Module 2: Group Discussion (Group 1)

 

Each Module 2 through 7 has an associated small group discussion that should focus on discussing the course content for that Module. Each discussion will span the two-weeks of the Module. Each group member is required to make an initial post during the first week of the Module (i.e., the first Wednesday through Tuesday of the Module) and then respond to each of the other group members’ initial posts during the second week of the Module (i.e., the second Wednesday through Tuesday of the Module). Initial posts should aim to be 200-400 words and while there is no range for peer response posts these should be substantive and include more thought than “I agree with your point” or “I said something similar in my post”. 

Use your own creativity in approaching the posts. Types of observations and reflections in the posts could include the following (but aren’t limited to this): 

• Pick a topic or concepts from required readings to reflect upon (e.g., what and why something interested you; what did you find the most interesting or practical that helped you gain new insight or skill). 
• Critique readings by adding something you can justify, showing how an author missed a point.  
• Validate something from the readings based on your own experience or other reading.  
• Include a discussion question for the group based on readings. DO NOT pose generic questions such as “What was your favorite part of the reading?” or similar questions. 
• Relate readings to contemporary events or news and post a link. 

17

1. Collaboration: what does it really mean?
Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration is an important yet contested concept in public management. Collaboration
is widely argued to be the best approach for generating more fruitful outcomes than can be
achieved independently. Purported benefits range from innovative and creative solutions
to wicked problems and enhancing democratic engagement and equity to minimizing risk,
achieving more effective outcomes, and doing more with less through resource sharing and
eliminating redundancies. In short, collaboration is thought to be the smart thing to do and the
right thing to do.

Recognizing the limitations of current inter-organizational arrays (Williams, 2016), there
has been a frequent search for typologies that will be more useful to research on collaborative
practices (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Mandell & Keast, 2007). Building from previous work
(Keast, 2015, 2016d; Stout, Bartels, & Love, 2019), this chapter contributes to the development
of “typologies of different kinds of CGRs [Collaborative Governance Regimes]” (Emerson,
Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012, p. 22). More specifically, we seek to generate a typology that pre-
cisely defines collaboration and differentiates it from similar and related terms. Without such
clarification, there is a continuing risk of conceptually messy and weak foundations for both
research and practice.

Toward this end, this chapter seeks to unpack the full and precise meaning of collaboration
by adding an analysis of power dynamics in varied ways of working together. As have others
(see for example, Popp, Milward, MacKean, Casebeer, & Lindstrom, 2014), we argue that how
power is held and wielded fundamentally alters how we work together and determines whether
genuine collaboration is achieved. Therefore, we will use varied forms of power to clearly
define collaboration and differentiate it from similar terms. We review literature in a broad
array of disciplines (e.g., business, public administration and policy, planning and geography,
community development, sociology, social work, and education) to get a clear sense of how
the term collaboration is being used and to differentiate its characteristics from coordination
and cooperation, in particular. In other words, what exactly does it mean to collaborate?

A basic complicating factor is linguistic in nature: collaboration is used as an action (verb)
or as an entity or structure (noun), while its variants are used as descriptors of either (adverbs
and adjectives) (Lewis, Ross, & Holden, 2012). As a verb, collaboration is often used inter-
changeably with cooperation and coordination to depict interaction between organizations,
and these are sometimes subsumed within each other. For example, Alter and Hage (1993)
conceptualize collaboration as a sub-set of cooperation, while government documents fre-
quently use coordination and collaboration to describe similar interactions (see for example,
Wanna, Phillimore, Fenna, & Harwood, 2009). Collaboration as a noun is often equated with
inter-organizational entities or structures formed to facilitate interaction such as networks,
alliances, partnerships, or joint ventures (Cropper, Ebers, Huxham, & Ring, 2008). Taken
together, these applications serve to confound or subsume the meaning of collaboration, as

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

18 Handbook of collaborative public management

suggested by Todeva and Knoke (2005) and others (see for example, Keast, 2015; Morris &
Miller-Stevens, 2016; Williams, 2016).

Complicating matters further, the many structural names for working together (nouns and
adjectives) do not necessitate the specific relational dynamics within them (verbs and adverbs),
despite these dimensions being inherent to any form of social interaction. For example,
while conglomerates, amalgamations, and mergers may infer consolidation, and rivalry and
exchange may infer competition, other organizational arrangements are decidedly more com-
plicated. While alliances, coalitions, and networks may often reflect coordination, they may
also include elements of collaboration, cooperation, and competition. While partnerships and
joint ventures may often display cooperation, they may also include elements of competition,
collaboration, and coordination. To understand which type of structural arrangement might
foster the act of collaboration most effectively, we must first clearly define and differentiate
collaboration from both similar and substantially different behaviors (e.g., coordination and
cooperation, versus consolidation and competition).

Collaboration’s etymology clearly suggests working together: to “co-labor.” This meaning
stems from the late Latin collaborare, signifying “to labor with or together” (Lewis & Short,
1879, p. 365). The verb collaborate was introduced into English in the mid-1800s, and with the
French ending “tion” was subsequently used also as a noun. Since then, the term collaboration
has been adopted by public management and many other practice disciplines (e.g., business,
engineering/construction, international relations/development, social work, community devel-
opment, education, etc.), each contributing their own interpretation. This transference across
sectors has led to muddled meanings (Morris & Miller-Stevens, 2016; Todeva & Knoke,
2005). A review of recent selections across these disciplines produced the following observa-
tions. Business scholars take a distinctive instrumental approach; collaboration is undertaken
to access beneficial resources and leverage strategic relationships (Davis, 2016; Loosemore
& Richard, 2015). Governance scholars (public management, administration, and policy) also
describe a dominant instrumental and resource sharing purpose, but for solving public prob-
lems and producing public value (de Loë, Murray, & Simpson, 2015; Hafer, 2017; Hsieh &
Liou, 2016; Ulibarra, 2018; Vangen, 2017). It is also clear that these scholars assume govern-
ment oversees coordinating procedures and activities. Planning, social work, and community
development scholars seem to have the strongest understanding of collaboration as originally
defined. In these disciplines, collaboration is described as a process method used in joint delib-
eration, decision-making, and action (Southby & Gamsu, 2018; Ulibarra, 2018). The emphasis
is on participative, egalitarian relationships and facilitated micro-processes and interpersonal
relations. Therefore, collaboration is a prominent example of a stretched term—one whose
meaning has expanded to the degree that it has lost specificity in comparison with related, yet
substantively different meanings.

