resources to managers can be an organizational barrier to achieving the goal
of developing partnerships.
To summarize, various organizational influences affect the stakeholder goal of nonprofit
managers developing partnerships with community organizations. Table 4 provides an overview
of the assumed organizational influences and potential organizational influence assessments.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

42
Table 4
Stakeholder Organizational Influences
Assumed Organizational Influence Organizational Influence Assessment
Nonprofits need to value
partnerships over individual
organizational autonomy.
My organization values partnering with community
nonprofits over working alone to meet our mission.
(4-point Likert scale)
I receive clearly defined goals from my organization’s
executive leadership to work with other community
nonprofits. (4-point Likert scale)
My agency’s board of directors support efforts of our
organization to work with other nonprofits. (4-point
Likert scale)
Nonprofits need public funding to
operate and grants make it more
difficult for partnerships to form
and perform.
Government funders support the establishment of
community partnerships in grant applications. (4-point
Likert scale)
Private foundations encourage the establishment of
community partnerships to address social issues. (4-
point Likert scale)
Forming partnerships with other nonprofits results in
less funding for my organization. (4-point Likert
scale)
Nonprofits need increased capacity
of time and resources to establish
and sustain partnerships.
I have adequate resources, such as time, support staff,
or technology, to effectively establish partnerships
with other nonprofits. (4-point Likert scale)

Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework provides a means to align a
problem of practice with theories, previous research findings, and existing literature addressing
the issue. Alignment of these elements indicated what the most important concepts were, but the
conceptual framework then guided the sampling strategy, data collection activities, and data
analysis. This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework to complete a gap
analysis and determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

43
performance of nonprofit managers in establishing community partnerships. While the study’s
research questions focused on the knowledge and motivational factors that affect the nonprofit
manager in developing partnerships, the study also sought to further a deeper understanding of
the organizational influences on nonprofit managers and collaborations. Throughout the study,
the tacit theories of the researcher and their influence on the conceptual framework were taken
into consideration (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The framework was informed and guided by the
literature reviewed, which provided a contextual reference to the experiential knowledge the
researcher possesses specific to the problem of practice to be studied (Maxwell, 2013). With the
literature and researcher’s experiential knowledge taken into account, the Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analysis model was modified for this study to evaluate and identify the presence of, rather
than causes of, gaps in the identified areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers.
To support the understanding of the interdependent relationship among knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences and organizational barriers, the conceptual framework
also offered a lens to more clearly examine a problem of practice that can otherwise be too broad
or complex (Maxwell, 2013). In this study, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences were presented independently, yet explored thoroughly, to fully understand their
interactions as in practice they do not operate in isolation. As such, identifying knowledge gaps
required understanding whether people have the information needed to achieve their goals.
Factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognition are the four knowledge types that contribute
to learning (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The nonprofit manager is not only influenced by
their knowledge on developing partnerships, but their achievement of this goal is also impacted
by motivation. Performance related motivation gaps can further impact one’s ability to
commence, continue or dedicate the mental effort needed to complete a task (Clark & Estes,
2008; Pintrich, 2003). Both the nonprofit managers’ knowledge and motivation are part of an
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

44
organizational culture that can support or limit their achievement of the larger sector goals.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational barriers exist when processes or resources
are limited or ineffective.
All three of these facets, knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences,
contribute to nonprofit managers being able to identify and develop community partnerships. To
illustrate, nonprofit managers must have the knowledge of what to look for in a partner and the
key structural elements of a partnership to develop one (Gray & Stites, 2013; Thomson & Perry,
2006). In addition, nonprofit managers must not only see themselves as efficacious in
partnership development, but they must also see the value in partnerships to be motivated to
development new collaborations (Castañeda Z, 2015; Grant & Crutchfield, 2007).
Organizational structures, such as focus on autonomy, funding, and capacity, must not be
barriers to nonprofit managers creating new partnerships that support the collective goal of
expanding reach and community impact (Kania & Kramer, 2011; Paynter & Berner, 2014;
Selsky & Parker, 2005). The interrelated influences of knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences requires a clear model to see the relationships as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the conceptual framework used for this study.
As shown in Figure 1, knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements affect the ability of
nonprofit managers to establish partnerships with a direct influence on the individual and on each
other. Specifically, the declarative and procedural knowledge of how to identify and establish
collaborative relationships unilaterally influences nonprofit managers’ ability to develop
community partnerships. Simultaneously, the nonprofit managers’ motivations and ability to
start, persevere, and establish partnerships are directly impacted by their feelings of self-efficacy
and the value they ascribe to partnerships. Drawing from the work of Bandura (2000), the
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

45
blackboard of Figure 1 represents the continuous reciprocal interaction between the application
of knowledge and skills and the motivations of the nonprofit manager.

Figure 1. Study conceptual framework: Modified Clark and Estes gap analysis

The larger organizational constructs noted on Figure 1 are outside the individual’s span
of control. The organizational influences of the partners’ autonomy, funding, and capacity
continually interact with and affect the nonprofit managers’ learning, motivations, and ability to
achieve goals. In partnerships, each nonprofit’s autonomy, funding, and capacity individually
and together exert influence on the leader’s work to align efforts and have a collective impact.
Illustrated by Erez and Gati (2004), nonprofit managers are affected by multiple levels as well as
the complex interactions among organizational values and culture. Ultimately, the achievement
of the collective goal of expanding reach and community impact is dependent on the interactions
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

46
of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the nonprofit manager’s ability to
develop partnerships.
Conclusion
The purpose of this research project was to examine the role of the nonprofit manager in
the development of community partnerships. In this chapter, a review of the related literature
provides the reader insights into the nonprofit sector’s history and challenges with community
partnerships. The literature informs the sector how partnerships are formed and the
characteristics of an effective leader in collaborative work, but there is a lack of research
examining the influences of the nonprofit manager on the development of partnerships with
external entities. The following section focuses on the competencies and role of managers that
influence community partnership development and work. This chapter concluded with a review
of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that affect the ability of nonprofit
managers to reach organizational goals of expanding reach and community impact. The next
chapter will provide the conceptual framework of the relationship of these assumed influences and
the research methodology that was used to better understand and assess gaps.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

47
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
This chapter will outline the quantitative and qualitative research methods that were
utilized, including the design, sampling strategy, data collection, and instrumentation methods.
This study’s purpose is to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the
nonprofit manager partnership development to achieve mutually agreed upon goals. The study’s
methodology and rationale were aligned with the purpose of the project.
The three research questions that guided this study were as follows:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
nonprofit managers building partnerships to enhance the delivery of services and
community impact?
2. What is the interaction between nonprofit organizational culture and context and
management’s knowledge and motivations?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that
will support nonprofit managers in developing community partnerships and
collaborative efforts?
Participating Stakeholders
The primary stakeholder group for this study was managers in the nonprofit sector. An
anonymous random sample of nonprofit managers were asked to participate in an online survey
through a professional national association, the Network for Social Work Management
(NSWM). With a membership of over 2,000 and electronic mail membership of over 6,000, the
NSWM sent the survey out. Using nonprofit managers self-selected from the NSWM electronic
requests supported the study’s findings being able to be generalized to the broader population of
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

48
nonprofit leaders. The total number of completed surveys was 122 with 100 meeting the criteria
of the study. Surveys not only allow the researcher to collect sample data that can be
generalizable, it also provides an opportunity to understand the characteristics of a population
(Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked if they would volunteer to participate in
a follow up individual interview to provide more detail and insight into findings of the study. If
they agreed, an external link at the bottom of the survey allowed them to input their information
separate from the anonymous quantitative survey. The volunteers were randomly sorted, and a
group of managers were purposefully selected from the list to be interviewed based on their
current titles. A purposeful sample provides a deeper understanding of how the stakeholder goal
is affected by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Six nonprofit manager interviews were conducted with two from each position category: chief
executive officer/executive director, director/chief program officer, and program
manager/coordinator. Through a mixed method approach, this study’s data provided findings that
add to the scholarship of the nonprofit sector.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The first criterion for the sample was that participants were nonprofit sector
managers. This criterion aligns with the stakeholder goal of nonprofit managers increasing
community partnerships. Survey participants had to acknowledge they met this criterion before
gaining access to the survey.
Criterion 2. The second criterion for the sample was that participants were currently
involved through their nonprofit employer in a collaborative with one or more external
community organizations. Survey participants had to acknowledge they met this criterion before
gaining access to the survey.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

49
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
A random sample method of NSWM-member nonprofit managers as potential
respondents was utilized. According to Fink (2013), a simple random sample gives each person
in the eligible group an equal chance of being selected. Using this sampling method, each
NSWM-member had an equal probability of participating in the survey. Further, the findings of
the study can then be generalized to the broader nonprofit manager population. Through the
NSWM, nonprofit managers were invited to participate in an online survey, which assesses the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting their role in their agency’s
partnership with other community organizations.
Potential nonprofit managers received survey information and a request to participate in
the online survey via announcements in NSWM online emails and newsletter correspondence
over a four-week period. It is important that there be clearly defined periods for data collection to
not lose momentum that can result in a nonresponse (Malloy, 2011). Since NSWM is a network
of professionals and is research focused, an incentive to participate was not anticipated to be
essential, but it was offered to increase interest in the study. A drawing for five Amazon gift
cards was offered when the survey went out via the NSWM and a link to a new webpage was
provided for survey participants to enter the drawing. Completion of the online survey was the
first stage of this study and was followed by a second stage of individual interviews. If a
respondent responded affirmatively to volunteering to participate in an individual interview, they
were directed to a new survey to include their contact information. Being redirected to a new
webpage protected the anonymity of the online survey.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

50
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The first criterion for the interview sample was that participants were
nonprofit managers. This criterion aligns with the stakeholder goal of nonprofit managers
increasing nonprofit community partnerships.
Criterion 2. The second criterion for the sample was that participants were participating
through their nonprofit employer in a partnership or collaborative with one or more external
community organizations.
Criterion 3. The third criterion for the sample was that participants are nonprofit
managers who completed the online survey and volunteered to participate in a follow up
individual interview.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The interview component of the study was utilized to better understand the influences that
contribute nonprofit managers’ role in community partnerships. According to Creswell (2014),
qualitative research interviews focus on the meaning the research participants ascribe to a
problem of practice as opposed to the researcher’s perspective or existing literature. The names
of survey participants who volunteered to participate in an interview were randomly sorted when
the online survey closed and a purposeful sample selected. Utilizing a sample that is comprised
of volunteers who are available to participate in a follow up interview is considered convenience
sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The research benefited from interviews of a smaller
group of those who have participated in the online survey, since those who participate have
already met the criteria of the study.
The sample group from this randomized list was purposefully selected to include
representatives from nonprofit that are geographically diverse and represented a variety of
manager roles. The selected group was solicited to participate in the interview via an email from
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

51
the researcher. The selection of respondents who align with the study purpose and meet specific
criteria are the key components of purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The use of a
purposeful sample ensured the selection of participants who are well suited to address the
research questions and represent various levels of leadership, experience, and geographic area.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study employed a mixed method approach utilizing both quantitative and qualitative
data collections. The research design was explanatory, sequential as the quantitative data was
collected and analyzed first and followed by qualitative data collection and analysis. Creswell
(2014) states the explanatory method allows the researcher to use the qualitative data to deepen
the information obtained from the findings of the quantitative data. For this study, the qualitative
interviews build upon the data and findings of the quantitative survey and expand what can be
learned about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that contribute to
nonprofit managers developing community partnerships. Qualitative research can provide an
understanding of how people make sense or ascribe meaning to experiences particularly when
existing theories fail to completely explain a phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data
triangulation, the ability of multiple data collection methods to support each other’s strengths and
weaknesses, is well supported through a mixed methods approach (Maxwell, 2013). In this study,
the combination of an online survey and individual interviews provided both a wide and focused
perspective on the issue. In addition, a mixed methods approach allows for additional qualitative
questions to be developed based on the findings of the quantitative survey (Creswell, 2014).
Lastly, the qualitative questions were reviewed after the survey data was collected to make any
necessary adjustments and ensure the highest and best use of the two research modalities.
The mixed methods approach of this study provided an opportunity to assess various
aspects of the research questions. Data that can numerically identify trends, attitudes, and
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

52
opinions of a sample and can be projected to the broader population is the essence of quantitative
research (Creswell, 2014). The goal of the quantitative survey in this study was to collect data
and characteristics of the participants’ perceptions of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that influence nonprofit managers to be able to develop community
partnerships. In addition, the results of the quantitative survey was used to inform the qualitative
interview questions. How people make sense or meaning out of their environments and
experiences is the essence of qualitative research, and by utilizing interviews, the research data
will be richly descriptive, which is also characteristic of qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This study’s qualitative interviews probe deeper into how nonprofit managers interpret
and understand the influences of community partnership development.
Survey
The Network for Social Work Management shared the survey from this study with their
membership of over 6,000 recipients of their electronic publications. An invitation to participate
in the study included a link to the survey as part of the NSWM’s electronic newsletter, email
communications with members, and social media posts. The survey link started with self-
selection questions to ensure the respondents were nonprofit managers that meet the study’s
sampling criteria. Those who responded affirmatively that they are currently nonprofit managers
with experience in partnerships continued with the survey questions. The survey instrument was
comprised of 17 questions that addressed the knowledge, motivational and organizational
influences on nonprofit managers and their partnership development and seven demographic
questions (Appendix C). The survey responses were based on a four-point Likert scale for level
of agreement, including strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. Aligned with the
conceptual framework of the study, the survey questions assessed nonprofit manager’s factual
and procedural knowledge about partnerships, the level of motivation to establish partnerships,
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

53
and the impact of the organizational culture. To improve the validity and reliability of a study,
peer review and examination of data collection instruments can be utilized (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). For this study, nonprofit manager professionals were asked to pilot the survey prior to
distributing to the sample.
Interviews
The study’s qualitative interviews probed deeper into how the stakeholders interpret or
understand the influences that affect their nonprofit partnership development. The interview
method provides the researcher with the means to integrate multiple perspectives and to describe
process (Weiss, 1994). In this study, the qualitative interview questions were reviewed after the
survey analysis to make any needed adjustments. Respondents of the study’s survey were asked
to volunteer to potentially participate in a follow up individual interview through an external
weblink to maintain the quantitative survey anonymity. After randomly sorting the list of
volunteers, the six nonprofit managers were selected to be interviewed two from each of the
following organizational position titles: chief executive officers or executive directors, program
directors or chief program officer, and managers or coordinators. Selected interviewees were
contacted by email to participate, and if an individual declined or did not respond, the next person
on the sorted list was selected from the same position title category. Interviews were set for a day
and time convenient for the interviewee to maximize focus and limit distractions. These
protocols supported the collection of the data to address the research questions most effectively
by providing the nonprofit managers the opportunity to share and describe their knowledge,
motivations, and organizational influences as they experience them.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a semi-structured interview format provides
consistency among interviews, but gives the researcher the flexibility to probe into emerging
insights. The study’s interviews included 12 open-ended questions in a semi-structured format
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

