ATTENDING TO DEEP STRUCTURES: AN EXPLORATION OF HOW
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RELATES TO COLLABORATIVE AND NETWORK
PARTICIPATION FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE

By

Tiffeny Reyleen Jimenez

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillments of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Psychology
2012

ABSTRACT
ATTENDING TO DEEP STRUCTURES: AN EXPLORATION OF HOW
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE RELATES TO COLLABORATIVE AND NETWORK
PARTICIPATION FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE
By Tiffeny Reyleen Jimenez
Complex social problems (e.g., health disparities, poverty, social discrimination) are obscurely
embedded within a variety of context-specific economic, technical, social, political, and legal
spheres that signify substantial consequences for individuals. Community-wide cross-sector
partnerships have become the dominant preferred approach to dealing with such problems and
often involve interorganizational collaborative structures despite evidence of their effectiveness
in creating meaningful social change. Applying systems thinking to conceptualizing community
allows for an understanding of the deeper organizational forces influencing behaviors involved in
changing processes and outcomes of community systems, which allows for a deeper
understanding of collaborative endeavors. Taking a community-based research, and two-phase
sequential mixed-methods approach, this case study explored organizational culture within a
local collaborative to uncover the implicit more indiscernible aspects of organizations that
influence behavior related to participation in community-level systems change initiatives. Using
social network analysis, this study describes the dense dynamic network of a long-standing
collaborative consisting of over 300 organizations. Inductive and deductive qualitative analysis
of in-depth interviews with a sub-sample of the collaborative was used to characterize the culture
of the collaborative, in terms of artifacts, beliefs, values, and assumptions of participating
organizations that facilitate or constrain participation with the network and for the collaborative.
Exploratory results discuss possible hypotheses to be tested in future studies and implications for
practical coordination of interorganizational systems change initiatives.

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the outpatient clients of the San Francisco General
Hospital and Community Focus Community Mental Health Services of the University of
California San Francisco (UCSF). I am very fortunate to have been given the opportunity to
work with such amazing people, both staff and clientele, who helped me to understand that
pathology is simply part of every life and should be accepted, if not embraced as essential to the
ecosystem of soul. Working with these clients in 2002 was the critical catalyst in the discovery
of my professional endeavors.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I view the dissertation as an expedition where the student provides a vision and leads a
team through a process of exploration and further discovery, and I view the written document as
merely evidence of this expedition. Throughout this expedition have I learned a great deal about
what it takes to excel as an engaged scholar and what it means to be a university-based
Community Psychologist. More specifically, I have learned how to practice in a space of
constant negotiation of priorities shared by the needs of both university and community partners,
and how to adjust methodological techniques to attend to shared priorities. These lessons will be
carried on in my future career endeavors as a Community Psychologist. It is with utmost sincere
gratitude that I acknowledge the contributions of all that played a role in this very personal and
professional growth experience, for this dissertation could not have occurred in full without the
support of faculty, colleagues, friends, family, community, and spiritual guidance.
My dissertation committee has held the reigns of this expedition with me and I appreciate
the unique strengths each of them brought to this journey in their entirety. Additionally, each of
them exemplifies the epitome of what it means to live a life of on-going learning that is academia
and I am especially grateful for their example. Of my committee, first and foremost I want to
express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Hiram Fitzgerald. Dr. Fitzgerald has been a
constant strong and supportive advisor throughout this dissertation. He has been an exemplar of
what it means to be an energetic, creative, visionary, and collaborative scholar, which has aided
in my own professional socialization. He taught me the importance of trust and the invaluable
lesson of cultivating it; that to be trusted you must also trust others. He consistently demonstrated
his faith in my ability to rise to the occasion and do the necessary work as committed. He has
always provided me the independence needed to find my own personal-professional voice; all
iv

while being attuned to particular moments where shaping for professional development was
necessary. Without his faith in my work, the resources he provided, and always being a strong
advocate for me, this expedition would have never occurred and for this I am eternally grateful.
Aside from my main advisor, Dr. Tony Nunez has provided many unexpected levels of
support in the last few years of my graduate career. Whether Tony was meeting with me to hear
me out, suggesting resources and guidance, or just being there as a source of support at AGEP
Community meetings, his mere presence always reminded me of what it means to be a rigorous
scholar and ethical academician.
Dr. Bob Caldwell is another example of a rigorous scholar and ethical academician
whose expert knowledge of psychological research, extensive writing experience in Psychology,
and student research advising has supported me through this discovery process. Bob set high
expectations for my work and I recall considering his words many times over throughout the
analysis and writing portions of this expedition. Bob’s continuous efforts to improve my
dissertation demonstrate a strong dedication to graduate education and his role in that
developmental process. I am sure his critical feedback, both written and verbal, will stay with me
throughout my career as criteria to continuously hold myself to as I continue in the field of
Psychology.
Additionally, Dr. Francisco Villarruel has provided yet another example for me about
what it means to be a rigorous and ethical scholar. In the short time I have known Dr. Villarruel
he has provided much insight about staying true to the needs of my community partner within
this scholarly endeavor. I sincerely appreciated his respect for my approach to research where it