In the field of public management—our primary concern herein—unpacking the meaning
and practice of collaboration is a challenge that has been taken up by collaborative governance
and network governance scholars, who tend to argue network structures that seek to govern
inquiry, deliberation, decision-making, and action collaboratively are the most promising
combination for fruitful outcomes—the “collaborative advantage” (Huxham, 1996). The
literature’s dual emphasis on both structure and process does provide important insights to
the study and practice of collaboration. In many ways, macro-level governance structures
are shaped by micro-level interactions in a scaffolding process, and in turn, the character-
istics of micro-interactions are constrained by macro-level structures (Cohen, 2008). Thus,

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 19

attitudes, intentions, and behaviors shape structure, and structure perpetuates the originating
dispositions. However, as has been argued by others (see for example, Ansell, 2011; Stout &
Love, 2015), on their own, structural properties and various procedural approaches to working
together are not sufficient to generate genuine collaboration and must be shored up and
facilitated by many micro-level attitudes, behaviors, and interactions of collaborators (Keast,
2016b). Thus, a more careful definition is necessary to functionally, as opposed to structurally,
differentiate collaboration.

The in-depth analysis of the collaborative governance literature provided by Stout and
Love (2019) demonstrates that empirical studies have not identified the particular relational
dynamics that differentiate collaboration from other approaches to working together because
in practice, many actors display behaviors that are not actually collaborative. Lumping those
behaviors into the definition of “collaboration” simply because they are found in a “govern-
ance network” has muddied the waters, rather than clarifying them (Stout et al., 2019). Indeed,
studies find that many governance networks are not fully collaborative, as hierarchy and/or
competition can dominate their operations (Davies, 2009; Innes & Booher, 2010; Lowndes
& Skelcher, 1998; Mandell & Keast, 2007). Therefore, many argue that substantial changes
to relational dynamics are required to achieve genuine collaboration (Gray, 1989; Innes &
Booher, 2010; Keast, Mandell, Brown, & Woolcock, 2004; Stout et al., 2019; Stout & Love,
2017).

In sum, for those studying and practicing public governance, management, and administra-
tion, “collaboration remains an elusive concept” (Chen, 2008, p. 349). One of the most impor-
tant barriers to collaborative success is that of “process breakdowns due to protracted human
relations processes” (Agranoff, 2008, p. 345). What exact relational attitudes and behaviors
support collaborative functions such as “interactive processing” and “mutual engagement and
mutual adjustment” (Agranoff, 2008, p. 344)? What particular type of culture “builds collab-
orative community” (Agranoff, 2008, p. 343)? To answer such questions, “we must turn our
attention to the dispositions that prefigure interpersonal dynamics along with organizational
process designs that either hinder or foster collaboration” (Stout et al., 2019, p. 99). A more
detailed and nuanced unpacking of collaboration’s distinctive characteristics that takes greater
account of these micro-level practices in action (Grove, Dainty, Thompson, & Thorpe, 2018)
will enable evaluations of which particular relational dynamics lead to the most democratic
and best instrumental outcomes.

In the following sections, we clarify the meanings of varied ways of working together to
differentiate collaboration from consolidation, coordination, competition, cooperation, and
clientelism. We begin by defining each of the most used approaches to working together,
explaining its purpose, how it is ensured, the principal form of power used, the associated
governance approach, and the typical relational and behavioral characteristics. With this defi-
nition in hand, we offer a concrete public management example to illustrate. We use guidance
from a recently proposed governance typology (see Stout & Love, 2016), along with a power
typology to clarify these differences. With this extended typology of ways of working together
in hand, we synthesize and summarize the differentiating characteristics of collaboration and
offer conclusions about why these meanings matter for future research and practice.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

20 Handbook of collaborative public management

VARIED WAYS OF WORKING TOGETHER

While several typologies of inter-organizational arrangements have been developed and have
provided important insights into different ways of working together, they have not yet fully
clarified relational nuances that meaningfully influence collaborative processes and outcomes.
Some typologies focus on cataloging the formalized institutional structures (Ring & Van de
Ven, 1994), while others seek to differentiate based on a mix of behavioral and structural
defining features (Himmelmann, 1994; Mashek & Nanfito, 2015; McNamara, 2012). One
such typology, the “Five Cs” (Keast, 2015), considers the characteristics of competition, coop-
eration, coordination, collaboration, and consolidation along a continuum from least to most
intensive interactions, in that order. Somewhat like nesting Matryoshka dolls, each term builds
upon and extends the shared dimensions and functional logic of the previous term—especially
among the middle three. Indeed, the behavioral similarities at the center of this relational
continuum of coordination, collaboration, and cooperation—the “Three Cs” as previously
conceptualized (Brown & Keast, 2003; Keast, 2016b)—has led to a tendency to use the terms
interchangeably, despite growing agreement that collaboration exhibits distinctive characteris-
tics (Gray, 1989; Himmelmann, 1994; Morris & Miller-Stevens, 2016; Wood & Gray, 1991).
Herein, we will add an additional “C” into the spectrum—clientelism—to better accommodate
a comprehensive analysis of power dynamics in varied ways of relating and working together.

Taking a fresh look at the similarities and differences, we find that collaboration is more
analogous to how Stout and Love (2016) conceptualize the Integrative Governance position
as sitting apart from the spectrum of other approaches to governance (i.e., Holographic,
Hierarchical, Atomistic, and Fragmented). This linkage to the Governance Arc highlights the
issue of power dynamics in varied ways of working together and the transformative effects of
collaboration. Ostensibly, the value produced by collaboration is generated by the removal of
hierarchical command and control structures as well as the strategic self-interested behavior
of market actors (Huxham, 1996; Powell, 1990)—both of which generate asymmetrical power
relations. Further, one of the driving forces identified in collaborative dynamics is how power
is held and exercised (Crosby & Bryson, 2007). When actors bring power dynamics grounded
in their relative social, economic, and organizational status in other contexts into collaborative
action (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999), the fundamental characteristics of collaboration
are undermined to one degree or another. Different ways of working together tend to exhibit
particular forms of power: cooperative power can be used to further self-interest, while
coordinative power often draws on force, coercion, and the ability to control the discourse,
process, and solutions (Dewulf & Elbers, 2018). By contrast, collaborators exercise shared
power (Gray, 1994).

Huxham and Vangen (2005) argue that power-over is orientated toward one’s own gain,
power-to is oriented toward mutual gain, and power-for is oriented toward altruistic gain.
More commonly, power typologies differentiate power-over, power-within, power-to, and
power-with (Follett, 2003c; Gaventa, 2006; Ledwith, 2011; Purdy, 2012). Power-over is the
typical way power is understood in modern society, wherein one can control or influence
others. Power-to is described as agency, or the ability to act as one chooses. Power-with is
understood as solidarity, wherein one acts in egalitarian mutuality with others. Power-within is
the sense of self-efficacy and authentic identity that is enabled and strengthened among those
most empowered: those in control of power-over, those most benefitted in power-to, and all
participants in power-with. All forms of power can be wielded in ways that are perceived to

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Figure 1.1 Arc of working together

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 21

legitimate, depending upon the expectations of participants. Yet, differing power dynamics
produce attitudinal and relational micro-processes and behaviors that affect both processes
and outcomes.