54
addressing the knowledge, motivations, and organizational influences on their partnership efforts
that enabled the researcher the opportunity to ask follow-up questions (Appendix D). By
utilizing open-ended questions respondents are also able to share their thoughts freely using their
own words to describe their views (Fink, 2013). The one-time individual interviews lasted
between 30 and 45 minutes. If in person options were not available, the interviews were
conducted using video conferencing to accommodate those participating from a wide geographic
area. Having a semi-structured interview approach not only provides uniformity across
interviews, it also ensures a highly focused interview and respects the limited time the researcher
has with each interviewee (Patton, 2002). Aligned with the conceptual framework of the study,
the interview questions explored the nonprofit manager’s knowledge, values and feelings of self-
efficacy, and impact of organizational funding, autonomy, and resources on their development of
partnerships with other nonprofit agencies.
Data Analysis
For this study, the analysis synthesized data collected from the online survey and
interviews of nonprofit managers. The online survey data was analyzed according to an analysis
plan developed prior to the start of the study. With a survey analysis plan, the researcher can not
only map survey questions to the research questions, but the plan also provides the statistical
calculations and data presentation strategies (Pazzaglia, Stafford, & Rodriguez, 2016). After the
survey was closed and completed, the data was cleaned through a review for missing or
erroneously entered data. The use of a survey comprised of four-point Likert scale questions
entered electronically ensured minimal data entry error. Questions with a response rate of less
than 80% was examined for viability for projection to the larger community of nonprofit
managers.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

55
Interview data was collected after the survey data collection and initial data analysis
phases were complete. In order to most effectively analyze the interview data, the process was
ongoing from the start of the first interviews utilizing analytic memos. To make meaning of the
data, analytic memos are used to synthesize the data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).
After each interview, the researcher documented reflections, observations and themes that
emerge related to the study’s research questions and conceptual framework to support the data
analysis process (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Documenting self-reflections also helps identify the
study’s limitations and potential researcher bias.
Transcription by a third party contracted service and three-phase coding took place after
each interview. Transcripts were first open coded, which was followed by the identification of
empirical codes related to the study’s conceptual framework and the nonprofit manager’s
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. It is anticipated that empirical codes will
surface as part of the data analysis process (Harding, 2013). Following this phase, the identified
empirical codes were aggregated into analytical/axial codes. It is the analytical/axial codes that
were utilized to identify study related pattern codes and themes. Maintaining a codebook
throughout the process supports the data analysis. According to Corbin and Strauss (2008), there
a number of tools such as drawing on personal experiences, asking questions, and exploring the
“so what?” that can support ascribing meaning to the interview responses. Identified gaps in
knowledge, motivation, or organizational influences were considered validated if they are present
in both the survey and interview data.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The credibility of a research study’s data is closely associated with the ethics of the
researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Reflection and regularly checking for bias or beliefs that
would influence the data collection during this study need to be employed. According to
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

56
Maxwell (2013), producing research results that are credible and trustworthy is the responsibility
of the researcher. The mixed methods approach to this study using multiple methods of data
collection enhances credibility through the use of triangulation to validate findings. The
accuracy of the study’s findings to the external environment, internal validity, is one way to
measure the study’s credibility (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher utilized peer review by sharing
the study’s framework with nonprofit leaders and academic researchers for any feedback that may
require adjustments to the collection tools or procedures of the various methodologies.
An additional strategy to increase credibility for this study is member checking or
respondent validation. To reduce the likelihood that there is a misinterpretation of the research
data and interviewer bias, this strategy involves sharing initial findings of the survey with
respondents (Maxwell, 2013). During the analysis phase of the study, member checking increases
the validity of the data by allowing interview volunteer participants to review key findings and
themes. Due to the world experiences the researcher brings to the interview, the quality of the
data obtained is dependent on the interviewer and offers a way for the researcher to see the
interviewee’s view and meanings attached to the data (Patton, 2002). Utilizing the above
strategies ensures the researcher’s experiences bring value and do not detract from the credibility
and trustworthiness of the research findings.
Validity and Reliability
Research studies strive to achieve validity and reliability to improve credibility.
Research validity refers to the extent to which findings can be generalized to the broader
population, while study’s reliability reflects the consistency of the findings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). In this study, a random sample method was utilized for the quantitative survey of
nonprofit managers who meet the defined criteria through an established professional
association. The qualitative interviews used a purposeful sample of nonprofit managers to
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

57
increase the validity of the research findings by selecting two of each position title, chief
executive officer/executive director, director/chief program officer, and manager/coordinator,
from a randomly sorted list of volunteers who completed the survey. Triangulation of the
study’s methodologies was utilized to improve reliability and consistency of the data. In
addition, logging detailed project notes was completed to create an audit trail throughout the
study. The reliability of a study is improved with an audit trail which allows the tracking of the
study development and execution (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the qualitative interviews,
potential non-response bias of respondents being unwilling or unable to participate was
addressed through the study’s plan to utilize alternate volunteers.
Ethics
A number of principles were applied to ensure high ethical standards were upheld in this
study of nonprofit managers. First, the study proposal was approved by the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) of the Office for Protection of Research Subjects (OPRS) at the University of
Southern California. A core requirement of IRB is informed consent, which requires researchers
to ensure participants understand the purpose and risks of the study and are aware their
participation is voluntary (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). For this study, all participants signed
electronic consent forms prior to commencing the survey or interview to ensure compliance with
this requirement. In addition to outlining any risks of the study, the consent forms included the
requisite notification that participation in the study is voluntary and may be stopped at any time
without penalty (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This section outlines how the tenets of
the informed consent was approached and operationalized in this study to ensure the research
produces the highest level of ethical data and the lowest level of risk to participants.
The study commenced with an online survey followed by interviews with a select group
of survey respondents. To ensure participation in the survey does not cause harm to the
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

58
respondents, Rubin and Rubin (2012) caution that information that could be detrimental to the
respondents’ professional lives should not be published. To provide this protection to
participants, all survey data and interview transcripts were stored on a password-protected
computer in a secure office, while audio recordings were destroyed after transcription. Glesne
(2011) asserts it is the responsibility of the researcher to achieve the highest level of
confidentiality for research participants. The privacy of the study participants was additionally
protected by reporting the quantitative data in aggregate form. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note
that aggregating the data before releasing the data to the public and the sponsoring organization
is key to protecting the anonymity of the participants. The steps outlined to secure the study’s
data afforded participants the confidentiality they expect and are entitled to.
Since the individual qualitative interviews for this study were audio recorded, the
researcher needed to not only obtain the written consent, but the participants also needed to provide
a verbal consent prior to the interview granting permission to record the interview. Audio
recording with note taking during the interview is the most effective way to preserve the data for
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Once consent to record was obtained, the researcher used a
recording device that is unobtrusive to minimize the effect on the interview. In addition,
pseudonyms for interviewed nonprofit managers were also used to protect the confidentiality and
privacy of participants. According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), the identity of participants should
not be evident by the organizational description and other information provided. In this study, no
unique identifiers were reported. To allow the researcher to later identify participants, if needed,
a participant legend was maintained confidentially and separately from the interview notes
(Maxwell, 2013).
In addition to the informed consent points outlined thus far, potential participants were
notified in the survey communications that they would not be compensated for participation. To
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

59
encourage participation, researchers often use reciprocity, or the exchange of favors, to encourage
participation (Glesne, 2011). In this study, participants had the opportunity to provide their
contact information through an external link and be entered into a drawing to receive one of five
$50 Amazon gift cards. Participants who indicated that they were available for an interview
would not receive any additional incentives. This incentive structure aligns with the IRB
requirement of voluntary participation, but it allowed participants to be encouraged to contribute
to the critical knowledge needed in the field of nonprofit management.
The study was administered to subscribers of a national professional organization, The
Network for Social Work Management. Since the researcher is not employed by or in a
leadership role in the association, there are no additional potential conflicts of interest or risks to
participants not be covered by the informed consent. However, the researcher’s relationship to
the participants, particularly for qualitative studies, was taken into account as ethical
considerations can impact the trustworthiness of the study’s data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In
this study, with a career in nonprofit management and as a member of the association, the
researcher was sensitive to not bringing historical experiences as a leader to the participant
interviews so that the nonprofit managers’ voices can fully be heard and their experiences
expressed without judgment. Ultimately, the credibility and trustworthiness of the data and
resulting findings are the responsibility of the researcher (Maxwell, 2013). With a heightened
sense of awareness of potential biases and assumptions, the researcher was able to obtain
information that add to the body of knowledge for the nonprofit sector.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

60
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influences on nonprofit managers reaching
their organizational goal of developing community partnerships. The NSWM human services
management competencies include seeking and building relationships with complementary
agencies to enhance the delivery of services. Although multiple stakeholder groups contribute to
the development of partnership formation, the primary stakeholder group for this study was
nonprofit managers. Nonprofit managers are tasked with this goal by funders, the community,
and clients. This problem of practice is important to address because the nonprofit sector is
responsible for significant community resources that must be utilized effectively to meet the
organizational goal of serving individuals and communities.
This study focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers that
impact nonprofit managers achieving their goal of partnership development. The three research
questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
nonprofit managers building partnerships to enhance the delivery of services and
community impact?
2. What is the interaction between nonprofit organizational culture and context and
management’s knowledge and motivations?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions that
will support nonprofit managers in developing community partnerships and
collaborative efforts?
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

61
Study Participants
The primary stakeholder group for this study was nonprofit managers solicited through
the professional association, Network for Social Work Management, who met the sampling
criteria outlined in Chapter 3. Survey criteria included that participants were currently employed
by a nonprofit and participating in a partnership with their organization. Criteria for the study’s
interviews were survey respondents who also volunteered to be interviewed. The interview
participants were selected by managerial level to ensure there were two executive directors/CEOs,
two senior directors, and two managers/coordinators in the sample.
Survey
A random sample of 122 NSWM members completed the survey. Of the 122
respondents, 100 respondents met the criteria for the study. The participants self-reported being
57% females, 22% males, and 21% unidentified. The respondents were predominately White
(50%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (16%), African American (5%), and Asian (3%). The
largest percentage of respondents had master’s degrees (65%), while 9% had bachelor’s degrees
and 6% had attained doctoral degrees. As shown in Figure 2, the largest percentage of
respondents were directors (33%), followed by managers (32%) and chief executive directors or
executive directors (28%). The study’s respondents reflect the nonprofit sector make up, and
different nonprofit managerial levels were well represented.
The survey respondents also represented various levels of nonprofit management
experience with less than 5 years the largest group (40%) with over 16 years second highest
(26%), and 6-10 years (20%) and 11-15 years (13%) following as depicted in Figure 3.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

62

Figure 2. Respondents’ organizational role and level of responsibility

Figure 3. Respondents’ length of time as a nonprofit manager

28%
6%
32%
33%
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/Executive
Director or equivalent
I do not currently supervise employees.
Manager/coordinator or equivalent
Senior Director/Vice President/Director
or equivalent
13%
20%
40%
26%
11-15 years
6-10 years
Less than 5 years
Over 16 years
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

63
All respondents worked for nonprofit organizations, which varied in both number of
partnerships and annual revenue size. While 26% of respondents reported being involved in
five or less partnerships as a nonprofit manager, 18% responded they had been in 6 to 10
partnerships. Figure 4 shows 40% of respondents worked for an organization with annual
revenue over 5 million dollars with 37% working for organizations with annual revenue
between 1 and 5 million dollars. Only 23% of respondents came from organizations with
annual revenue less than $500,000 dollars: 13% from agencies with annual revenue between
500,000 amd 999,999 dollars and 10% from agencies with annual revenue less than $500,000.

Figure 4. Annual revenue of organizations respondents worked for

Interviews
Following the criteria and protocol defined in Chapter 3, six nonprofit managers were
interviewed. All the interviews were conducted and recorded via Skype. Below is a summary of
the interview participants, using pseudonyms as identifiers.
37%
13%
40%
10%
$1 million to $5 million
$500,000 to $999,999
Greater than $5 million
Less than $499,999
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

64
Alice: A transitional age youth program manager with 5 to 10 years of nonprofit
experience working in a suburban community, Alice is a female with a master’s degree.
Brenda: A Head Start director with 5 to 10 years of nonprofit experience working in an
urban setting, Brenda is a White female who holds a master’s degree in social work.
Jackie: A homeless housing agency executive director in an urban setting with more than
20 years of nonprofit experience, Jackie is a Latino female who holds a master’s degree in social
work.
Ginny: A Forensic Nurse Examiner program manager in an urban setting with 5 to 10
years nonprofit experience, Ginny is a female who holds a master’s degree in social work.
Emily: A homeless housing agency executive director in an urban setting with more than
20 years of nonprofit experience, Emily is a Latino female who holds a master’s degree in social
work.
Holly: A homeless agency director in a suburban setting with 10 to 15 years of nonprofit
experience, Holly is a White female who holds a bachelor’s degree.
Results
This chapter summarizes the findings of the survey and interviews related to research
questions 1 and 2. This section outlines the results from research question 1: What are the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to nonprofit managers building
partnerships to enhance the delivery of services and community impact? Research question 2,
the interaction between nonprofit organizational culture and context and management’s
knowledge and motivations, is discussed in the findings section. Research question 3, which
addresses the recommendations for practices in the areas of stakeholder knowledge, stakeholder
motivation, and organizational influences, is found in Chapter 5.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

65
In addition to the survey results, nonprofit manager interviews provided greater detail and
offered themes threading together the data collected. The most prominent theme was nonprofit
managers are not trained in the competencies needed to develop community partnerships. While
managers acknowledged the limitations they face in their ability to commence new partnerships,
they also were not confident they could hold their organizations accountable to the collaborative
agreements. Working with other community agencies was highly valued across nonprofit
managers who participated in the study, but organizations did not consistently have goals for
nonprofit managers to form new partnerships. External stakeholders additionally were identified
as often requiring collaboration when applying for grants, but nonprofit managers noted
competition and lack of resources make this a challenging mandate. A consistent organizational
theme was nonprofit managers reporting their organizations lacked the resources, including time,
staff, and/or technology, to effectively form and manage partnerships. These themes illuminate
the need for nonprofit managers to be trained and given goals and resources to create the
partnerships that will deliver the collective impact organizations and external stakeholders desire.
Results for Knowledge Causes
Factual knowledge. Nonprofit partnerships lead to greater community impact than the
individual organizations can achieve alone. The results of this question revealed the highest
level of consensus in the survey with 99% agreeing with this statement as seen in Figure 5.
Manager interviews did not align with these strong agreement survey results. A common
theme that emerged was that managers’ knowledge of what a partnership was focused on the
work of individual agencies, and none of the interviewees used community impact in their
definition of a partnership. When asked to define a community partnership, managers noted
nonprofits sharing resources and better agency services. Alice mentioned improved service as
she defined community partnerships as “two entities involved are trying to come up with a
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

66
means of sharing resources, so they can, in turn, serve the communities at large in a better way.”
Alice also noted partnerships deliver “better quality of care” and Ginny stated that a partnership
is “working towards the same goal, and usually it is to provide the best services for whatever
population that they’re serving.” The interviews demonstrated that while there is agreement that
partnerships are two or more entities that share a goal, they were not as definitive as the survey
that partnerships deliver greater community or collective impact.

