ABSTRACT
Networks are linked to implementation in today’s complex policy environment. As fiscal stresses and resource shortages challenge the boundaries of unitary organizations, public administrators often rely on a myriad of partnerships to achieve policy and program goals. According to O’Toole (1997), “networks are structures of interdependence involving multiple organizations or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal subordinate of the others in some larger hierarchical arrangement” (p. 45). Through these horizontal linkages, diversification of resources and expertise allow public organizations to increase their capacity for addressing complex problems that cannot be resolved by an individual organization (Agranoff, 2006; Chisholm, 1989; McGuire, 2006; Mandell & Steelman, 2003; Provan & Milward, 2001). Therefore, it is important to expand our understanding of the interactions that take place within multiorganizational arrangements. ‘Cooperation,’ ‘coordination,’ and ‘collaboration’ are terms used to describe interactions among partners (see, for example, Jennings & Ewalt, 1998; Agranoff, 2006; Caruson & MacManus, 2006; Robinson, 2006; Lundin, 2007). This chapter focuses on collaboration-an interaction between participants who work together to pursue complex goals based on shared interests and a collective responsibility for interconnected tasks which cannot be accomplished individually (McNamara, 2012). Collaboration differs from cooperation and coordination in that it “require[s] much closer relationships, connections, and resources and even a blurring of the boundaries between organizations” (Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007, p. 19). There are many examples drawing from empirical research in the literature that highlight the use of collaboration to address complex social and environmental problems. For example, Regional Health Boards in Canada convened neighborhood health and social service agencies to integrate health care delivery services (Rodriguez, Langley, Beland, & Denis, 2007). A holistic approach for addressing the protection of coastal resources on the Eastern Shore of Virginia was developed through a collaborative
network of 15 organizations (McNamara, 2008). County and city officials in Florida indicated that federal and state mandates concerning emergency preparedness post-9/11 foster intergovernmental collaboration to ensure preparedness and standardization within the homeland security mission (Caruson & MacManus, 2006). Commonalities among these cases are the presence of a policy mandate creating an impetus for participation and the involvement of government representatives within the collaborative arrangement. As these cases highlight, participation in a collaborative arrangement can be based on formal mandates written into legislation (Agranoff, 2006; Imperial, 2005) even though the literature often presumes voluntary action. Collaboration may be mandated for reasons such as creating standardization among multiple levels of government (Caruson & MacManus, 2006), integrating service delivery (Rodriguez et al., 2007), organizing overlapping jurisdictional boundaries (Taylor & Sweitzer, 2005), or to create opportunities for interaction that might not otherwise occur. While some research focuses on empirical distinctions between the interactions of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration (see, for example, Keast et al., 2004; McNamara, 2012; Mandell, Brown, & Woolcock, 2004; Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001), little attention is placed on distinctions between voluntary and mandated collaborative interactions. How do mandated collaborations differ from voluntary collaborations? More specifically, what procedural, structural, or managerial differences exist? This chapter focuses on theoretical development and addresses these questions by extending a previously developed framework to incorporate distinctions based on the ways collaborative interactions are initiated. Through the use of the expanded Multiorganizational Interaction Model, theorists and practitioners may capture a more detailed picture of collaborative interactions. The purpose of this chapter is not to provide an empirical test, but to introduce a framework that can be tested separately. This research is important for three reasons which all support this book’s theme pertaining to definitional clarity. First, there is a need to distinguish between different types of interactions because a specific type of interaction will not be effective in all settings (Imperial, 2005; Keast et al., 2007; McNamara, 2012; O’Toole, 1993). The current body of collaboration literature often ignores the nuances that distinguish various multiorganizational relationships (McNamara, 2012). Without acknowledging differences between relationships, such as mandated and voluntary collaboration, researchers use terms arbitrarily and cannot properly consider the range of interactions potentially useful in multiorganizational settings. Interactions form in various ways (Robinson, 2006); there are procedural, structural, and managerial differences between mandated and voluntary collaboration. Second, now more than ever, public administrators must find ways to nurture horizontal relationships within hierarchical operating systems. The number of mandates used to control government activities has increased in
recent years in addition to a broadened scope of those mandates (Lovell, 1981). “In fact, evidence is beginning to accumulate that mandates serve as the most important determinant of local government expenditures and as the single most important influence on local government policy making” (Lovell & Tobin, 1981, p. 318). As the presence of government contracting and multiorganizational partnerships continue to increase in the delivery of goods and services, it is imperative for today’s public administrators to understand how to work within and across boundaries. Nylen (2007) refers to some types of mandated relationships as “professionals’ collaboration” (p. 145). Third, today’s public administrators can be placed frequently in difficult situations where values, such as bureaucratic authority and discretion, are in constant competition. Therefore, administrators must be able to develop relationships based on a mandate to do so but absent of the accountability mechanisms that would traditionally be used when control is placed with a single actor. Likewise, mandates that require participation from more than one agency rely on relationships that may not develop organically. In these situations, a better understanding of the elements that foster collaborative characteristics within mandated relationships may help administrators create a context more conducive to collective action that would not develop otherwise. The chapter’s first section introduces mandated collaboration within the context of a continuum of interaction. The placement of mandated collaboration on this continuum is addressed. Second, an expansion of the Multiorganizational Interaction Model is presented through a series of elements that introduce variations between voluntary and mandated collaboration. Operationalizations are based on linkages with the interorganizational theory and policy literatures. The chapter concludes with suggestions regarding the potential impacts the framework may make on broadening the scope of current theory and practice.