Reconsidering the “Five Cs” (Keast, 2015, 2016c) using the lenses of the Governance Arc
(Stout & Love, 2016) and these nuanced forms of power, we reconfigure the varied ways of
working together on a spectrum of ideal-types that differentiate collaboration (power-with)
from coordination and consolidation, which move along the arc in the direction of control and
unification (power-over), while cooperation and competition move along the arc in the direc-
tion of independent operations and fragmentation (power-to) (see Figure 1.1). At the center,
power-for reflects a charitable or public service form of clientelism (see Figure 1.1). Each
of these forms of power can produce negative outcomes for some. Because only power-with
builds power-within among all participants, we believe this repositioning helps clarify pre-
cisely where the positive overlaps with coordination and cooperation end and the unique and
advantageous features of collaboration stand apart.

The following sub-sections will unpack our hypothesis in detail. Each will define the term,
consider it in relation to the Governance Typology (Stout & Love, 2016) and forms of power,
and provide an example of how it usually works.

Consolidation

Positioned at the bottom left in Figure 1.1, consolidation means “the process of becoming or
being made stronger and more certain” (Cambridge University Press, 2019). For example,
the amalgamation of two or more smaller entities into a new entity or the absorption of one

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

22 Handbook of collaborative public management

entity by another creates strength through the combination of assets, liabilities, and finances
(Chalmers & Davis, 2001) and efficiencies through the reduction of redundant personnel or
processes (Harman, 1993). As per classic theories of bureaucracy, the focus and control pos-
sible within a single administrative macro-structure allows for resources to be better deployed
to meet goals, and reduces the time and effort directed toward turf protection between entities.
Consolidation works best when actors are willing to give up authority as opposed to a hostile
takeover, nonetheless, consolidation typically relies on power-over directives from a central
authority. While consolidation rarely denotes equal power, there is nonetheless a possibility
that a more even distribution may evolve over time, especially if organizations are of equiva-
lent size and influence (Tienari & Vaara, 2012). Consolidation is most similar to Holographic
Governance (Stout & Love, 2016) because mergers require a unifying vision or mission. Even
if voluntary, power-over demands homogenization that Follett (1998) describes as “imitation”
(37) or “the crowd trying to preserve itself as it is…” (Follett, 2013, p. 128)—a characteristic
that hinders creative innovation and limits power-to and power-within for most participants.

Examples of consolidation in government include the structural reconfiguration of several
departments into a mega-department (Chalmers & Davis, 2001; Mannheim, 2019) or the
merger of smaller local government municipalities into larger jurisdictions, such as has been
witnessed in Europe (Fox & Gurley-Calvez, 2006), the United States (Nelson & Stenberg,
2018), and Australia. For example, in 2016 the New South Wales state government created
19 newly amalgamated local councils in order to deliver more effective services with greater
efficiency (Dollery, 2016). In each case, those with less power experience some degree of
disempowerment as authority is centralized.

Coordination

Moving toward center in Figure 1.1, coordination means “to make separate things work
together” (Cambridge University Press, 2019) and is applied especially when there is a need
to more efficiently align resources or orchestrate functions in an ordered manner to meet pre-
determined goals (Dunsire, 1978; Mulford & Rogers, 1982). While much less structured and
stringent than consolidation, coordination typically relies on power-over relational dynamics
that center a lead organization or individual with the authority to direct others. These hierar-
chical tendencies (Painter, 1987) align coordination with Hierarchical Governance (Stout &
Love, 2016), in which orders are often “hardly distinguishable from coercion” (Follett, 2013,
p. 200). While not as constraining as consolidation, power-to and power-within for most
participants are hindered by centralized mandates, formal objectives, rules and procedures,
or compelling incentives to establish goals and methods, ensure expected behavior, resolve
conflict (Dunsire, 1978), or even mandate involvement (Bachmann, 2001). Furthermore, since
coordination requires actions to flow in a sequential manner (i.e., B requires A to do their
part in order to progress) (Thompson, 1967), participants are dependent on others and this
power-over dynamic is distributed throughout the system.

Coordination can be seen in distinct public and nonprofit agencies joined up in a coali-
tion led by one agency in particular (Mulford & Rogers, 1982). For example, a coalition of
government and nonprofit organizations that work in similar service arenas might be tasked
with implementing varied aspects of a whole government policy. Generally, such efforts are
coordinated by the lead government agency in what has been called a “meta-governance” role
(Sørensen & Torfing, 2009). Alternatively, we see coordination in “one-stop shops” where

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 23

multiple services are clustered in one location, with one agency playing a central coordinating
role in service management. Therefore, the coordinator holds some type of authority over
other members to direct their behavior.

Competition

At the bottom right of Figure 1.1, competition means “an activity done by a number of
people or organizations, each of which is trying to do better than all the others” (Cambridge
University Press, 2019). Thus, the primary relationship is a rivalry between two or more
independent parties (Bish, 1978, p. 23). However, competition is also used in exchange, which
brings independent actors into single or serial transactions under conditions of self-interest,
each party exercising power-to and avoiding power-over to the greatest degree possible. In
these transactions, power-within is generated only amongst “the winners.” As Thompson and
Sanders (1998) suggest, such an adversarial mentality can readily lead to conflict, defensive
positions, and ultimately disjointed or conflictual relationships. In Fragmented Governance
(Stout & Love, 2016), pluralist competition is taken to its greatest extreme and individualist
anarchism emerges as the only viable political and economic form—governance by none. With
this elimination of macro-structures and reliance on purely transactional micro-processes,
mutually desirable outcomes are a matter of coincidence rather than intent.

Competition can be seen in the growth of government policies applying market principles
and policies that expose public sector services to competitive forces and contracting out to
reduce service costs and increase efficiencies (Productivity Commission, 2017). Competition
is also evident in departments and non-government bodies trying to limit what they share with
those who in other circumstances would be rivals for clients, scarce resources, or funding
(Smyth, Malbon, & Carey, 2017). In such cases, win–lose outcomes predominate.

Cooperation

Moving to the left in Figure 1.1, cooperation refers to when one “helps willingly when asked”
(Cambridge University Press, 2019). In cooperative relationships, each entity remains separate,
retaining its own autonomy, resources, and authority (Ciglar, 2001; Mulford & Rogers, 1982;
Winer & Ray, 1994) and voluntarily engages in mutually beneficial exchanges. Thompson
(1967) explains that in such pooled interdependence, only small mutual adjustments are made.
Thus, cooperation still reflects power-to relational dynamics, as behaviors relate to individual
rather than collective goals (Mandell, 2002). This willingness to independently work toward
limited shared purposes aligns cooperation with Atomistic Governance (Stout & Love, 2016),
in which pluralist actors are expected to maintain a high degree of liberty and self-sufficiency
while operating under shared rules. Actors take a strategic stance toward getting what they
want, with encounters being characterized by protective behavior and negotiated bargaining.
While moderated, these power-to behaviors can still result in compromises in which all parties
lose something (Follett, 2003a), including both power-over and power-within.