Figure 5. Nonprofit partnerships lead to greater community impact than the individual
organizations can achieve alone

75%
24%
1%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

67
In fact, the interviewees were more focused on the agency benefits over community
outcomes. All of the interviewees used shared resources in their definition of a community
partnership and five out of the six reported a partnership improves their quality of care and/or
services. Emily outlined, “But I think a community partnership is also, just on the national level,
just people that are providing the same service, and we have a similar mission, and we want to
have our voice be stronger by being united.” While focusing on the increased visibility of the
agency, this statement could imply that the collective voices can deliver greater impact, but it is
not explicit. Alice also touched upon the relationship partnerships have outside of programs
stating, “Not only programmatically, but in the community at a more macro level because I
understand the impact that collaboration means to programs, to agencies, to the community at
large.” Acknowledging partnerships are important to multiple levels of human services is a start,
but it does not demonstrate that nonprofit manager acknowledgment that collaboratives deliver
greater community impact than individual nonprofit agencies can achieve alone.
Conceptual knowledge. Managers’ skills determine their organization’s ability to
develop partnerships with other nonprofits. While there was less consensus on the
understanding of the influence of manager skills on partnership development, 97% of managers
still agreed on this survey question as seen in Figure 6. The percentage of those who strongly
agreed with this conceptual understanding of the relationship between the abilities of nonprofit
managers and the agency’s formation of partnerships was 55%, which was 20% less than those
who strongly agreed that partnerships lead to greater community impact.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

68

Figure 6. Managers’ skills determine their organization’s ability to develop partnerships with
other nonprofits

The agreement that managerial skills determine their organization’s ability to develop
partnerships translated to a broad description of diverse skills in the interviews. The overall
theme of the interviews showed a focus on the managers’ relational aspects of collaborating
articulating how the skills enhance partnership development. Brenda stated managers need
“relational skills” and that they “have to actually care about what they [the partners] do as an
agency.” These relational skills most frequently were noted as effective communication and
development of trust. Jackie focused on communication noting “these conversations can be
really tense and nerve-wracking, and it’s really important to be able to maintain a level of
professional approach and tact.” Interviewees did not directly correlate their organization’s
partnership development with their skill set.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

69
Procedural knowledge. The establishment of partnerships requires nonprofits to
mutually agree upon norms, vision, and measurements. Of the surveyed managers, 35%
indicated they strongly agree partnerships depend on agreed upon norms, vision and
measurement. As seen in Figure 7, more than half (54%) responded agree and 11% disagree.

Figure 7. The establishment of partnerships requires nonprofits to mutually agree upon norms,
vision, and measurements

When asked what criteria need to be established when forming a partnership, the
interviewees had a wide range of responses. A common theme found in this area was that
managers believe nonprofits do not provide the training needed on developing partnerships.
Alice highlighted this issue in the human services sector:
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

70
When you’re in the nonprofit and you’re providing these kinds of services to the
individual, normally, the backgrounds are that they received their education and training
as therapists or mental health providers. Most of those leadership roles filled within
those agencies, however, do not have that same kind of background where it would
require somebody in leadership. For example, if I’m in executive leadership and I’ve
been in the field, I maybe started off as therapist providing therapy. I maybe have my
MSW or MST, but that doesn’t mean I have a degree in business. That doesn’t mean I
have education and training on how to be a successful leader, or manager, or executive
director.
Given that most nonprofit leaders mostly learn on the job and are not trained in managerial skills,
it is easy to understand why managers are not able to align on the skills that result in partnership
formation.
This theme of needing formal training in partnership development was supported during
the interviews as managers did not articulate the defining norms, outcomes and goals for the
partnership as critical components of collaboration formation focusing instead on understanding
roles and needs of the other partner(s). While this theme of understanding is important in a
collaborative, only Holly tied the partner expectations to outcomes: “…successful partnerships
always surround, are surrounded by a clear opus and measurable outcomes.” Procedural
knowledge of the foundational factors of partnerships development is needed by nonprofit
managers and the results of the interviews showed a gap in this area.
Metacognitive knowledge. It is important for nonprofit managers to reflect on their
own skills and knowledge in forming partnerships before starting a new collaborative. Almost
all survey participants (96%) felt that knowledge and skills self-reflection was critical to starting a
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

71
new collaborative as shown in Figure 8. None of the respondents strongly disagreed and only 4%
disagreed.

Figure 8. It is important for nonprofit managers to reflect on their own skills and knowledge in
forming partnerships before starting a new collaborative

The interviewees did not directly address this survey question, but several did discuss
behaviors that aligned with meta-cognitive processes. For example, when describing skills that a
nonprofit manager needs to develop partnerships, one executive director stated:
at all times, and understanding that we have to be able to filter the things we may not
agree with at the moment . . . as I’ve learned in the last three years, you know, just being
able to stop and think and not feel like I have to answer a question at every given
[moment] . . .
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

72
Being able to self-regulate and self-assess during relationship building is important. Ginny also
highlighted that leaders need to have “people skills, and good, good, interpersonal skills they
need to be able to connect with the people who make the decisions at the other organizations.”
Self-reflection is a necessary part of relationship-building. The study’s results concur that
nonprofit managers who are aware of their skills and able to self-assess in the professional
relationships are more likely to be successful in partnership formation.
Results for Motivation Causes
Self-efficacy. I am confident in my ability to form new community partnerships on behalf
of my organization. Figure 9 shows there was almost unanimous agreement (99%) of the survey
respondents that they are confident in developing community partnerships.

Figure 9. I am confident in my ability to form new community partnerships on behalf of my
organization

51%
48%
1%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

73
The findings from the interviewees revealed similar results with some clarifications
made. On the strongest confidence rating, when asked to rate their confidence on a scale of one
to ten as to how confident they were in establishing a new partnership, Holly answered, “I would
say a 9. I think there is always room for improvement, but I would say a 9 in my confidence to
engage partners.” Four of the six interviewees gave an eight in response to this question. The
manager in the study whose role is to develop partnerships for their organization gave herself a
six. Her complex understanding of partnership development was reflected in her clarification on
her response of a six rating:
So I would say on average, if we’re just looking on, for all organizations a six. And then,
with the smaller organizations, I would say an eight. With hospitals, I’d say five, because
it depends on who I reach out to and if they care or not.
The high ratings by interviews of their confidence levels aligned with the surveys indicating
there is not a gap in this area.
Not being able to be meet the needs of all collaborative organizations was a theme across
all interviewees when asked about their confidence levels. Brenda pointed out that her rating of
eight was due to the fact that “. . . we can’t be one thing to everyone.” Another perspective came
from Ginny: “we cannot possibly provide every service on the face of the planet to every client.
There’s just no way.” The results in this area confirm managers demonstrate a high level of self-
efficacy in this area, and they are also realistic in their understanding of how much is in their
control.
Self-efficacy with others. I believe I can effectively hold my organization accountable
for meeting the goals of partnerships. While managers expressed high levels of self-efficacy
over their own work creating new collaboratives, there was a significant shift in the survey
results when asked if they could hold their organizations accountable in this area as depicted in
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

74
Figure 10. Only 25% managers surveyed felt highly confident in holding others in their agencies
to the partnership agreements compared to 51% of respondents who strongly agreed they were
confident in establishing partnerships. In addition, 11% disagreed indicating that they did not
feel they could implement the partnerships they formed.

Figure 10. I believe I can effectively hold my organization accountable for meeting the goals of
partnerships

In order to remain motivated and feel self-efficacious with others, it is critical that
managers believe they can hold others accountable to the collaborative. Accountability was a
repeated theme for all interviewees. When asked about the skills nonprofit managers need to
develop partnerships, Ginny said, “I think follow through, having follow through skills is super
important.” As an executive director, Emily explains how she supports her managers in being
invested in partnership development: “helping [them] to feel that this is going to enhance their
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

75
services that they provide, and not to see it as a threat or competition, but it needs to be genuine.”
Brenda also talked about the role of being accountable in the collaborative:
So willingness to follow through . . . or ask for help if you’re falling off, not always are
partnerships perfect and everything works as you think you’re going to do but if you’re
able to be accountable to when you need support or help from the other party, then that’s
something that’s really important.
Thus, the study shows nonprofit managers believe accountability is an important part of their
work in collaboratives but lack the feelings of self-efficacy holding others accountable that
would motivate partnership formation.
Utility value. An essential part of my role as a manager is the development of new
partnerships. While 89% of the survey respondents indicated developing partnerships was part
of their managerial role, Figure 11 shows 12% did not agree. This level of disagreement in the
survey was only second to the survey question that asked for agreement on getting clearly
defined goals for developing new partnerships.
Even though not all managers agree that partnership development is a key part of their
job responsibilities, there was a clear theme that nonprofit managers value working with other
organizations. Alice’s statement that “the community is a world of untapped potential” reflects
her positive view of other nonprofit agencies. She added, “The more and more you reach out
and engage the community the more you realize that the answers and the opportunities are out
there.” There was an acknowledgment by the interviewees that their organizations could not do
all the work alone and valued sharing resources, which comes with collaboration. Brenda
explains “. . . we can’t do it all. So it is highly important that we have partnerships. If we are
going to meet all the needs of the community, then we all have to be ready to join forces to make
it happen.” Although not there is not agreement on the type of value partnerships bring to
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

76
nonprofits, managers believe it is part of their role, which is most likely to come from the
support of executive leadership.

Figure 11. An essential part of my role as a manager is the development of new partnerships

Executive management utility value. My organization’s executive management team
believes that partnerships expand our organization’s ability to reach more people. As shown in
Figure 12, surveyed managers overwhelmingly agreed (95%) that the executive management
team of their nonprofit value partnerships in expanding organizational reach.
There was an overall feeling by interviewees that management values partnerships in
expanding the organization’s work. One interviewed executive director, Jackie, described her
position: “We value them immensely. It’s something we know has to be done. We don’t want to
do it all.” Another program manager when asked how the staff know the agency values
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

77
partnerships stated, “the commitment to partnerships by seeking out new partnerships [and] the
way as to which the partnership has been added and the value.” The value of the partnerships was
also expressed in a variety of ways. For a small nonprofit executive director, Emily, partnerships
resulted in community reach: “it’s just really continuing to show that visibility in the community
. . . by being part of the community also becoming aware of other opportunities that are coming
out.” Overall, this area revealed nonprofit managers believe that have the support of executive
leadership to develop community partnerships.

Figure 12. My organization’s executive management team believes that partnerships expand our
organization’s ability to reach more people

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

78
Organizational Results
Autonomy valued over partnerships. My organization values partnering with
community nonprofits over working alone to meet our mission (O-C Models). For this question,
shown in Figure 13, 96% of survey respondents agreed that their organization valued
collaboratives over working alone.

Figure 13. My organization values partnering with community nonprofits over working alone to
meet our mission

The interviewees supported the survey results showing that nonprofits value
collaborations over solo work. Managers were able to elaborate on what this looks like in the
human services sector. Holly explained her nonprofit maintained autonomy by being
“intentional about what service we’re offering through partnerships” and “[knowing] what areas
59%
38%
4%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

79
are our strengths and what areas are our weaknesses have allowed us to ensure that we are
holding autonomy within the partnership.” As Brenda pointed out, partnership selection also
influences the ability of an agency to remain autonomous: “. . . make sure that we’re building
strong that keep us as an individual agency strong in what we do.” Partnerships can also expand
autonomy by strengthening the organization’s work. One nonprofit director also described how
partnerships helped their agency get better: “. . . through your partnerships you learn new ways
of doing things or new techniques or new processes that improve what you are doing.” Valuing
partnerships is important, but also requires clearly defined direction to implement their
development.
Organizational defined goals. I receive clearly defined goals from my organization’s
executive leadership to work with other community nonprofits (O-C Settings). Figure 14 shows
the lack of agreement across nonprofit managers as to whether or not they are given clearly
defined goals to develop partnerships. While 63% agree, more than one-third (38%) disagree.
Having 38% disagree with this survey item is an aberration from the other questions where there
was a much higher level of consensus.
Nonprofit organizations are often not strong in defining outcomes and goals. A theme of
nonprofit managers who were interviewed was that their organization was not clear on
partnership goals and expectations to develop partnerships. One program manager, Alice,
commented that although she supports collaborations with other agencies, she is not as confident
other departments within her agency do the same:
I don’t know that they’re necessarily doing things to perpetuate that or encourage that. I
think if individual leadership amongst the different programs want to pursue that I think
they’re okay with it. I don’t know that they’re necessarily pushing it.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

80

Figure 14. I receive clearly defined goals from my organization’s executive leadership to work
with other community nonprofits

If there is not alignment across organizational departments, it is less likely there would
consistent goals and expected performance among managers within an agency. Thus, nonprofit
managers not being given goals related to developing new community partnerships is likely to
negatively impact performance in this area.
My agency’s board of directors support efforts of our organization to work with other
nonprofits (O-C Settings). The survey also found that only 89% agree that their board of
directors support their work with other organizations, as depicted in Figure 15. While this is a
high level of agreement, it is lower than other areas of agreement of the survey. In fact, 12%
disagree with the statement.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