Cooperation can be seen in interagency meetings where members come together to share
basic information so that each can go about their business more effectively. For example, in
cooperative federalism initiatives such as the Council of Australian Governments (COAG),
inter-governmental agreements are reached and statements of cooperation are developed that

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

24 Handbook of collaborative public management

support local autonomy, while also acting as a precursor to joint actions (Wanna et al., 2009,
p. 11).

Clientelism

Referring to the center of the arc in Figure 1.1, Huxham and Vangen (2005) argue that
power-for is oriented toward altruistic gain, wherein power is transferred from one person to
another and includes some form of “user involvement” (p. 176). While not a perfect fit, we
associate power-for with clientelism because it involves asymmetric relationships between
empowered actors or “patrons” and their clients. Clientelism is a method of contingent
exchange that features implicit or explicit quid pro quo agreements (Hicken, 2011)—even if it
is only the enjoyable feeling of altruism, charity, or service. Furthermore, in many public and
nonprofit agencies, service to a client is contingent upon the recipient acting in accordance
with the agency’s expectations. For example, when we obey the law, we receive police protec-
tion; when we follow the rules, we receive public education, welfare assistance, and the like.

The positive view on this relational dynamic is well-illustrated in Ostrom’s conception of
co-production, wherein public servants rely on citizens to achieve their aims and all benefit
from the relationship (Alford, 2014). Unfortunately, exercising power-for another person can
also diminish their power-within and their own power-to because it does not necessarily foster
development. At its worst, clientelist advocacy, service, and charity keep clients “poor and
dependent” (Hicken, 2011, p. 289). As the oft-cited adage illustrates, giving someone a fish
to eat does not empower them, while teaching them to fish does. The risk of disempowering
“help” is a growing critique in the social justice and community development literature
(Pearson, 1999; Toomey, 2009).

Collaboration

At its most basic, collaboration occurs when “two or more people work together to create or
achieve the same thing” (Cambridge University Press, 2019). However, as currently under-
stood, the “thing” is not pre-determined, that is, it emerges out of repeated interactions and
relational processes (routines, artifacts, communications) to form the synergies capable of
co-creating something new (Mandell, 2002) or co-create a new whole from existing parts
(Innes & Booher, 2010). Such efforts are best achieved through structural arrangements that
enable horizontal authority and flexibility in response to ongoing change. Such “structured
nonhierarchical social interaction” (Thayer, 1981, p. A38) is neither hierarchical nor competi-
tive (Powell, 1990). This is precisely why network governance has become linked to collabo-
rative governance (Keast, 2016a).

While important, form is insufficient to ensure the functional differences of collaboration.
A “relational disposition” and a “cooperative style of relating” within a “participatory mode
of association” (Stout & Love, 2017) are also required to ensure effective collaboration.
Specifically, participants must have a disposition that acknowledges interconnection and inter-
dependence (Innes & Booher, 2010) or reciprocal interdependence (Thompson, 1967). These
assumptions are the ethical foundation for a commitment to mutuality (or generalized reci-
procity) (Huxham & Vangen, 2005), trusting and respectful interpersonal relations (Mandell,
2002), and communicative capacity (Bartels, 2015). Furthermore, a transparent, facilitated
integrative process must be employed to ensure shared engagement in and responsibility for

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 25

inquiry, dialogue, constructive conflict, deliberation, consensus-oriented decisions, action,
and evaluative reflection (Flynn, 2019; Gray, 1989; Keast, Koliba, & Voets, 2019). These
participative practices build mutual understanding and shared language and identity, which
further strengthen interpersonal relationships, a sense of power-within, and a commitment to
shared purpose. This type of cohesion is necessary for sustained synergistic efforts (Larson,
Rottinghaus, & Borgen, 2002). Thus, the relational process itself is the connective tissue that
establishes and sustains collaboration.

To fully engage in this emergent and co-creative process, collaborators must hold
a power-with orientation so that no member wields power-over others and no member’s exer-
cise of power-to infringes upon the same ability of any other member. It has been well-argued
that attempts to work together are most productive when they are egalitarian and authentically
participatory (King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998). Collaborators “collectively make decisions about
their future and mutually authorize each other to act on behalf of the collectivity” (Gray, 1994,
p. 288). However, this does not mean that interactions are necessarily pleasant or easy (Young,
1996). The process of integration anticipates and enables constructive conflict through disinte-
gration of a priori positions, collaborative discovery of facts and values, revaluation of desires
and methods through dialogue, and creative, integrative determinations and action (Follett,
2003a). Through meaningful engagement, a sense of collective responsibility and experien-
tially founded commitment to what has been decided results.

This openness to difference and disagreement requires attention to informal interpersonal
relations—relating to one another as whole human beings, rather than as means to ends.
Sharing meals, stories, and personal perspectives enhances mutual understanding, trust, and
respect, all of which are necessary to resolve conflict constructively, as well as to challenge
the status quo and risk innovation or go above and beyond to help a colleague (Grove et al.,
2018; Keast et al., 2004; Vandeventer & Mandell, 2011). These relational characteristics are
the foundation for humanistic, power-with relations—and they require deliberate efforts to
build and strengthen.

As described, collaboration is inherent to Integrative Governance (Stout & Love, 2016,
2019), which assumes “reality is in the relating, in the activity-between” (Follett, 2013,
p. 54). This approach assumes the entirety of social, political, and economic life is a deeply
nesting, broadly inclusive web of networks formed through collaborative human relationship.
Positional authority is relinquished and transferred to the collaborative process itself to foster
dynamic, situation-specific decisions and action. The administrative role is transformed into
a function of self-organizing coordination and facilitation that anyone can perform.

This type of collaboration was at the heart of the Goodna Service Integration Project
(SIP), which brought together government and non-government service providers to address
a community crisis. SIP drew on a combination of shared language, inter-professional learn-
ing and decision-making, coupled with reflective practice aided by a professional facilitator
to change both the local governance regime and the way that services were delivered in that
region (Keast et al., 2004; Woolcock & Boorman, 2003). Collaboration was also evident in the
Sacramento Water Forum project, which overcame 30 years of deeply contested interactions
through the deliberate deployment of a suite of relational strategies and facilitative processes
to forge mutual agreements that led to innovative solutions (Innes & Booher, 2010).