81

Figure 15. My agency’s board of directors support efforts of our organization to work with other
nonprofits

Funding organizations’ support of partnerships. Government funders support the
establishment of community partnerships in grant applications (O-C Models). Collaborations in
grant applications are supported by government funders according to survey respondents (92%
agree). The interviews shed light on what this government funder ask looks like in their
organizations as it is not as clear as it may appear. Ginny shared:
They’re telling us, the nonprofit manager, you need to work with other providers . . .
when it’s grant time, you get organizations that, maybe, you haven’t heard from all year,
that are sending you requests. I think some managers feel obligated to work with other
partners.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

82
Thus, the interview theme was nonprofit managers questioning whether or not the pressure from
government funders for nonprofits to collaborate is resulting in genuine work together deliver
improved services to clients and/or community.
Private foundations encourage the establishment of community partnerships to address
social issues (O-C Models). Survey respondents strongly agreed (95%) that foundations support
partnerships to advance solutions to societal issue. A theme that arose in this area was the
demand to partner take limited resources away from services delivery. Brenda stated, “The more
you partner, the more you’re stretched a little bit . . . You’re gaining a lot but you are always
giving something.” That something being given means less is being directed toward the
organization’s mission and work. Simply stated, Jackie indicated she didn’t have “enough
infrastructure” to support their work and new partnerships. With human services demands
increasing, nonprofit managers are experiencing the pressure of how to allocate resources to
client needs and demands for partnering.
Forming partnerships with other nonprofits results in less funding for my organization
(O-C Models). The survey respondents disagreed 76% with only 15% strongly disagreeing.
There were almost a quarter (24%) that agreed with this statement.
While few managers were willing to articulate that partnerships result in less funding for
their agency, many of the managers interviewed revealed a theme about partnerships sharing of
resources. For example, Jackie stated, “One of the first conversations we have has to do with if
there’s any financial transactions that are going to take place. Those have to be discussed
upfront and very frank around what that agreement looks like.” Even being transparent, one
interviewee articulated the conflict: “. . . if we’re doing similar work we are basically writing for
the same grants . . . other organizations . . . are basically trying to get the same dollars . . . so
we’re in competition.” Ginny went further: “I don’t really want to work with somebody who’s
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

83
going to be my competitor, because my goal is to bring the money in for my nonprofit.” Brenda
also pointed out when partnerships are required, they are usually “unfunded mandates . . . it’s
you must do this, you must do that, but there is no funding to get there.” One executive director,
Emily, openly described how competitive the human service agencies are when grants come out
without regard to partnerships or collaboratives, which can put a smaller organization at a
disadvantage and result in less funding. The study results suggest that while there may not be a
direct loss of funding due to partnering, there is a reason for nonprofit managers to be strategic in
their collaborations so as to not negatively impact their financial resources.

Figure 16. Forming partnerships with other nonprofits results in less funding for my organization

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

84
Organizational resources. I have adequate resources, such as time, support staff, or
technology, to effectively establish partnerships with other nonprofits (O-C Settings). The results
as seen in Figure 17 reveal 61% of nonprofit managers reported they disagree that they do not
have adequate resources to support new partnership development. Most notable, only 4%
strongly agree that they have adequate resources.

Figure 17. I have adequate resources, such as time, support staff, or technology, to effectively
establish partnerships with other nonprofits

This area had a strong response from interviewees as well. The theme was a clear
consensus among interviewees that there are not adequate organizational resources for human
services agencies to partner. Holly noted a partnership “takes away from the internal workings
of the organization or roles.” The pressure to partner with multiple organizations comes with
4%
35%
51%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

85
additional demands. According to Brenda, “It really comes down to time and money in
nonprofits . . . so having the personnel and personnel who are confident in making these
partnerships . . . need to happen.” This statement is supported by Ginny who stated, “it’s hard to
get money for a person dedicated to it [partnerships].” During the interviews, there was stress in
the voices of the participants when speaking on the issue of lack of resources. Jackie, an
executive director, painted the picture well: “I’m the one scoping out and having conversations
and negotiating the partnerships and it’s a tremendous amount of time.” When human services
organizations collaborating are mandated, but not necessarily supported by funding sources,
critical resources are directed away from organizational mission and addressing societal issues.
Findings
Research Question 1
The first research question sought to answer: What are the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that contribute to nonprofit managers building partnerships to enhance the
delivery of services and community impact? For managers to prioritize the formation of
partnerships, they need to know working with other organizations delivers better outcomes than
working alone. According to Aguinis and Kraiger (2009), foundational knowledge is critical to
the managerial role as organizational human capital affects performance. The study results
demonstrated managers acknowledge their knowledge and skills are important to developing
community partnerships. However, they are not able to articulate the most critical aspects of
knowledge and skills needed to form partnerships evidencing the need for further development in
these skills. The literature also shows that collaboratives are more likely to achieve intended
outcomes when management has technical skills that support partnerships (Varda et al., 2012).
Technical managerial skills identified in this study that nonprofit managers need are negotiation
and strategic management as noted in the study’s interviews. The survey also demonstrated
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

86
nonprofit managers have a gap in procedural knowledge about partnership formation in
particular the need to develop agreed upon norms, vision and outcomes.
Without the knowledge and skills needed to form partnerships, managers cannot succeed
in delivering the most impact to the populations and communities they seek to serve. In fact, a
critical issue uncovered in this study is that managers do not express as a critical component of
partnerships the agreement of norms and outcomes. According to Thomson and Perry (2006), an
in-depth knowledge of the structural dimensions of partnerships is foundational to forming the
relationships needed to form effective partnerships. Managers need to know that developing
mutually agreed upon goals and outcomes are a necessary component of partnership formation.
A barrier to procedural knowledge in community work is demonstrated as challenges in
developing outcomes and goals of collaborations (Campbell, 2002). With this understanding, it
is likely nonprofit managers would then know that organizations working together can deliver
greater impact than agencies can alone.
The study’s participants agreed that meta-cognitive processes support partnership
development. Weiss et al. (2002) found synergy between or among organizations was key to
their collective success and is furthered through leadership understanding and appreciating
differences, empowering each other, and defining strong boundaries. The theme of managers
needing relational skills and self-regulation and the ability to reflect on their leadership role are
all aligned and supported by the literature. Having the knowledge, understanding, and ability to
develop partnerships is the foundation needed that also requires motivation to be successful.
In terms of motivation, the study found nonprofit managers had a high degree of self-
efficacy in the area of partnership formation, but not in holding others accountable to the
collaborative. The theme of nonprofits not being able to be everything to everyone was also a
strong motivational influence as nonprofit managers had to acknowledge the restrictions on their
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

87
ability to deliver impact and results. Nonprofit managers’ investment in partnership formation
depends on their feelings of self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2008). Performance also
relies on nonprofit managers valuing partnerships. Not only are individuals more likely to
engage in a valued activity (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), but valued tasks are also more likely to be
incorporated into goals (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). This study found that nonprofit managers
valued working with other community organizations, but there were not clearly defined goals
and direction provided to them. In addition, this study identified several organizational barriers
that impact both nonprofit manager knowledge of and motivation to partner with other
community organizations. Limited organizational resources and unfunded mandates are
discussed more in the next section.
Research Question 2
The second research question examined: What is the interaction between nonprofit
organizational culture and context and management’s knowledge and motivations? Both the
areas of knowledge and motivation are impacted by the organizational culture and context. For
nonprofit managers, there is limited time and training dedicated to developing their skills in the
area of partnership formation. With 64% of the nonprofit managers surveyed reporting they
have not received any training on developing community partnerships, the organizational
priorities and use of resources do not align with this organizational goal. Organizational and
nonprofit funding culture that limit the opportunities for training and rely on learning by
experience create a barrier to nonprofit managers gaining the knowledge needed to develop
partnerships. According to Barman and MacIndoe (2012) changing nonprofit practices requires
both external demands and internal leadership. As noted by one interviewee, most nonprofit
managers are professionally educated in social service areas that do not include business and
strategic skills that are the foundation of relational work in complex collaborative efforts.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

88
Research by Gray and Stites (2013) shows nonprofit partnerships may be formed with a strategy,
but usually the norms are weak and outcomes are never discussed. The deficit in formal training
on partnership development is only one area needed to be addressed by the nonprofit sector.
In addition, the findings of the survey and interviews show it is perceived nonprofit
managers and funders value collaborations and see their importance in achieving outcomes and
expanding organizational reach. While nonprofit managers believe their executive leadership
values partnerships, they were less confident in the support of their organizations boards of
directors. Motivation gaps created by the work not being valued can create an inability to
commence, continue, or persist to task completion (Pintrich, 2003). Without direction from the
highest level of the nonprofit, the strategic direction and management goals may also not be
aligned. In fact, the study confirmed that nonprofit managers are not receiving defined goals
from their organization’s leadership on developing community partnerships. Further impacting
motivation is a lack of resources. When resources are limited or ineffective, organizational
barriers are present (Clark & Estes, 2008). The survey confirmed by interviews found nonprofit
managers do not have adequate staff, time, and technology resources to perform effectively in
developing partnerships and holding their organizations accountable to achieving outcomes and
community impact.
In terms of organizational resources, the allocation of limited resources was a key finding
in this study. Nonprofit managers valued collaborative work as it supported shared resources
and better delivery of services. This perspective is supported by Proulx et al. (2014), who assert
when nonprofits see how partnerships further their agency’s mission, they are less protective of
agency autonomy. On the other hand, when partnerships feel forced due to funding source
requirements, partnerships become a draw on resources rather than a complement. According to
Bunger (2013), gaining legitimacy with funders is often why organizations partner. The
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

89
participants in this study shared the struggles with ensuring they have enough organizational
revenue. The reality of this conflict expressed in the interviews reflects the research that shows
nonprofits partner to financially survive and attain sustainability (Gazley & Brudney, 2007;
Sowa, 2009). With increasing demands for more data and evidence showing results of nonprofit
work, funders unintentionally created an even deeper divide as nonprofits independently work to
create solutions to major societal issues and deliver community services in isolated impact
(Kania & Kramer, 2011). Organizational barriers to developing partnerships negatively impacts
the development of nonprofit managers’ knowledge, skills, and motivations.
Summary
The data collected from the study’s surveys and interviews provided key insights into the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences affecting human services nonprofit
managers developing community partnerships with other community organizations. The
research data showed nonprofit managers fully support the development of partnerships, have
strong self-efficacy in their abilities to do so, but do not believe as strongly in their confidence in
holding their organizations accountable. Despite these affirmative findings, gaps in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were detected. The care and commitment
to collaborative efforts were clear in the surveys and interviews, the interviews also illuminated
area of improvement needed for nonprofit managers to most successfully form partnerships.
Critical gap areas were demonstrated in all three areas of influences: knowledge,
motivation, organizational. There is a need for nonprofit managers to know that partnerships
deliver increased community impact (factual knowledge). Nonprofit managers would also
benefit from an improved understanding that when norms, goals, and outcomes are agreed upon
during the process, partnership formation is improved (conceptual knowledge). Throughout the
interviews, nonprofit managers articulated experiences in forming partnerships, but they were
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

90
not able to describe the key critical skills and practices that support the development of
collaboratives (procedural knowledge). The gap in procedural knowledge would be best
addressed through nonprofit managers’ strong agreement that it is important for them to reflect
on their own skills and knowledge prior to commencing a new partnership.
While nonprofit managers reported strong positive feelings in their ability to develop new
community partnerships, fewer strongly agreed in their confidence to hold their organizations
accountable for meeting the goals of the partnership (motivation/self-efficacy). Another gap was
found in the area of motivation as nonprofit managers reported their organization’s executive
team see the value in partnerships at a higher rate than they believe it is their role
(motivation/utility value). Nonprofit managers could benefit from them increasing the value
they place on their role in developing new partnerships. Although motivation is critical to the
success of a task completion, if there are organizational barriers, the motivation will be
extinguished and the goal will not likely be achieved.
Organizational barriers were identified in this study affecting nonprofit managers’ ability
to deliver new partnerships to their agencies. Most frequently cited organizational barrier in both
the survey and interviews was the lack of resources to dedicate to developing partnerships. This
identified gap is in sharp contrast to the nonprofit managers reports that oversight stakeholders,
government funders, private foundations, and agency board of directors support their agency
working in partnerships. In fact, the study found that nonprofit managers believe partnerships do
not reduce their agencies autonomy or funding. Thus, the agreement by all stakeholders that
partnership formation is a top priority, the deficit of dedicated organizational resources to this
effort must be addressed.
This chapter identified the key knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers
that impact nonprofit managers in developing community partnerships. Chapter 5 will provide
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

91
recommendations to close the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence gaps with an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan outlined to assess development of nonprofit
managers in these crucial areas.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

92
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 4 addressed the study’s first two research questions. First, the chapter examined
the question: What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
nonprofit managers building partnerships to enhance the delivery of services and community
impact? Following the data presentation from this question, Chapter 4 reviewed the data as it
related to the second research question: What is the interaction between nonprofit organizational
culture and context and management’s knowledge and motivations? Synthesized from the
survey and interviews, the key study findings were used to determine if the assumed influences
in the categories of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were validated.
Chapter 5 addresses the third research question: What are the recommended knowledge,
motivation, and organizational solutions that will support nonprofit managers in developing
community partnerships and collaborative efforts? This chapter provides recommendations for
practice to address the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, as well as an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan. Utilizing four levels of evaluation, the New
World Kirkpatrick Model serves as the implementation and evaluation framework (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model starts with Level 4 evaluation looking at the desired outcome
of the implementation plan and then addresses the other three levels: behavior, learning, and
reaction. The following planned program will address all of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences and include all four Levels of evaluation.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences are key contributors to
performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). When assessing gaps in performance, it is important to
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

93
assess if the knowledge exists to achieve a set performance goal. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), individuals are often unaware of their own knowledge deficits which is why meta-
cognitive processes are also important. Table 5 includes a summary of the assumed knowledge
influences related to this study. Derived from a review of the literature, each assumed
knowledge influence was validated through the study’s quantitative and qualitative data. A
learning principle and context-specific recommendation supports each knowledge influence.
The four primary knowledge types that contribute to learning (factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive) are utilized to organize the assumed influences (Krathwohl, 2002). An
overview of the context-specific recommendations, grounded in learning theory, relevant
literature, and the study’s findings follow Table 5.