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

26 Handbook of collaborative public management

DIFFERENTIATING COLLABORATION

Numerous articles have been written on collaboration, especially since the mid-1980s. Within
this literature, much attention has been directed toward isolating key elements shaping col-
laborative governance and practice (see for example Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsy,
2001; Wood & Gray, 1991). For example, through extensive empirical work, Thomson and
Perry (2006) isolated five dimensions of collaboration that include: social processes that
build and nurture the mutuality and collective norms necessary for collaboration to take place
and be sustained, governance and administrative structures that enable implementation of
collaborative efforts, and mechanisms that both build and nurture interpersonal relationships
and constructively address the agency/autonomy conflicts inherent in collective efforts. More
recently, Mayer and Kenter (2016) identified nine elements appearing as common to many
studies—communication, consensus decision-making, diverse stakeholders, goals, leadership,
shared resources, shared vision, social capital, and trust. However, none of these conceptu-
alizations directly address forms of power and how they affect relational micro-processes in
the act of collaborating as defined herein. In this section, we seek to highlight the specific
relational practices and power dynamics that are unique to collaboration, as opposed to those
also found in other ways of working together.

There is growing agreement in the literature as well as in practice that collaboration rep-
resents a “higher-order level” of working together (Thomson & Perry, 2006, p. 23); one that
demands integrative processes, which “implies interaction leading to an improved synthesis”
(Stever, 1988, p. 82). To further explain this argument, Stout and Love (2017) draw upon Mary
Follett’s theory of integrative process (Stout & Love, 2015) to offer a theoretical definition
of collaboration as a specific method of integration. Herein, we argue that just as Integrative
Governance incorporates and transforms aspects of the other approaches to governance (Stout
& Love, 2019), collaboration offers a way for actors who are motivated to work cooperatively
and to coordinate their activities, but, in a particular manner that is more relational than trans-
active, and more egalitarian and self-organizing than managed. Thus, in many instances, what
we do may look very similar (e.g., consolidate, coordinate, engage with clients, cooperate, and
compete), but why we do it and how we do it differ substantively.

Collaboration goes further in regard to relational process, which gives collaboration its
distinctive edge over the hierarchical authority relations of the state (and many nonprofit
agencies), or the transactional contractual relations that characterize the market (Powell, 1990,
p. 336). Furthermore, it is the strength of the relationship between members and their level of
acknowledged interdependence that differentiates collaboration from other ways of working
together (Huxham & Beech, 2003; Keast et al., 2004). In coordination and cooperation,
a transactional exchange relationship is generally more prominent, whereas in collaboration,
interpersonal relationships transform transactions into humanistic exchanges and encounters,
allowing synergies to emerge and innovations to occur. These differing attitudes and styles and
strengths of communicating, interacting, and organizing action are each framed by differing
worldviews and philosophical commitments (Stout & Love, 2016, 2019). The collaborative
way of behaving and interacting with others has a culture that values ongoing relationships
and mutuality “in which cooperative behavior is prized over competition” (Marlowe, Jastroch,
Nousala, & Kirova, 2011, p. 2).

These studies confirm that while understanding the structural aspects of collaboration has
merit, it is the micro-processes of collaboration—the informal relational mechanisms and

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 27

their power dynamics—that offer the greatest insights into the doing of collaboration. These
self-organizing, everyday interactions and processual routines become the structure that brings
people together, facilitates agreements, and organizes and mobilizes the actions argued to be
the central and definitive features of collaboration and its advantages. As Cissna and Anderson
(1998) point out, in the study of relational interactions we must “identify the attitudes with
which [actors] approach each other, the ways they talk and act, the consequences of their
meeting, and the context within which they meet” (p. 64).

Identifying and illuminating these micro-processes enables practitioners and researchers
to appreciate rather than discount these activities as over-processual or wasted effort. Rather,
these attitudes and interactions are the manifestations of power-with—the key characteristic
that differentiates collaboration from other ways of working together. The notion of “public
encounters” (Bartels, 2015) is instructive on this point because it addresses the inherent power
dynamics of government authority that continue to trouble egalitarian relationships between
public administrators and the residents they serve. To garner the benefits of collaboration,
interaction must nurture “stable personal relationships and constructive communication,”
which requires that we not only “explicate the psychological, social, and communicative
dynamics of … encounters” (Bartels, 2013, p. 473), but that we acknowledge the importance
of how power is held and wielded in these interactions. We argue that none of the differentiat-
ing relational characteristics are possible without a shared understanding of and commitment
to power-with.

As shown in Figure 1.2, consolidation and coordination are collectivist approaches that tend
to rely on power-over structures and procedures to achieve desired goals, while competition
and cooperation are individualist approaches that tend to rely on power-to in the pursuit of
goals. Power-over and power-to both operate in an instrumental and transactional manner:
power-over is uni-directional, while power-to can be either uni- or bi-directional. Both forms
of power generate power-within asymmetrically and hinder the type of power-with that is
requisite to effective collaboration. The notion of power-for is located at the center of the arc,
as it is associated with clientelism, wherein one actor holds power-over but acts on behalf
of another actor (power-to) for whom they are advocating or to whom they are transferring
power.

Rather than seeing collaborative power-with or shared power as sitting between power-for
and power-to (see Huxham & Vangen, 2005), we place it off the arc spectrum altogether
because it requires a relational approach that has the unique ability to transform behaviors
found in these other ways of working together, while also achieving the ends each approach
seeks. In other words, collaboration can transform how we consolidate and coordinate, it can
equalize patron–client relationships, and it can transform how we cooperate and compete.
While power-with is multi-directional, it is a mutual relationship and shared commitment to
not only what is produced, but to the people and process co-creating it. As such, power-with
is the only form of power that generates power-within amongst all participants—it is, indeed,
“collaborative empowerment” (Huxham & Vangen, 2005, p. 177).

Specifically, on the bottom left side of the arc, consolidation seeks to achieve resource inte-
gration through vertical integration or operational takeovers, or mergers enabled by command
and control mechanisms or through transactional takeovers. Collaboration assembles a new
whole or network that remains responsive to emergent change within and beyond the system
through ongoing assemblage. Coordination seeks to integrate functions in an effective manner
through pre-established goals, authoritative direction, and formalized procedures and rules.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Figure 1.2 The transformational advantage of collaboration

28 Handbook of collaborative public management

Collaboration achieves integrated functions through its participatory, self-organizing integra-
tive process and the commitment to shared purpose it generates.

At the center of the arc, the service-oriented clientelism and advocacy of power-for is trans-
formed into its mutualistic form—solidarity. Collaborators stand with one another as equals
in not only the pursuit of shared goals, but in support of one another’s independent endeavors
as well.