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Nonprofit managers need to
understand the leadership skills
that result in the development of
relationships with partners. (D)
Learning a task is facilitated by
the identification of prior
knowledge about the topic
(Mayer, 2011).
Provide information to nonprofit
managers on the skills that increase
relationship development with
partners.
Nonprofit managers need to know
the processes that support effective
partnerships with the development
of agreed upon norms, vision, and
measurements. (P)
Acquiring skills, practicing
them, and applying them are
necessary for mastery (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2009).
Facilitating the transfer of
knowledge promotes learning
(Mayer, 2011).
Provide a job aid to nonprofit
managers that outlines critical
components and techniques of
partnership development.
Nonprofit managers need to know
how to reflect on their own
knowledge and level of skills in
developing new partnerships to
reach organizational and -
community goals. (M)
Learning is facilitated by meta-
cognitive processes such as self-
reflection (Baker, 2002).
Provide mindfulness training to
nonprofit managers to develop self-
awareness and self-regulation
processes in developing
partnerships.
*Note: (D)eclarative; (P)rocedural; (M)etacognitive
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

94
Declarative knowledge solutions. While nonprofit managers need to know the impact
that partnerships have on community work, it is most essential they understand the leadership
skills that are fundamental to the development of relationships with partners (declarative/factual
knowledge). Declarative knowledge includes both factual knowledge (i.e., basic terminology)
and conceptual knowledge (i.e., connecting patterns and relationships) (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Providing information to individuals to acquire factual knowledge of a subject as well as the
connection of this subject to other areas of knowledge increases the learning of a subject.
Learning a task is also facilitated by the identification of prior knowledge about the topic
(Mayer, 2011). In addition, information learned meaningfully and connected with prior
knowledge is stored more quickly and remembered more accurately (Schraw & McCrudden,
2009). Helping learners connect new knowledge with previously acquired information supports
their developing meaning and an increased ability to apply the knowledge. A recommendation
to support nonprofit managers gaining a better understanding of techniques needed to develop
partnerships would be to provide a job aid that details partnership formation skills.
According to The Network for Social Work Management (2016), human services
managers need to be competent in conceptualizing, seeking, and establishing new partnerships to
enhance the delivery of services. Despite these defined competencies for human service
managers, nearly two-thirds (64%) of the survey respondents indicated that they have not
received any training on developing community partnerships. Further, a common theme in the
interviews was the perception that the skills needed by managers to develop partnerships is only
learned through experience. To address nonprofit manager gaps in declarative/conceptual
knowledge related to partnerships, it is critical to provide training that supports gaining an
understanding of the skills needed to develop partnerships. Ensuring this information builds on
prior knowledge will increase the likelihood nonprofit managers apply the learning to new
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

95
partnership development in the future which will increase their organization’s community
impact.
Procedural knowledge solutions. Procedural knowledge is the ability to understand the
steps and effective use of skills, techniques and methods (Krathwohl, 2002). Nonprofit
managers need to know the processes that support effective partnerships with the development of
agreed upon norms, vision, and measurements (procedural knowledge). To develop mastery,
Schraw and McCrudden (2009) state individuals must acquire component skills, practice
integrating them, and know when to apply what they learned. Having the opportunity to learn,
practice, and apply new skills in the work environment would increase the procedural knowledge
of nonprofit managers. To address nonprofit manager gaps in procedural knowledge, a
recommendation is to utilize a job aid to increase procedural knowledge on developing
partnerships that outlines critical components and stages of partnership development. Further,
Mayer (2011) reports that facilitating transfer promotes learning and encouraging the use of job
aids in obtaining procedural knowledge. Training nonprofit managers on the job aid will provide
opportunities for nonprofit manager to practice and apply newly acquired knowledge and skills.
Babiak and Thibault (2009) outline the challenges nonprofit managers face establishing
governance, roles, and responsibilities in partnership development. One finding that emerged
from this study’s interviews was the perception of the nonprofit managers that knowledge gained
in practice and through the informal transfer of knowledge from other human service managers is
most common method of learning. Since training is found to be important in supporting
partnerships, there is an opportunity to formalize and build upon these informal exchanges of
knowledge with managerial education (Schmid & Almog-Bar, 2016). By enabling the learner to
practice and receive guidance and feedback for improvement, training is an effective tool to
assist individuals in obtaining knowledge on how to complete or master a task (Clark & Estes,
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

96
2008). Increasing the procedural knowledge of nonprofit managers by providing them with
opportunities to implement and assess successful strategies and practices would improve their
level of competence in partnership development.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Metacognition is the ability for an individual to
self-assess, monitor, and reflect on their own knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Nonprofit
managers need to know how to reflect on their own knowledge and level of skills in developing
new partnerships to reach organizational and community goals (metacognitive knowledge).
Learning is facilitated by meta-cognitive processes such as self-reflection (Baker, 2002). In
addition, increasing germane cognitive load by engaging individuals in meaningful learning
enhances schema construction (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2009). Allowing learners to have
dedicated time to self-reflect could increase their metacognitive learning. The recommendation
is to provide mindfulness training to nonprofit managers to develop self-awareness and self-
regulation processes that would improve their developing partnerships.
When developed as a practice, mindfulness encourages clinicians to be more attentive to
the present moment and more self-aware of their situational and relational responses (Yeager &
Bauer-Wu, 2013). An important part of metacognition is also grounded in the successful transfer
and application of prior learning to new situations or practice (Krathwohl, 2002). Successful
transfer of knowledge previously obtained from educational programs, training, and lived
experiences relies on ongoing evaluations and self-assessments (Baker, 2002). Providing
nonprofit managers with additional tools to improve their metacognitive knowledge would
increase their ability to develop community partnerships.
Motivation Recommendations
Motivation influences, in addition to knowledge and organizational influences, are a key
contributor to performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation affects our ability to start a
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

97
task, continue to persist until the task or goal is completed, and dedicate ample mental effort to
be successful (Clark & Estes, 2008). Table 6 includes a summary of the assumed motivation
influences related to this study. Derived from a review of the literature, each assumed
motivation influence was validated by the study’s data. A guiding principle and context-specific
recommendation support each influence need. For this study, the motivation influences are
framed by the constructs of expectancy value and self-efficacy theories.
Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-Efficacy Theory:
Nonprofit managers
need to believe they are
capable of effectively
developing new
community
relationships that result
in partnerships.
Self-efficacy is increased as
individuals succeed in a task
(Bandura, 1997).
Persistence and mental effort
invested in developing
partnerships is dependent on
nonprofit managers’ feelings of
self-efficacy in this task
(Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2008)
Offer ongoing feedback and
positive reinforcement to
managers on their
development of partnerships.
Utility Value Theory:
The management team
needs to see the value in
community partnerships
and creating data and
outcome measures with
new partners.
Individuals are more likely to
engage in an activity when it
provides value to them (Wigfield
& Eccles, 2000).
The utility value of the work of
nonprofit managers in developing
partnerships determines how well
tasks are incorporated into
individual goals and plans
(Wigfield & Cambria, 2010).
Provide information to
nonprofit managers that
demonstrate how community
partnerships with defined
data and outcome measures
result in greater
organizational reach and
improved services.
Provide a training on the
usefulness to managers to
develop partnerships and
creating data and outcome
measures with new partners.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

98
Self-efficacy solutions. Nonprofit managers need to believe they are capable of
effectively developing new community relationships that result in partnerships. Self-efficacy is
increased as individuals succeed in a task (Bandura, 1997). By providing learners with
opportunities to improve their self-efficacy, their motivation to be successful at achieving a
goal will also be increased. Thus, the recommendation for nonprofit organizations would be
for senior management to offer ongoing feedback and positive reinforcement to managers on
their development of partnerships to support feelings of self-efficacy in this area of their work.
Persistence and mental effort invested in a task is dependent on an individual’s feelings
of self-efficacy in this task (Bandura, 2000). In order to increase nonprofit managers’ self-
efficacy, the recommendation is for continuous feedback and positive reinforcement to be
provided among partner managers. According to Pajares (2008), feedback and modeling
increases self-efficacy. In addition, feedback and information-sharing improves coordination
and alignment among partners that support the achievement of joint goals (Gulati et al., 2012).
If nonprofit managers communicate with each other on progress and performance while
working toward mutual goals, their self-efficacy will increase and they will be motivated to
continue the partnership.
Utility value solutions. The management team needs to see the value in community
partnerships and creating data and outcome measures with new partners. According to
Wigfield and Eccles (2000), individuals are more likely to engage in an activity when it
provides value to them. Thus, nonprofit managers will forge new partnerships when they see
the value in doing so. One recommendation is to provide information to nonprofit managers
that demonstrate how community partnerships with defined data and outcome measures result
in greater organizational reach and improved services.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

99
The utility value of the work determines how well tasks are incorporated into individual
goals and plans (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). For nonprofit managers to reach goals of
developing new partnerships, they need to see the utility of these relationships in their
professional role and in advancing the mission of their organizations. Nonprofit managers who
value interorganizational relationships are better prepared to meet organizational and service
delivery goals (Mayhew, 2012). In addition, shared values in the collaboration enhances the
trust and motivation that are the foundation of the partnership (Selsky & Parker, 2005).
Organization Recommendations
In addition to knowledge and motivational influences, organizations contribute to
creating barriers to performance gaps. According to Clark and Estes (2008), ineffective and
inefficient organizational processes and/or insufficient needed resources, can result in barriers to
performance gap achievement. Therefore, in order to achieve organizational mission and goals,
structural resources, processes, cultural models and settings must align. Table 3 includes a
summary of the assumed organizational influences related to this study. Each assumed
organization influence was validated by the study’s data and derived from the literature. Table 7
also outlines learning principles and context-specific recommendations that support each
influence need.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

100

Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Nonprofits need to value
partnerships over
individual organizational
autonomy demonstrated
by managers receiving
clearly defined goals and
holding others
accountable.
Effective organizations ensure that
organizational messages, rewards,
policies and procedures governing
the organizational work are aligned
with or are supportive of
organizational goals and values
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational performance is
enhanced if participants have clear,
current, and challenging goals
(Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
Include goals and
objectives for developing
partnerships into
nonprofits’ strategic
plans.
Incorporate goals and
metrics into annual
performance evaluations
for nonprofit managers to
develop effective
partnerships.
Nonprofits need public
funding to operate, which
can make it more
difficult for partnerships
to form and perform.
Nonprofits partner to financially
survive and attain sustainability
(Gazley & Brudney, 2007; Sowa,
2009).
The recommendation is
for nonprofit managers to
develop skills to balance
and allocate revenue that
will further partnership
development.
Nonprofits need
increased capacity of
time and human
resources to establish and
sustain partnerships.
Effective change efforts ensure that
everyone has the resources needed
to do their job, and that if there are
resource shortages, then resources
are aligned with organizational
priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Organizational performance
increases when adequate processes
and resources are provided to
support performance goal
achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The recommendation is
for nonprofit managers to
advocate with funders to
provide financial support
for developing
partnerships and for
nonprofit leadership to
allocate time and human
resources toward
collaborations.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

101
Process solutions. Effective organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards,
policies and procedures governing the organizational work are aligned with or are supportive of
organizational goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). Nonprofits need to value partnerships
over individual organizational autonomy demonstrated by managers receiving clearly defined
goals and holding others accountable. Organizational performance is enhanced if participants
have clear, current, and challenging goals (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Thus, providing defined
goals and objectives for partnership development could improve the achievement of this goal
across nonprofits. To address this organizational influence, nonprofits should consider including
goals and objectives for developing partnerships into nonprofits’ strategic plans. In addition,
incorporating goals and metrics into annual performance evaluations for nonprofit managers to
develop effective partnerships should be adopted by organizations.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), cultural patterns can be changed by altering the
work environment. Nonprofit Boards and executives have the opportunity to support
collaboration formation with community partners through adoption of these efforts in strategic
plans and initiatives. The mission and vision of an organization are critical parts of its strategic
plan and guide the organization’s purpose and desired future state (Gulati, Mikhail, Morgan, &
Sittig, 2016). In addition to the organization prioritizing partnerships, individuals within the
nonprofit have to be clear on expectations. The Network for Social Work Management (2016)
identifies collaboration and partnerships as human services professionals’ competencies. Thus, it
would appear providing clearly defined goals and objectives for nonprofit managers would
improve the achievement of partnership formation.
Resources. Program procedures, content, and structure influence organizations (Kezar,
2001). Nonprofits need public funding to operate, which can make it more difficult for
partnerships to form and perform if resources are not committed to the technology or staff
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

102
required for this complex work. Effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources
needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are aligned with
organizational priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008). Nonprofit leadership expertise in budgeting and
allocation of resources that align with collaborations is key to improvement in this area. In
addition, advocacy with nonprofit funders to provide adequate revenue to support managers in
developing partnerships is also critical to impacting long term change. The recommendation is
to advocate with funders to provide financial support to nonprofits for developing partnerships
and with organizations to allocate time and human resources toward collaborations.
In addition to funding support, nonprofits also need increased capacity of time and human
resources to establish and sustain partnerships. Organizational performance increases when
adequate processes and resources are provided to support performance goal achievement (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Organizations need to allocate time and human resources to provide nonprofit
managers the support needed to develop effective partnerships. According to Schein (2004),
organizational leaders can promote targeted values and processes by their choice of resource
allocation. If nonprofit executive management and Board ensured managers have adequate time
and staff to dedicate efforts to partnerships, the organization will be more likely to be successful
in developing effective collaborations.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
This implementation and evaluation plan is modeled after the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is based on the original Kirkpatrick Four Level
Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). According to this model, evaluation
plans start with the goals of the organization and work backwards. By working backwards from
the organization’s goals, the indicators can align recommended solutions so they are more easily
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

103
identified. The “reverse order” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model sequences three other
actions: (1) the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors;
(2) the identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation; and (3) the
emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied with implementation
strategies. Designing the implementation and evaluation plan using the New World Kirkpatrick
Model develops connections between the immediate solutions and the larger goal to ensure
success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
Nonprofit human services organizations are created to provide clients with a wide range
of needs with the supports to overcome societal, local or personal barriers to achieving the goals
of the enhancing well-being and quality of life of those being served. Nonprofit managers need
to develop partnerships with other community entities to ensure the most efficient use of limited
resources and most effective delivery of services. Since nonprofits hire managers from a range
of educational backgrounds, there is not a consistent understanding of what is required to form
community partnerships. In addition, with limited revenue, nonprofit managers often find
themselves lacking the resources needed to collaborate effectively. The proposed solution of
providing nonprofit human service organizations training for their managers on partnership
formation and advocating for funders to align resources to support human services collaboration
will result in more partnerships developed to meet the needs of communities.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Outcomes, metrics, and methods. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016),
Level 4 evaluation connects the training or educational program to the desired organizational
outcomes. The proposed Level 4 plan with defined outcomes, metrics, and methods can be
found in Table 8. The evaluation plan must include both external and internal outcomes.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

104
External leading indicators relate to how external stakeholder groups will be affected by the
critical organizational behaviors changing. Internal leading indicators are focused on the
organizational structure and individual targets that define how stakeholders will contribute to the
organizational goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

Table 8
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased nonprofit human
services partnerships
developed to better utilize
funding.
Number of nonprofit human
services organizations
partnering on funding
applications.
Collect data from annual
survey through nonprofit
associations.
Human services
organizations report
increased capacity for
developing collaboratives.
Number of human services
organizations that have a
dedicated staff for
partnership formation.
Solicit data from nonprofits
on number of staff dedicated
to partnership formation.
Internal Outcomes
Improved nonprofit
manager understanding on
how to form partnerships.
Number of nonprofit
managers that complete a
training course on
partnership formation.
Solicit data from nonprofits
on number of managers that
completed training on
partnership formation.
Increased nonprofit manager
feelings of self-efficacy to
develop new collaboratives.
Percentage of nonprofit
managers reporting
collaborating with other
nonprofits.
Collect data from annual
survey through nonprofit
associations.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Level 3 evaluation is typically the most important level of the
evaluation as it allows for interim modifications to ensure objectives are being met and
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

105
stakeholders are able to apply what they learned (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 4
outcomes are driven by Level 3 critical behaviors of the primary stakeholder group. For the
primary stakeholder group of nonprofit managers, the first critical behavior is that they
demonstrate an understanding of the critical components of partnership formation. The second
critical behavior is that nonprofits will dedicate management resources to develop new
partnerships and expand organizational reach. Table 9 outlines the specific metrics, methods,
and timing for these outcome behaviors.

Table 9
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Nonprofit managers
demonstrate the critical
components of
partnership formation.
Successful completion
of a course on
nonprofit partnership
formation.
Nonprofit management
training delivered
through professional
associations.
Evaluation
completed at
end of each
training.
Nonprofit managers
reach out to other
nonprofits to develop
new partnerships.
Increase in the number
of partnerships.
Nonprofit managers’
performance goals
include partnership
development.
Reviewed
annually.

Required drivers. Level 4 evaluation incorporates required drivers that reinforce,
encourage, reward, and monitor the application of the critical behaviors in the workplace
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). To achieve the stakeholder goal, nonprofit managers must
have knowledge about the critical components of partnership formation. They also need
dedicated time from their organizations to reach out to potential new organizations to partner.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

106
Further, public acknowledgement of new collaboratives will encourage nonprofit managers to
continue to expand their partnerships. Table 10 includes the recommended drivers to support
critical behaviors nonprofit managers to help them reach the targeted stakeholder goal.

Table 10
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Provide a job aid that includes a primer on key terminology
and principles related to developing partnerships.
Ongoing 1, 2
Provide training on critical components of partnership
formation.
Ongoing 1, 2
Encouraging

Share evidence-based practices and case studies that
demonstrate successful development of community
partnerships.
Ongoing 1
Rewarding

Public acknowledgement of new partnerships developed. Ongoing 2
Monitoring

New partnership agreements can be reviewed for critical
components.
Ongoing 1, 2

Organizational support. As a component of the tiered training, the organization can
ensure adequate training by adopting the training modules for all managers and newly hired or
promoted managers. In addition, nonprofit leadership can ensure developing partnerships are a
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

107
goal of strategic plans and individuals managers’ annual performance plans. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), cultural patterns can be altered by changing the work environment. Nonprofit
leadership can create change through the professional development offered in these online
training modules. Further, the nonprofit sector has to be reshaped through the efforts of changed
organizations advocating for the support of funders to commit financially to the effort of creating
more partnerships and collaboratives.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Level 2 evaluates if the program participants have gained the
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment to reach their goals. Following
completion of the recommended solutions, the stakeholder group for this study will be able to:
1. List the critical components of partnerships. (D)
2. Carry out the steps to partnership development. (P)
3. Reflect on their own progress toward new partnership development. (M)
4. Value management developing partnerships. (UV)
5. Believe they are capable of developing new partnerships. (SE)
Program Evaluation
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
A training program will support the learning goals by offering support to nonprofit
managers in their community partnership work. The framework of the recommended program
will be a three-prong approach, which includes increasing knowledge and motivation through
education, providing tools and resources to promote learning in the workplace, and disseminating
organizational methods to reinforce and reward positive outcomes. Through nonprofit
associations, the program will be available to the key stakeholder group of nonprofit managers.
Asynchronous training allows learners to complete the course at their own pace. Two modules
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

108
will focus on improving the critical areas of nonprofit managers’ knowledge, nonprofit
managers’ motivation and self-efficacy, and organizational processes to improve partnership
formation. A third module will provide resources and tools to disseminate a train-the-trainer
program in the learner’s organization providing opportunities to practice and apply the learning.
In addition to the asynchronous learning modules, an online learning community will be
available to share best practices and provide peer modeling. The learning community will also
provide opportunities to share meaningful experiences to celebrate and encourage partnerships
that improve service delivery and provide the best utilization of community resources.
To increase nonprofit manager knowledge of partnership development, the first module
will provide information on current research and critical components of collaboratives for
organizations to connect their complementary programs and services. The online resource will
be available for nonprofit managers to utilize in their organizations. An educational video
illustrating the important components of partnership development will act as a job aid for
nonprofit managers. Learners will have the opportunity to review various collaborative efforts as
case studies to demonstrate the steps leading for the development of partnerships. This module
will also provide tools and resources aligned with assessing organizational needs that would
form the basis for reaching out to new partners. In addition to gaining insights into partnership
formation and effective practices, training participants will be challenged to reflect on their
biases and assumptions about working with other organizations that may create unintentional
learning barriers. Finally, a training on nonprofit budgeting and demonstration of how managers
can allocate the resources needed to form new partnerships will complete the module.
Focusing on nonprofit manager motivation and feelings of self-efficacy, the second
module will be offered online as a compilation of several resources. It will include a job aid to
be utilized as a self-assessment to measure the learner’s perceived abilities and resources needed
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

109
to develop partnerships. The nonprofit managers will be encouraged to use this resource within
their organizations’ management teams to be incorporated in the commencing of new
partnerships and allocation of support to the effort. In addition, this module will provide a
document with partnership and budgeting components that can help management teams agree
upon principles to guide them in starting new collaboratives. The last part of the module will
include a mindfulness training session that can improve metacognitive skills and increase self-
reflection necessary for relationship building, which is the foundation of partnerships.
The third module will provide tools and resources to launch a train-the-trainer program in
each of the learners’ organizations. The tools and strategies provided in the module will help
nonprofit managers formalize the informal learning process common in the sector increasing
manager self-efficacy in leading and supporting their teams in their collaborative work. The
informal transfer of knowledge was identified in the literature review as the primary way that
knowledge of how to form a community partnership is currently attained in the nonprofit sector.
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 2 learning is comprised of five
components: knowledge, skill, attitude, confidence, and commitment. Aligned closely with the
knowledge and motivation influences of the Clark and Estes (2008) model, these components
provide a complimentary framework of evaluation. Table 11 provides an overview of the
methods and activities that will support the components of learning for the proposed training.
The likelihood of successfully transferring the training knowledge to the workplace, both the
knowledge and motivation of the learner, will be assessed.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

110

Table 11
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Provide the critical components needed to develop new
partnerships.
At the completion of
each training module
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Explain the key steps and needed resources for establishing
new partnerships.
At the completion of
each training module
Pre-evaluation and post-assessment to measure increased
competence.
Prior and following
each training module
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

I believe it is beneficial to my agency’s mission for me to
initiate new partnerships with other organizations tracked by
module participation and completion rates.
Ongoing
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

I am confident as a nonprofit manager that I will be able to
apply the knowledge about partnerships I learned in this
training as measured in pre-evaluation and post-assessment.
Prior and following
each training module
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

I am committed to applying what I learned in this training to
my role as nonprofit manager.
At the completion of
all three training
modules

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

111
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 evaluation is used to determine how the learner experiences the quality of a
program. The overall engagement, relevance, and satisfaction of the learner are the components
measured at this level of evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Methods of evaluation
can be formative, completed while in progress, or summative, performed at the completion of the
program. An overview of the methods and tools to be used to evaluate the proposed training
program are found in Table 12.

Table 12
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods and Tools Timing
Engagement

Average time spent per module Post-module completion
Percentage of participants who complete all
modules
Training completion
Relevance

Module evaluation Post-module completion
Course evaluation Two weeks after training completion
Customer Satisfaction

Course evaluation Post-module completion/training
completion

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Participants will evaluate the
asynchronous training program at the end of each module. Submitted electronically via the
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

112
online training, the surveys will be utilized to measure Level 1 and Level 2 learning. Level 1
learning evaluation measures the participant’s engagement, relevance, and satisfaction with the
program, and Level 2 learning evaluation measures whether the participant has attained the
needed knowledge and skills while assessing their attitudes and confidence (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The training modules will also have a link to allow participants to provide
feedback or report technology issues with the program. Having the ability for participants to
provide open-ended feedback to the training provider will offer valuable insights into the
learning process of the nonprofit managers.
Probing for Level 1 learning including engagement, relevance, and satisfaction, the post-
completion survey will include questions based on a 4-point Likert scale with responses rated
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Questions will include evaluation of the learning
environment, the application and relevance of the module content to the participant’s job, and
whether the learner would recommend the program to others. To allow for more detailed
feedback, the survey will have open-ended questions targeting the above Level 1 areas. In
addition to the online surveys, the completion rates of each module and time spent per module
will be tracked to evaluate participant engagement in the training.
To evaluate Level 2 learning, the post-completion survey will include questions that
assess knowledge gained, attitudes, and confidence. Knowledge gain will be evaluated through
tests and assignments during the modules. The online survey will include the ability to submit
open-ended feedback on knowledge gain. In addition, a similar open-ended question format will
be used to evaluate attitude, motivation, and confidence rated on a 4-point Likert scale.
Participant skills will be tested as part of the learning modules versus the program post-
completion survey. Sample questions for the online surveys are provided in Table 13.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

113
Table 13
Sample: Evaluation Tool Immediately After Training
Learning
Component Survey Item
Declarative
Knowledge
Provide a brief overview of the key components of partnerships (open-
ended question).
Procedural Explain the steps utilized to develop partnerships (open-ended question).
Attitude I believe that it is beneficial to develop partnerships with other community
organizations (4-point Likert scale question).
Confidence I am confident that I will be able to apply the knowledge about
partnerships that I gained in this course to my role as nonprofit manager
(4-point Likert scale question).
Commitment I am committed to applying the partnership knowledge that I gained in this
course to my role as nonprofit manager (4-point Likert scale question).
Engagement The content of the learning module held my interest through completion
(4- point Likert scale question).
Relevance The module assignments helped me apply the course learning to my role of
developing new partnerships (4-point Likert scale question).
Customer
Satisfaction
I would recommend participating in this program to another nonprofit
manager (4-point Likert scale question).

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Three months following the
completion of all of the training modules, participating nonprofit managers will be sent a follow-
up survey. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), post-completion training surveys
measure how participants have applied what they learned to their job (Level 3 learning) and how
the training has impacted their outcomes (Level 4 learning). Level 1 and 2 learning will be
assessed during the 90-day post-completion survey, but the primary goal is to evaluate Level 3
and 4 learning. The utilization of a blended evaluation approach, which combines the evaluation
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

114
of all four levels, reduces the likelihood of survey fatigue (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). To
measure the relevance of the learned material to the nonprofit manager’s role and customer
satisfaction, the post-completion survey will be comprised of both closed-end question using a 4-
point Likert rating scale. The survey will also include open-ended questions for the nonprofit
manager to provide more detailed and in-depth responses.
To measure to what extent nonprofit managers are able to apply the learning from the
training, the survey questions will focus on Level 3 learning gains. The closed-ended questions
will be rated on a 4-point Likert scale from little to no application to very strong application of
learning to current role. The self-assessment of the transfer of the training materials and progress
toward achieving organizational goals of partnership development will provide insight into the
Level 4 learning. For both Level 3 and Level 4 assessment, open-ended questions will provide a
more thorough evaluation and response. To mitigate the limitations of surveys to measure actual
knowledge transfer (Level 3) and progress toward goal achievement (Level 4) l transfer of
knowledge (Level 3) in the practice setting, nonprofit managers will also be asked to report
metrics to measure the application of the training program, such as number of partnerships
developed and active, partnership outcomes and achievement, and new potential areas of
collaboration. Sample questions for the delayed/blended evaluation surveys are provided in
Table 14.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

115
Table 14
Sample: Delayed/blended Evaluation
Learning
Component Survey Item
Declarative
Knowledge
Name one fact about partnerships you learned through the training that you
have used (open-ended question).
Procedural Describe one step in forming partnerships you learned during the training
that has helped you in your work (open-ended question).
Attitude I believe the training supported my work in developing partnerships with
other community organizations (4-point Likert scale question).
Confidence My confidence in applying material from the training to my role in
developing partnerships has increased (4-point Likert scale question).
Commitment I am committed to using the partnership knowledge that I gained in this
course to my role as nonprofit manager (4-point Likert scale question).
Engagement I use the content of the training modules in my role as a nonprofit manager
(4- point Likert scale question).
Relevance The course has applied to my work of developing new partnerships for my
nonprofit organization (4-point Likert scale question).
Customer
Satisfaction
I would recommend this course to another nonprofit manager to increase
their ability to form partnerships (4-point Likert scale question).