On the bottom right side of the arc, competition seeks to achieve self-interest in the face
of rival exchange partners and relies on strategic negotiations to win over others who lose.
Collaboration invites and embraces constructive conflict, finding it to be advantageous to
determining better purposes and ways to achieve them in a win–win fashion. Cooperation
seeks to align action through negotiation and instrumental transactions that prioritize one’s
own advantage. Collaboration not only achieves aligned action but pushes beyond to generate
and achieve both shared and emergent goals through egalitarian mutualism.

In sum, being grounded in power-with, collaboration is a generative and coactive power
(Follett, 1924) that invites and transforms power-to and power-for into mutualistic relational
efforts that embrace difference as a creative opportunity, and transform power-over into
self-organizing integration, thereby building power-within for all participants, as opposed
to only some. As described herein (also see Keast, 2016b; Stout et al., 2019), collaboration
has a culture and particular micro-processes that differentiate it from other ways of working
together, as shown in Table 1.1. Clientelism is omitted from this analysis, as it generally
functions as a dysfunctional compromise between power-over and power-to methods, without
transforming the meanings in either.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Table 1.1 Differentiating collaboration

Consolidation/
Coordination

Collaboration Cooperation/
Competition

Organizing
Approach

Rigidly structured
● Hierarchically pre-determined
goals
● Formal procedures
● Avoids risk
● Conservative
● Ordered transactions

Emergent
● Processual, generative, adaptive interac-
tion toward evolving proximal and end
goals
● Embraces risk
● Transformational
● Self-organizing engagements

Flexibly arranged
● Strategically
pre-determined goals or
spontaneous opportunity
● Pluralist processes
● Minimizes risk
● Marginal change
● Responsive transactions

Interaction Type Collectivist
● Assumed group embeddedness
● Group over individual interests
● Power-over, rule-enforced behav-
ior due to mistrust
● Positional engagement

Relational
● Assumed interconnectedness and
interdependence
● Individual and group interests
● Power-with, mutuality, trust, and respect
● Transparent, inclusive, and participative

Individualist
● Assumed atomistic
independence
● Individual over group
interests
● Power-to, opportunistic
self-interest and suspicion
● Merit-based engagement

Decision-Making
Approach

Directive
● Command and control
● Authoritative orders and decisions

Integrative
● Empowered self-organizing
● Facilitated method of integration (used in
inquiry, dialogue, constructive conflict,
deliberation, consensus-oriented decisions,
and evaluative reflection)

Negotiated
● Strategic positioning
● Bargaining and
compromise

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 29

Focusing explanation on the less familiar characteristics of collaboration, emergent struc-
tures are self-organizing, processual, generative, and adaptive to support relationality and
the method of integration. Each collaborator values and/or exercises facilitative leadership
(evoking new ideas, interacting, integrating, and enabling emergent change) (Follett, 2003b).
Each collaborator is open to allowing the evolving will of the group to guide decisions, actions,
and goals. Each collaborator is ready to learn, develop new ideas and methods, take risks, and
act according to collective agreements, including those that demand transformational change.

A relational disposition assumes that all beings, things, and places are interconnected and
that those engaging in collective efforts are interdependent and should therefore act according
to mutuality and power-with. Therefore, collaborators view working together as a path to
progress for both themselves and the group. Deeper interpersonal relations are evident as col-
laborators engage with one another as whole human beings who trust and respect one another.
Power-with is evident in a transparent, inclusive, and participative culture; as a result, a shared
identity forms that is open-ended and inclusive.

Integrative process is evident when participative practices are used consistently, enough
time is given to execute the method of integration completely, and results are honored and
legitimized. Furthermore, as Purdy (2012) notes, there is a growing imperative for those
responsible for the design and management of shared working arrangements to understand
the various sources and uses of power that can be applied. To identify and rectify power
imbalances to match the needs of the participants, relational processes must be transformed to
ensure genuine power-with. Understanding both the sources and uses of power is an important

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

30 Handbook of collaborative public management

antecedent to effective facilitation and management (Huxham & Beech, 2008), as it provides
relational parameters for process design and engagement. Collaborators engage in active lis-
tening and consensus-seeking within facilitated dialogue and deliberation. Collaborators value
one another’s expertise and differences that emerge during discovery, definition, deliberation,
and determination, meeting them with creative integration, or constructive conflict. Shared
goals and actions emerge from the synergy collaborators co-create. Decisions emerge from
consensus or modified voting procedures without evidence of domination or compromise.
Resulting actions are based on complex integrative practices, indicated by changes to individ-
ual member actions and innovative joint actions. Finally, collaborators engage in evaluative
reflection with one another in regard to both process and outcomes, as well as interpersonal
behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

We have argued that the varying power dynamics and relational dispositions and
micro-processes found in varied ways of working together reflect underlying philosophical
commitments that have causal implications for both process and outcomes. Further, it is often
the case that organizational members from hierarchical and competitive settings carry forward
matching attitudinal dispositions and relational styles, thereby hindering the collaborative
dynamics of the group (also see Keast & Mandell, 2013; Mandell & Keast, 2007; Stout et
al., 2019; Stout & Love, 2019). The power-over tendencies of coordination and consolidation
on the one hand and the pluralist power-to tendencies of cooperation and competition on the
other are counter to the collaborative goal to achieve integration (Bardach, 1998), as is the
disempowering use of power-for, wherein integration may remain forced to one degree or
another. Inter-organizational working—particularly across sectors—is rife with power dynam-
ics; however, micro-processes that emphasize power-with approaches and outcomes establish
a pathway for genuine collaboration and its advantages. To garner these benefits, we must
pursue the specific emergent, relational, and integrative practices described herein.

Toward this end, training in relational skills and the method of integration are likely nec-
essary, as the collaborative worldview and approach to exercising power is contrary to what
we typically find in public management contexts—both in terms of organizational settings
and academic preparation. We must learn how to: nurture and value relationships; establish
appropriate terms of engagement; facilitate and participate in dialogue, deliberation, and
consensus-oriented decision-making; engage in constructive conflict resolution and transfor-
mation; and participate in self-reflective dialogue and evaluation without fear. In other words,
we must learn to trust the process, ourselves, and one another.

In terms of research, ostensibly, the degree to which interactions within a given group
reflect collaborative characteristics should correlate with the extent to which improved out-
comes are achieved. Future research on attempts to collaborate should focus on process and
outcomes evaluation to determine whether the relational micro-processes indicated herein are
evident. Such process tracing provides a useful method to rigorously track and uncover the
power dynamics in relationally driven actions and outcomes. The more nuanced clarifications
offered provide a more robust foundation for beginning this empirical work.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 31

REFERENCES

Agranoff, R. (2008). Enhancing performance through public sector networks: Mobilizing human capital
in communities of practice. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(3), 320‒347.

Alford, J. (2014). The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public
Management Review, 16(3), 299‒316.

Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Ansell, C. (2011). Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. New York:

Oxford.
Bachmann, R. (2001). Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations. Organization Science,

22(2), 337‒365.
Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Bartels, K. P. R. (2013). Public encounters: The history and future of face-to-face contact between public

professionals and citizens. Public Administration, 91(2), 469‒483.
Bartels, K. P. R. (2015). Communicative capacity: Public encounters in participatory theory and prac-

tice. Bristol: Policy Press.
Bish, R. (1978). Intergovernmental relations in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, K. A., & Keast, R. L. (2003). Community–government engagement: Community connections

through networked arrangements. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 25(1), 107‒132.
Cambridge University Press (Ed.) (2019). Cambridge Online Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Chalmers, J., & Davis, G. (2001). Rediscovering implementation: Public sector contracting and human

services. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(2), 74‒85.
Chen, B. (2008). Assessing interorganizational networks for public service delivery: A process-perceived

effectiveness framework. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(3), 348‒363.
Ciglar, B. A. (2001). Multi-organizational, multi-sector and multi-community organizations: Setting

the research agenda. In M. P. Mandell (Ed.), Getting results through collaboration: Networks and
network structures for public policy and management (pp. 71‒85). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber-Rogers position
and postmodern themes. Communication Theory, 8(1), 63‒104.

Cohen, A. J. (2008). Negotiation, meet new governance: Interests, skills, and selves. Law & Social
Inquiry, 33(2), 503‒562.

Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. S. (2008). Introducing inter-organizational relations. In
S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational
relations (pp. 3‒21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2007). A leadership framework for cross-sector collaboration. Public
Management Review, 7(2), 177‒201.

Davies, J. S. (2009). The limits of joined-up government: Towards a political analysis. Public
Administration, 87(1), 80‒96.

Davis, J. P. (2016). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 61(4), 621‒661.

de Loë, R. C., Murray, D., & Simpson, H. C. (2015). Farmer perspectives on collaborative approaches to
governance for water. Journal of Rural Studies, 42, 191‒205.

Dewulf, A., & Elbers, W. (2018). Power in and over cross-sector partnerships: Actor strategies for
shaping collective decision. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 43‒58.

Dollery, B. (2016). Do mergers make for better councils: The evidence is against the bigger is better
argument for local government. The Conversation. Retrieved from https:// theconversation .com/
do -mergers -make -for -better -councils -the -evidence -is -against -bigger -is -better -for -local -government
-56813

Dunsire, A. (1978). Implementation in a bureaucracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1‒29.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

32 Handbook of collaborative public management

Flynn, C. (2019). Towards the craft and practice of facilitation across collaborative boundaries. In L.
Craven, H. Dickenson, & G. Carey (Eds.), Crossing boundaries in public policy and management:
Tackling the critical challenges (pp. 135‒186). New York: Routledge.

Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
Follett, M. P. (1998). The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government. University

Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Follett, M. P. (2003a). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administra-

tion: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30‒49). New York: Routledge.
Follett, M. P. (2003b). Leader and expert. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration:

The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 247‒269). New York: Routledge.
Follett, M. P. (2003c). Power. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The col-

lected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 95‒116). New York: Routledge.
Follett, M. P. (2013). Creative experience. Peabody, MA: Martino Fine Books.
Fox, W., & Gurley-Calvez, T. (2006). Will consolidation improve sub-national government? Retrieved

from https:// ssrn .com/ abstract = 917484
Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin-Institute of

Development Studies, 37(6), 23‒33.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.
Gray, B. (1994). A feminist critique of collaborating. Journal of Management Enquiry, 3, 286‒293.
Grove, E., Dainty, A., Thompson, D., & Thorpe, T. (2018). Becoming collaborative: A study

of inter-organisational relational dynamics. Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, 23(1), 6‒23.

Hafer, J. A. (2017). Understanding the emergence and persistence of mandated collaboration: A policy
feedback perspective of the United States’s model to address homelessness. American Review of
Public Administration, 48(7), 777‒788.

Harman, E. (1993). The impact of public sector reforms on Australian government. In P. Weller, J.
Forster, & G. Davis (Eds.), Reforming the public service: Lessons from recent experience (pp. 16‒36).
South Melbourne: Educational Australia.

Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 289‒310.
Himmelmann, A. (1994). Communities working collaboratively for change. In P. Herrman (Ed.),

Resolving conflict: Strategies for local government (pp. 27‒47). Washington, DC: International City/
County Management Association.

Hsieh, J., & Liou, K. T. (2016). Collaborative leadership and organizational performance: Assessing
the structural relation in a public service agency. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(1),
83‒109.

Huxham, C. (1996). Introduction: Collaboration and collaborative advantage. In C. Huxham (Ed.),
Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 1‒17). London: Sage Publications.

Huxham, C., & Beech, N. (2003). Contrary prescriptions: Recognizing good practice tensions in man-
agement. Organization Studies, 24(1), 67‒91.

Huxham, C., & Beech, N. (2008). Inter-organizational power. In S. Cropper, M. Ebbers, C. Huxham,
& P. Ring-Smith (Eds.), Handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 555‒579). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. New York: Routledge.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative ration-

ality for public policy. Oxon: Routledge.
Keast, R. L. (2015). Integration terms: Same or different? In G. Carey (Ed.), Grassroots to government:

Creating joined up working in Australia (pp. 25‒46). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Keast, R. L. (2016a). Network governance. In C. Ansell & J. Torfing (Eds.), Handbook on theories of

governance (pp. 442‒453). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Keast, R. L. (2016b). Shining a light into the black box of collaboration: Mapping the prerequisites for

cross-sector working. In J. Butcher & D. Gilcrest (Eds.), The three sector solution: Delivering public
policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business (pp. 157‒178). Sydney: ANU Press.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 33

Keast, R. L. (2016c). Why blue box thinking is not good for collaboration. Retrieved from https://
www .youtube .com/ watch ?v = 84YvXtc _VPg & list = PLrCIH0VHQyu -voxGcpSDs5mZDlPNQWQM1
& index = 2

Keast, R. L. (2016d). Why blue box thinking is not good for collaboration. Retrieved from https://
www .youtube .com/ watch ?v = 84YvXtc _VPg & list = PLrCIH0VHQyu -voxGcpSDs5mZDlPNQWQM1
& index = 2

Keast, R. L., Koliba, C., & Voets, J. (2019). Cross cutting themes and opportunities for network and
collaboration research. In R. L. Keast, C. Koliba, & J. Voets (Eds.), Networks and collaboration in
the public sector: Essential research approaches, methodologies and analytical tools (pp. 256‒274).
New York: Routledge.

Keast, R. L., & Mandell, M. P. (2013). Network performance: A complex interplay of form and action.
International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2), 27–45.

Keast, R. L., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K. A., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network structures: Working dif-
ferently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 363‒371.

King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic partic-
ipation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317‒326.

Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-analyses of big six interests and big five
personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217‒239.

Ledwith, M. (2011). Community development: A critical approach (2nd edn). Bristol: Policy Press.
Lewis, C. T., & Short, C. (Eds.) (1879). A Latin dictionary founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s

Latin dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, J. M., Ross, S., & Holden, T. (2012). The how and why of academic collaboration: Disciplinary

differences and policy implications. Higher Education, 64(5), 693–708.
Loosemore, M., & Richard, J. (2015). Valuing innovation in construction and infrastructure: Getting

clients past a lowest price mentality. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
22(1), 38‒53.

Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: An analysis of
changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76(2), 313‒333.

Mandell, M. P. (2002). Types of collaboration and why the differences matter. The Public Manager,
3(Winter), 36‒40.

Mandell, M. P., & Keast, R. L. (2007). Evaluating network arrangements: Toward revised performance
measures. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4), 574‒597.

Mannheim, M. (2019, December 5). The overhauled public service may be more efficient, but at what
cost to good government? ABC News Online. Retrieved from https:// www .abc .net .au/ news/ 2019 -12
-06/ overhauled -aps -maybe -efficient -but -unlikely -more -effective/ 11770138

Marlowe, T., Jastroch, N., Nousala, S., & Kirova, V. (2011). The collaborative future. Systems,
Cybernetics and Informatics, 9(5), 1‒5.

Mashek, D., & Nanfito, M. (2015). People, tools, and processes that build collaborative capacity.
Report, Claremont, CA: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont University.

Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., & Monsy, B. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work (2nd edn).
Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Mayer, M., & Kenter, R. (2016). The prevailing elements of public-sector collaboration. In J. C. Morris
& K. Miller-Stevens (Eds.), Advancing collaboration theory: Models, typologies, and evidence
(pp. 43‒64). New York: Routledge.

McNamara, M. (2012). Starting to untangle the web of cooperation, coordination and collaboration:
A framework for public managers. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 389‒401.

Morris, J. C., & Miller-Stevens, K. (2016). The state of knowledge in collaboration. In J. C. Morris & K.
Miller-Stevens (Eds.), Advancing collaboration theory: Models, typologies and evidence (pp. 3‒13).
New York: Routledge.

Mulford, C. L., & Rogers, D. A. (1982). Definitions and model. In D. A. Rogers & D. L. Whette (Eds.),
Interorganizational coordination: Theory, research and implementation (pp. 137‒176). Ames, IA:
Iowa State University Press.

Nelson, K. L., & Stenberg, C. W. (2018). Managing local government. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Painter, M. (1987). Steering the modern state: Central coordination in three Australian state govern-

ments. Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney Press.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

34 Handbook of collaborative public management

Pearson, N. (1999). Positive and negative welfare and Australia’s Indigenous communities. Family
Matters, 54, 30–35.

Popp, J. K., Milward, B., MacKean, G., Casebeer, A., & Lindstrom, R. (2014). Inter-organisational
networks: A review of the literature to inform practice. Report, Washington, DC: IBM Center for The
Business of Government.

Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 295–336). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.

Productivity Commission (2017). Introducing competition and informed user choice into human ser-
vices: Reforms to human services. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.

Purdy, J. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public
Administration Review, 72(3), 409‒417.

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational
relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90‒118.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P.
A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process: Theoretical lenses on public policy (pp. 117‒168).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Smyth, P., Malbon, E., & Carey, G. (2017). Social services futures and the Productivity Commission:
The power to persuade. Report, Canberra, NSW: University of New South Wales School of Business.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through
metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.

Southby, K., & Gamsu, M. (2018). Factors affecting general practice collaboration with voluntary and
community sector organisations. Health & Social Care in the Community, 26(3), e360‒e369.

Stever, J. A. (1988). The end of public administration: Problems of the profession in the post-progressive
era. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, Inc.

Stout, M., Bartels, K. P. R., & Love, J. M. (2019). Clarifying collaborative dynamics in governance
networks. In M. Stout (Ed.), From austerity to abundance? Creative approaches to coordinating the
common good (pp. 91‒116). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2015). Integrative process: Follettian thinking from ontology to administra-
tion. Anoka, MN: Process Century Press.

Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2016). A radically democratic response to global governance: Dystopian
utopias. New York: Routledge.

Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2017). Integrative governance: A method for fruitful public encounters.
American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 130‒147.

Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2019). Integrative governance: Generating sustainable responses to global
crises. London: Routledge.

Thayer, F. C. (1981). An end to hierarchy and competition: Administration in the post-affluent world
(2nd edn). New York: New Viewpoints.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social sciences bases of administrative theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Thompson, P. J., & Sanders, S. R. (1998). Partnering continuum. Journal of Management in Engineering,
14(5), 73‒78.

Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public
Administration Review, 66, 20‒32.

Tienari, J., & Vaara, E. (2012). Power and politics in mergers and acquisitions. In D. Faulkner, S.
Teerikangas, & R. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of mergers and acquisitions (pp. 494‒517). Oxford:
Oxford Scholarship Online.

Todeva, E., & Knoke, D. (2005). Strategic alliances and models of collaboration. Management Decision,
43(1), 123‒148.

Toomey, A. H. (2009). Empowerment and disempowerment in community development practice: Eight
roles practitioners play. Community Development Journal, 46(2), 181‒195.

Ulibarra, N. (2018). Collaborative model development increases trust in and use of scientific information
in environmental decisions. Environmental Science and Planning, 82, 136‒142.

Vandeventer, P., & Mandell, M. P. (2011). Networks that work: A practitioners guide to managing
networked action. Paper presented at the 2nd Community Partners, CA.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access

Collaboration: what does it really mean? 35

Vangen, S. (2017). Developing practice-oriented theory of collaboration: A paradox lens. Public
Administration Review, 77(2), 263‒272.

Wanna, J., Phillimore, J., Fenna, A., & Harwood, J. (2009). Common cause: Strengthening Australia’s
cooperative federalism. Report, Adelaide, SA: Council for the Australian Federation.

Williams, A. P. (2016). The development of collaboration theory: Typologies and systems approaches.
In J. C. Morris & K. Miller-Stevens (Eds.), Advancing collaboration theory: Models, typologies and
evidence (pp. 14‒42). New York: Routledge.

Winer, M. B., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining and enjoying the
journey. Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Wood, D., & Gray, B. (1991). Towards a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 27, 139–162.

Woolcock, G., & Boorman, C. (2003). Goodna Service Integration Project: Doing what we know we
should, final report. Queensland, Australia: The Community Service and Research Centre, University
of Queensland and Ipswich City Council.

Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Behabib (Ed.),
Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 120‒136). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Margaret Stout and Robyn Keast – 9781789901917
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 02/26/2021 12:08:06PM

via free access