Data Analysis and Reporting
The findings of the program evaluations will be reviewed by the trainer and shared with
nonprofit associations participating in the offering. Table 15 provides a sample of a dashboard
that will be used to track progress to identified metrics.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

116
Table 15
Sample Monthly Dashboard: June
Metric
Percentage
Responding Yes
(Target)
Percentage
Responding Yes
(Actual) Success
I was successfully able to apply what
I learned in the course to my role as a
nonprofit manager.
100% 100% On Target
I understand how to develop and am
able to form a new partnership with
another community agency on behalf
of my organization.
100% 85% Needs
Improvement
I have shared partnership
development techniques with my
colleagues.
100% 75% On Target
My organization has increased the
number of collaborations it
participates in.
100% 75% Needs
Improvement

On an annual basis, the dashboard will be reported to the participating nonprofit
associations with feedback requested on areas that need improvement to achieve the stakeholder
goal of partnership formation. The collection of the metrics and sharing with the associations is
part of a cycle that includes planning, implementation, analysis and adjustments. Figure 18
represents the process of utilizing the measures as a monitoring and accountability tool for the
program.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

117

Figure 18. Training plan and evaluation cycle

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

118
Summary
For this educational program to be successful, it will be important nonprofit managers
continue to develop new collaborations despite the barriers of limited time and resources to do
so. In addition, for nonprofit managers to initiate new partnerships there needs to be a
commitment from the organization’s leadership to ensure they have the time and tools to
establish the new relationships with other agencies. For nonprofit managers who participate in
the partnership training, it will be critical that they spread the obtained knowledge and resources
within their organizations using the train the trainer resources. To evaluate if the training is
meeting the determined program goals, it will be important to utilize the data collected from the
utilized New World Kirkpatrick Model to implement strategies for continual improvement of the
initiative.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Although all methodological approaches have strengths and weaknesses, the use of a
mixed methods approach in this study provides amelioration of the limitations. In addition, the
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis provided the framework to identify the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences affecting nonprofit manager developing partnerships
on behalf of their agencies. The systemic approach was utilized in this study with modifications
looking for the presence of gaps as opposed to the causes of gaps, which is the foundation of the
Clark and Estes (2008) model. The model supports the evaluation of assumed cause of identified
performance gaps so resources can be more effectively and efficiently targeted to improve
performance and outcomes (Rueda, 2011). The risk of implementing solutions to performance
gaps is reduced by determining gaps and evaluating outcomes. Lastly, the model applied to real-
world problems is stronger than the use of problem-solving approaches that rely on a strict
theoretical approach.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

119
In addition to the strengths noted above, the Clark and Estes model (2008) has
weaknesses. One gap identified by organizational leaders is that the gap analysis evaluation is
prescribed and time consuming (Clark & Estes, 2008). In an ever-changing sector, nonprofits are
not likely to be able or willing to dedicate the requisite time needed to progress through the
complete four steps of the analysis. Additional weaknesses of the model include the perception
of leaders that the model will be too expensive to execute (Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally,
assuming implemented solutions were effective, organizations with limited resources may be
inclined to not complete the final stage of the model, the evaluation step.
Limitations
This research study aligned with a mixed methods approach through an online survey and
interviews to obtain information on the influences nonprofit managers’ experience in developing
community partnerships. Each study experiences limitations that are out of the researcher’s
control. Selecting the Network for Social Work Management for the sample may limit the
characteristics of the nonprofit managers who are participating and may not reflect all nonprofit
managers who are not aligned with a professional organization. In addition, the conceptual
framework focusing on the knowledge, motivations, and organizational influences may also limit
the study. Finally, nonprofit managers may be influenced to respond in a particular way to the
survey and interviews to project a positive professional impression. Due to time constraints,
only six survey respondents were interviewed, which could also be a study limitation. The
delimitations, characteristics that limit the study as identified by the researcher, are utilizing the
professional association, NSWM, for the survey, and completing the data collection over the
summer months, which may affect the study’s participation.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

120
Future Research
Emerging from this study are topics that could benefit from further examination. Since
the study’s sample was distributed through the Network for Social Work Management, there may
be nonprofit managers not connected to this professional organization that did not participate, so
future research should find ways to expand its reach. Another potential future research could
explore to what extent partnerships are achieving the impact intended or are agencies coming
together due to funding mandates and visibility limiting the benefits of collaborations. The
findings of this study also suggested that researchers should seek best practices in dedicating
nonprofit resources to collaborations. Since nonprofits rely on the transfer of knowledge to grow
and develop new leaders, it would be important to learn how this process works most effectively
and what gaps exist during the process to provide more information to nonprofits to enhance
their achievement of mission. A deeper dive into the specific lack of resources identified in this
study would also provide more insight into potential solutions. Lastly, the government funders,
private, and nonprofit board of directors are key stakeholders who were not included in this
study. A future initiative could examine the perspectives of these stakeholders who control the
revenue and financial assets of nonprofits. By describing the understanding, values, and
commitment to partnerships of those that drive nonprofit financial sustainability, this research
could also illuminate how they could support the nonprofit managers’ work in creating
partnerships to address complex societal issues.
Conclusion
Despite the limitations of the study, the data from this study are valuable in providing
information to a sector that is lacking clearly defined roles for nonprofits in partnerships and
collaborations. With ever shrinking resources and increasing demand for services, human
services organizations are faced with a future challenge. Working in partnership with similar
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

121
agencies will produce greater outcomes and community impact. Nonprofit managers face
working with limited resources and being asked by government and private funding sources to
work together which taxes stretched time and efforts more. To increase the effectiveness of
community partnerships, nonprofit managers need training to support conceptual and procedural
knowledge on partnership formation. Nonprofit executive management teams can improve
motivation and performance by providing managers with specific goals to collaborate with other
community organizations and ensuring adequate resources are available to achieve the
performance targets. Leadership in the nonprofit sector, such as board of directors and funding
stakeholders, are able to deliver greater impact by directly developing strategic initiatives that
establish partnerships as a priority for their nonprofit organizations. Identifying and closing gaps
in knowledge and motivation are necessary steps to improving partnership development that will
yield improved services and reach.
In addition to the broader implications of the study, there are concrete measures that
would advance the work of nonprofit managers collectively. The study’s findings benefit
nonprofit managers as they highlight the need for additional training and resources dedicated to
partnership development. Giving nonprofit managers who value collaborations the tools to be
more effective and efficient maximizes the strengths of the sector. The human services sector
has traditionally directed funding to clients and not taking into consideration the leadership and
their role in the success of service provision. Improving the effectiveness of nonprofit
partnerships can result in better quality service outcomes and greater community impact. The
study findings may also encourage researchers to seek the best practices and solutions that
partnerships provide to the human services sector.
This study adds to the scholarly body of knowledge aimed to improve nonprofit
managers developing partnerships, thereby increasing the quality of service delivery and
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

122
community impact. The findings of this study may be useful for nonprofit managers and
agencies to implement new processes and strategies within their organizations to increase the
number of collaboratives formed to maximize the use of limited resources. When nonprofits
take advantage of an opportunity to increase their efficiency in the use of public funds and
increase the support to those they seek to serve, this can only serve as a reminder to all why the
U.S. supports charities and their unwavering dedication.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

123
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Alexander, J., Brudney, J. L., Yang, K., & Gazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to
performance measurement in government-nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 653–673. doi:10.1177/0899764009360823
Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. (2011). Is crowding out due entirely to fundraising? Evidence from a
panel of charities. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 334–343.
Arnsberger, P., Ludlum, M., Riley, M., & Stanton, M. (2008). A history of the tax-exempt sector:
An SOI perspective. Washington, D.C.: Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved from
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/tehistory.pdf
Atwood, M. A., Mora, J. W., & Kaplan, A. W. (2010). Learning to lead: Evaluating leadership
and organizational learning. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7),
576–595. doi:10.1108/01437731011079637
Babiak, K., & Thibault, L. (2009). Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 117–143. doi:10.1177/0899764008316054
Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 77–95). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ban, C., Drahnak-Faller, A., & Towers, M. (2003). Human resource challenges in human service
and community development organizations: Recruitment and retention of professional
staff. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(2), 133–153.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

124
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Barman, E., & MacIndoe, H. (2012). Institutional pressures and organizational capacity: The
case of outcome measurement. Sociological Forum, 27(1), 70–93.
Bell, J. S. (2016). Exploring the career experiences and leadership perceptions of nonprofit
executives in central Florida: A mixed-methods study (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Benevene, P., & Cortini, M. (2010). Human resource strategic management in NPOs. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 22(8), 508–521.
Bish, A., & Becker, K. (2016). Exploring expectations of nonprofit management capabilities.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 437–457.
doi:10.1177/0899764015583313
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2002). Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework. Public
Administration and Development, 22(1), 19–30.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-
sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review,
66(1), 44–55. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

125
Bunger, A. (2013). Administrative coordination in nonprofit human service delivery networks:
The role of competition and trust. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1155–
1175.
Campbell, D. (2002). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of nonprofit accountability.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 243–259.
Cândido, C. J. F., & Santos, S. P. (2015). Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate?
Journal of Management & Organization, 21(2), 237–262. doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.77
Carnochan, S., Samples, M., Myers, M., & Austin, M. J. (2014). Performance measurement
challenges in nonprofit human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 43(6), 1014–1032. doi:10.1177/0899764013508009
Carter, D. A. (2016). What skills and competencies do executives of nonprofits need to succeed:
An interpretive multiple case study. Education Doctoral Dissertations in Organization
Development, 50. Retrieved from http://ir.stthomas.edu/caps_ed_orgdev_docdiss/50
Castañeda Z, D. I. (2015). Knowledge sharing: The role of psychological variables in leaders and
collaborators. Suma Psicológica, 22(1), 63–69. doi:10.1016/j.sumpsi.2015.05.008
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of the Associate Director for Policy. (2018).
CDC’s guiding principles for public-private partnerships: A tool to support engagement
to achieve public health goals. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/partners/pdf/partnershipguidance-4-16-14.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Clark, W. (2012). Introducing strategic thinking into a non-profit organization to develop
alternative income streams. Journal of Practical Consulting, 4(1), 32–42.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

126
Clay, J. A. (2012). Symposium conclusion: Future research on the dimensions of collaboration.
Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 35(1), 139–146.
Clements, V. L. (2013). The essential leadership and management skills of mid-level managers
in non-profit organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pepperdine University,
Malibu, CA.
Collins-Camargo, C., Armstrong, M., McBeath, B., & Chuang, E. (2013). Promoting cross-
sector partnerships in child welfare: Qualitative results from a five-state strategic
planning process. Child Welfare, 92(1), 33–63.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed., pp. 65–86). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cornelius, M., Corvington, P., & Ruesga, A. (2008). Ready to lead? Next-generation leaders
speak out. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer
Foundation, Idealist.org, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services.
Crawford, J. (2010, May/June). Profiling the nonprofit leader of tomorrow. Ivey Business
Journal. London, ON: Ivey Business School. Retrieved from
http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/profiling-the-non-profit-leader-of-tomorrow/
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Delphin-Rittmon, M. E., Andres-Hyman, R., Flanagan, E. H., & Davidson, L. (2013). Seven
essential strategies for promoting and sustaining systemic cultural competence.
Psychiatric Quarterly, 84(1), 53–64.
Ebrahim, A. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz & R. D. Herman
(Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (3rd ed., pp.
101–123). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

127
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53, 583–598. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00190.x
Farnsworth, S. K., Böse, K., Fajobi, O., Souza, P. P., Peniston, A., Davidson, L., . . . Hodgins, S.
(2014). Community engagement to enhance child survival and early development in low-
and middle-income countries: An evidence review. Journal of Health Communication,
19, 67–88. doi:10.1080/10810730.2014.941519
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit
partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389–451.
Giving USA Foundation. (2016). The annual report on philanthropy in America for the year
2015. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2016/
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Grant, H. M., & Crutchfield, L. R. (2007). Creating high-impact nonprofits. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 5, 32–41.
Gray, B., & Stites, J. P. (2013). Sustainability through partnerships: Capitalizing on
collaboration. London, ON: Network for Business Sustainability, Ivey Business School.
Grover, R., & Lynn, D. (2012). Impact of collaborative leadership training on negotiation skill
development. Competition Forum, 10(2), 5–14.
Gulati, R., Mikhail, O., Morgan, R. O., & Sittig, D. F. (2016). Vision statement quality and
organizational performance in U.S. hospitals. Journal of Healthcare Management, 61(5),
335–351.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

128
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The two facets of collaboration:
Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Annals, 6,
531–583.
Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations:
Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340–361.
Hammack, D. (2002). Nonprofit organizations in American history. American Behavioral
Scientist, 45(11), 1638–1674.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hettche, M., & Walker, P. (2010). B-harmony: Building small business and small nonprofits
partnerships that thrive (A framework for collaborative competition). Competition
Forum, 8(1), 86–93.
Jang, H. S., Valero, J. N., Kim, J. W., & Kramb, K. (2012). Understanding the diverse forms of
nonprofit collaborations: A case study of communities in schools of north Texas and its
partner organizations. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 1(2), 100–117.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation, 9(1), 36–41.
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33–42.
Kearns, K. P., Livingston, J., Scherer, S., & McShane, L. (2015). Leadership skills as construed
by nonprofit chief executives. Leadership & Organizational Development, 36(6), 712–
727. doi:10.1108/LODJ-11-2013-0143
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

129
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Kirschner, F. C., & Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive load theory. In E. M. Anderman
& L. H. Anderman (Eds.). Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1,
pp. 205–209). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback intervention on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Koschmann, M., Kuhn, T., & Pfarrer, M. (2012). A communicative framework of value in cross-
sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 332–354.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Larcker, D., Donatiello, N., Meehan, B., & Tayan, B. (2015). 2015 survey on board of directors
of nonprofit organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Graduate School of Business and
Rock Center for Corporate Governance.
MacIndoe, H., & Sullivan, F. (2014). Nonprofit responses to financial uncertainty: How does
financial vulnerability shape nonprofit collaboration? Journal of Management and
Sustainability, 4(3), 1–15.
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1–20.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

130
Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision
making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management
Administration Leadership, 43(2), 269–289. doi:10.1177/1741143214537229
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Mayhew, F. (2012). Human service delivery in a multi-tier system: The subtleties of
collaboration among partners. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration,
35(1), 109–135.
McKee, G., & Froelich, K. (2016). Executive succession planning: Barriers and substitutes in
nonprofit organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87(4), 587–601.
doi:10.1111/apce.12129
McKeever, B. (2015, October 29). The nonprofit sector in brief 2015: Public charities, giving,
and volunteering. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
http://www.urban.org/research/publication/Nonprofit-Sector-Brief-2015-Public-
Charities-Giving-and-Volunteering
Meckstroth, A., & Arnsberger, P. (1998). A 20-year review of the nonprofit sector, 1975-1995.
Washington, D.C.: Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved from
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/20yreo.pdf
Meirovich, G. (2010). The impact of cultural similarities and differences on performance in
strategic partnerships: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management &
Organization, 16(1), 127–139.
Mendel, S. (2010). Are private government, the nonprofit sector and civil society the same thing?
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 717–733.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

131
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nandan, M., London, M., & Bent-Goodley, T. (2015). Social workers as social change agents:
Social innovation, social intrapreneurship, and social entrepreneurship. Human Service
Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(1), 38–56.
doi:10.1080/23303131.2014.955236
National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2018). Quick facts about nonprofits. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retreived from http://nccs.urban.org/data-statistics/quick-facts-about-
nonprofits
National Council of Nonprofits. (2018). What is a “nonprofit”? Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/what-is-a-nonprofit
The Network for Social Work Management. (2016). Human services management competencies.
Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://socialworkmanager.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/Competency-Brochure-4-19-15-With-Forms.pdf
The Network for Social Work Management. (2017). 2017 NSWM membership survey. Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Never, B., & de Leon, E. (2014). The effect of government contracting on nonprofit human
service organizations: Impacts of an evolving relationship. Human Service
Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 38(3), 258–270.
doi:10.1080/23303131.2014.896300
Nonprofit Finance Fund. (2018). State of the nonprofit sector survey. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Retrieved from https://nff.org/learn/survey
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

132
Nonprofit HR Solutions. (2016). Nonprofit employment trends survey. Washington, D.C.:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofithr.com/advocacy/employment-trends-
survey
O’Brien, J. D., Littlefield, J. N., & Goddard-Truitt, V. (2013). A matter of leadership:
Connecting a grantmaker’s investments in collaborative leadership development to
community results. The Foundation Review, 5(1), 26–42.
Pajares, F. (2008). Motivational role of self‐efficacy beliefs in self‐regulated learning. In D. H.
Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self‐regulated learning: Theory,
research, and application (pp. 111–139). New York, NY: Routledge.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Paynter, S., & Berner, M. (2014). Organizational capacity of nonprofit social service agencies.
Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 37(1), 111–145.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (Part 3). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.
Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations: A critical essay. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and
Company.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Pitman, M. A. (2016). Nonprofit sector leadership report. Greenville, SC: Concord Leadership
Group. Retrieved from https://concordleadershipgroup.com/report/2016-edition/
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

133
Proulx, K. E., Hager, M. A., & Klein, K. C. (2014). Models of collaboration between nonprofit
organizations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
63(6), 746–765.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Salamon, L. M. (2010). The changing context of nonprofit leadership and management. In D. O.
Renz & R. D. Herman (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and
management (3rd ed., pp. 77–100). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sarti, D. (2014). Leadership styles to engage employees: Evidence from human service
organization in Italy. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 202–216.
doi:10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0066
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schmid, H., & Almog-Bar, M. (2016). Correlates of tri-sectoral partnerships in the human
services: Implications for policy and practice. Human Service Organizations:
Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(3), 238–252.
doi:10.1080/23303131.2015.1117557
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

134
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture.
Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2009). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
https://project542.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/0/17108470/information_processing_theory
__education.com.pdf
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges
to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 1–2.
Sevilla, O. (2014). Essential leadership characteristics, skills, and knowledge of future social
work community-based human service nonprofit leaders: A delphi study (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of LaVerne, La Verne, CA.
Shagholi, R., Hussin, S., Siraj, S., Naimie, Z., Assadzadeh, F., & Moayedi, F. (2010). Value
creation through trust, decision making and teamwork in educational environment.
Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 255–259.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.007
Sontag-Padilla, L., Staplefoote, B. L., & Morganti, K. G. (2012). Financial sustainability for
nonprofit organizations: A review of the literature. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR121.html
Sowa, J. (2009). The collaboration decision in nonprofit organizations: Views from the front
line. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 1003–1025.
Stahl, R. M. (2013). Talent philanthropy: Investing in nonprofit people to advance nonprofit
performance. Foundation Review, 5, 35–49. doi:10.9707/1944-5660.1169
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th

ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, W. P. (2016). Leadership in social work: Where are we? Journal of Social Work
Education, 52, S51-S61. doi:10.1080/10437797.2016.1174644
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

135
Thach, E., & Thompson, K. J. (2007). Trading places: Examining leadership competencies
between for-profit vs. public and non-profit leaders. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 28, 356–375. doi:10.1108/01437730710752229
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public
Administration Review, 66, 20–32. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00663.x
Tierney, T. J. (2006). The nonprofit sector’s leadership deficit. Boston, MA: The Bridgespan
Group. Retrieved from http://www.bridgespan.org/Publications-and-Tools/Hiring-
Nonprofit-Leaders/Hiring-Strategy/The-Nonprofit-Sectors-Leadership-Deficit.aspx
Tsasis, P. (2009). The social processes of interorganizational collaboration and conflict in
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 5–21.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). TED: The Economics Daily. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20141021.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Occupational outlook handbook: Social service and
community managers. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/social-and-community-service-managers.htm#tab-
6
Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-
nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration and
Research, 17(2), 157–187.
Varda, D., Shoup, J. A., & Miller, S. (2012). A systematic review of collaboration and network
research in the public affairs literature: Implications for public health practice and
research. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 564–571.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300286
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

136
Vetter, C. W. (2012). Leadership competency for the nonprofit leader (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.
Wei-Skillern, J., & Silver, N. (2013). Four network principles for collaboration success. The
Foundation Review, 5(1), 121–129.
Weiss, E. S., Anderson, R. M., & Lasker, R. D. (2002). Making the most of collaboration:
Exploring the relationship between partnership synergy and partnership functioning.
Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health
Education, 29(6), 683–698. doi:10.1177/109019802237938
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wheelan, C. (2010). Naked economics: Undressing the dismal science. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes.
Developmental Review, 30, 1–35. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Yeager, K. A., & Bauer-Wu, S. (2013). Cultural humility: Essential foundation for clinical
researchers. Applied Nursing Research, 26(4), 251–256. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2013.06.008

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

137
APPENDIX A
RECRUITMENT LETTER
My name is Donna Gallup and as a doctoral student in organizational change and leadership at
the University of Southern California, I invite you to contribute to a study that explores the
influences that affect nonprofit managers’ developing community partnerships. Your
participation will include completing a brief online survey with 17-questions and four
demographic questions, and an opportunity to volunteer for a follow up for an individual
interview. You are being invited to participate in the study as a member of the Network for
Social Work Management.

Your involvement in this study is voluntary; the alternative is not to participate. If you decide to
participate, you will be given information about the study, complete an online survey, and be
asked if you are interested in participating in a follow up individual interview. The online survey
should take approximately ten minutes and the individual interview will take approximately 30
minutes. All participants who complete the survey and provide their contact information will be
entered into a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card; five gift cards will be awarded.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

138
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT/INFORMATION SHEET
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

THE INFLUENCE OF NONPROFIT MANAGERS ON COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Donna Gallup under the
supervision of Dr. Monique Datta at the University of Southern California. Your participation is
voluntary. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions
about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study is being conducted by a graduate student from the University of Southern California as
part of the dissertation process. The purpose of the study is to explore the various influences that
affect nonprofit managers in developing community partnerships.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT — SURVEY
If you agree to participate in this research study, you will be asked to take an anonymous online
survey that will take approximately ten minutes complete. You are not required to answer any
questions that you do not want to answer. During the survey, if you decide to skip a question
you will click “next” to move to the next question. Your participation will remain confidential
and information that you share will not contain any identifiers linked to you or your responses.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT — INTERVIEW
As part of this study, you may also be asked to participate in a semi-structured individual
interview that will last up to 60 minutes and be conducted in person or when not viable via
Skype. Six participants will be randomly selected from all interview volunteers who meet the
study criteria. Guided questions will be used in these interviews and follow-up questions may be
included. The interviews will be recorded. You do not have to answer any questions that you do
not want to answer. If you do not agree to be recorded, you will be unable to participate in the
study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is not to participate in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for participation in the survey or interview. If you decide to
participate in the survey, you will have the opportunity to be entered into a drawing to win a $50
Amazon gift card. Five gift cards will be awarded. The drawing for the gift cards will be
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

139
conducted at the end of the survey period and the winners will be notified via email. The
information you provide for the drawing will be separate from the survey that you complete.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your participation will remain confidential and information that you share will not contain any
identifiers to you. The researcher on a password-protected computer in a secure office will store
the data collected in the online survey. The data files will be destroyed two years after the
completion of the survey.

The individual interviews will be facilitated by the researcher in person or via Skype. Only the
professional transcriber and the researcher will have access to the audio recordings. The
transcripts will remain confidential, be stored on a password-protected computer in a secure office
of the researcher, and will be destroyed after they are transcribed.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the study, please contact the following individuals:
Principal Investigator Donna Gallup via email at dgallup@usc.edu or faculty advisor Monique
Datta, EDD at mdaatta@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

140
APPENDIX C
SURVEY ITEMS
For the purposes of this interview, partnership and collaboration will be used synonymously and
interchangeably.

Although there are varied definitions of partnerships and collaborations, for this survey, the
following definition will be applied:

A partnership is “work together to address problems through joint effort, resources, and decision
making and share ownership of the final product or service” (Guo & Acar, 2005, pp. 342–343).

What is your current organizational position/title?
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/Executive Director
Senior Director/Vice President/Director
Manager/Coordinator
Other _____________

How long have you been in a nonprofit management role?
Less than 5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
Over 16 years

What is the annual revenue of the nonprofit you work for?
less than $499,999
$500,000 to $999,999
1 million to 5 million
Greater than 5 million

In whole numbers, how many partnerships have you been involved in as a nonprofit manager?

Have you received any training on developing community partnerships?

The following responses are based on a four-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree, Disagree,
Agree, Strongly agree). Please respond with your level of agreement for each of the following
statements:

1. Nonprofit partnerships lead to greater community impact than the individual
organizations can achieve alone. (K-factual)
2. My organization values partnering with community nonprofits over working alone to
meet our mission. (O-CM)
3. Government funders support the establishment of community partnerships in grant
applications. (O-CM)
4. Private foundations encourage the establishment of community partnerships to address
social issues. (O-CM)
PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

141
5. Forming partnerships with other nonprofits results in less funding for my organization.
(O-CM)
6. The establishment of partnerships requires nonprofits to mutually agree upon norms,
vision, and measurements. (K-P)
7. Managers’ skills determine their organization’s ability to develop partnerships with other
nonprofits. (K-C)
8. It is important for nonprofit managers to reflect on their own skills and knowledge in
forming partnerships before starting a new collaborative. (K-MC)
9. An essential part of my role as a manager is the development of new partnerships. (M-
UV)
10. I am confident in my ability to form new community partnerships on behalf of my
organization. (M-SE)
11. I have adequate resources, such as time, support staff, or technology, to effectively
establish partnerships with other nonprofits. (O-CS)
12. I believe I can effectively hold my organization accountable for meeting the goals of
partnerships. (M-SE)
13. My organization’s executive management team believes that partnerships expand our
organization’s ability to reach more people. (M-UV)
14. I receive clearly defined goals from my organization’s executive leadership to work with
other community nonprofits. (O-CS)
15. My agency’s board of directors support efforts of our organization to work with other
nonprofits. (O-CS)

Key:
K-F: Knowledge-Factual
K-C: Knowledge-Conceptual
K-P: Knowledge-Procedural
K-MC: Knowledge-Meta-Cognitive
M-SE: Motivational influence, self-efficacy
M-UV: Motivational influence, utility value
O-CM: Organizational influence, cultural models
O-CS: Organizational influence, cultural settings

Additional demographic questions:

I am: Male
Female
Prefer not to disclose

What is your age?
Under 29
30-44
45-59
60 and above

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

142
What is your highest level of education attained?
High school diploma/GED
Associate degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctoral degree

What is your race?
African American
Asian
Hispanic or Latino
Native American
White
Other
Prefer not to answer

PARTNERSHIPS AND NONPROFIT LEADERSHIP

143
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
For the purposes of this interview, partnership and collaboration will be used synonymously and
interchangeably.

Measures Knowledge Influences

1. Please define what a community partnership means to you.
2. What criteria do you use to select your agency’s potential community partners?
3. Tell me what you believe needs to be agreed upon between agencies when forming a
partnership.
4. As a nonprofit manager, what individual skills do you need to develop a community
partnership?

Measures Motivational Influences

1. In your role as a manager, how confident are you in establishing new partnerships with
other nonprofit organizations?
2. Looking at your job responsibilities, to what extent do you believe developing
partnerships is an important part of your work?
3. Thinking about a current or past partnership for your organization, tell me what you
believe motivated the start of that collaboration.
4. Thinking about a partnership you have been in as a nonprofit leader, how do you think the
collaboration has impacted your agency’s work in the community?

Measures Organizational Influences

1. To what extent do you feel your agency values partnerships?
i. How does your agency demonstrate this?
2. How to you think your agency’s partnerships affect organizational autonomy?
i. What parts of the agency are limited by the partnership?
3. Tell me how you believe your organization’s funding is impacted by external pressures to
partner and collaborate.
4. Considering organizational resources such as time, personnel, or training, what
organizational resources are provided or barriers exist to advance partnerships with other
agencies?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Analyzing the implementation of a learning management system into a post-merger & acquisition organization and its effects on sales performance (improvement model)

PDF

Developing and retaining employees: exploring talent management initiatives for enlisted women

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

STEM industries apprenticeships: organization influences, skill gaps, and challenges facing the 21st-century workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Causes for a lack of gender diversity in leadership

PDF

Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem

PDF

Performance management in government: the importance of goal clarity

PDF

Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

PDF

Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study

PDF

Getting ahead: performance management

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Line staff and their influence on youth in expanded learning programs: an evaluation model

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Building employers’ capacity to support competitive employment for adults with autism: a promising practice study

PDF

Developing partnerships between education providers and Fortune 500 companies to increase the utilization of tuition assistance and quality digital education: an innovation study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Human resources and equity: the influence of HR on addressing the underrepresentation of women in higher education leadership

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

Asset Metadata

Creator Gallup, Donna (author)

Core Title Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 02/13/2019

Defense Date 02/12/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag human services leadership,nonprofit manager,OAI-PMH Harvest,partnerships

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Murphy, Don (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email donna@donnagallup.com,donnagal@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-119450

Unique identifier UC11675180

Identifier etd-GallupDonn-7059.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-119450 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GallupDonn-7059.pdf

Dmrecord 119450

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gallup, Donna

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