v

was important to share an understanding of the validity of my work in the broader scope of what
is considered “research”.
In addition to my dissertation committee, the Power of We Consortium (PWC) is the
most critical partner in this expedition. Without the several hours of assistance provided by the
coordinator, Peggy Roberts, and Co-Chairs Vince Delgado, and Angela Waters-Austin, this
project would have never been possible. The PWC entrusted me to conduct a professional and
ethically engaged research project, and their faith in my ability to do so was a critical catalyst to
the successful completion of the dissertation. There are several individuals that need to be
acknowledged however there are too many to list here. I believe those individuals know who
they are and I thank them many times over.
Across the institution of Michigan State University (MSU) there are several offices and
individuals that deserve special mention for their contributions to my dissertation. The faculty of
the Ecological-Community graduate program have provided a highly rigorous, professional, and
challenging graduate education that has showed me how to engage social problems using various
methods from a an ecological, community-level, and preventative perspective. I have learned
from my colleagues what it means to be a social scientist and the various types of research
approaches, which has shaped the professional that I am today.
The MSU University Outreach and Engagement (UOE) office has provided innumerable
supports for this dissertation, including the assistance of professional, technical, and
administrative staff. I want to personally thank: Lynne Devereaux, Mark Szymczak, Paul Phipps,
Mary Taylor, Joyce Pinckney, John Schweitzer, Bob Brown, Laurie Van Egeren, Miles McNall,

vi

Diane Doberneck, Patricia Farrell, Jessica Barnes, John Melcher, Nicole Springer, and Graham
Pierce. Thank you.
The MSU Center for Statistical Consulting (CSTAT) provided statistical support for the
all stages of conducting the study’s social network analysis. I’d like to personally thank my
esteemed colleague, Dr. Steve Pierce, for the many years of social support and mentoring
throughout our graduate careers; as well as my colleague Dr. Yun-Jia Lo for her countless hours
of statistical consulting utilizing her social network expertise. Not to mention the many laughs
we shared in those hours. Without their assistance this project would have never been possible.
Throughout the dissertation I worked with a few undergraduate students who provided
numerous hours of thoughtful reflection, discussion, analysis, transcription, and alternative
perspectives on the interpretation of results. These students assisted with the technical aspects of
the dissertation yet also provided the weekly team-based social support and accountability points
needed to keep the project on track. It is important to personally thank: Sarah Thayer, Lea
Gregordi, Amy LeNoue, and Jacqueline Kelly for the many hours they committed to this
expedition.
I also must gratefully acknowledge the institutional support provided by the MSU
Graduate School and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The MSU Graduate School has
played more of a supportive role in my education than ever expected through numerous awards
and fellowships that provided necessary funds for practical research resources, and allowed me
to learn about social issues from a cross-cultural perspective by supporting national and
international travel. Additionally, a most fortuitous and unexpected additional support received
through the Graduate School was my experience with the MSU-AGEP Community for which I
vii

will continue to be a member long after I leave MSU. It is through this community I learned
more holistically what it means to be a scientist across disciplinary lines, the responsibility
associated with being an ethical scholar, how to mentor undergraduate and graduate students,
and most importantly how to appreciate the gifts that racial, ethnic, age, and socioeconomic
diversity bring to academe. Special recognition is necessary for both Dr. Julius Jackson and
Stephen Thomas who continually reminded me of what I have to offer professionally.
Through my Research Assistantship on the NSF ADAPP-ADVANCE grant I received
the financial and professional development supports necessary to excel as a scholar. I would
never have been able to complete my degree had I not received these supports and I will always
be grateful that they welcomed me into their expedition of creating institutional change. I thank
Melissa McDaniels, Mary Jane Robb, Jodi Linley, Kim Wilcox, Terry Curry, Estelle McGroarty,
Mark Roehling, Tammy Bush, Clare Luz, Rene Stewart O’Neal, and Paulette Granberry-Russell.
There are many friends and colleagues that have been an inspiration and have played
significant supportive roles at different stages of this dissertation, including my colleagues of the
MSU-AGEP Community, my writing groups, my social support groups, my late night writing
session partners, and long hours of phone calls back home. Once again there are too many to
name in full, however there are particular individuals that deserve special recognition, for
without any of them this expedition would not have been successful. This includes: Maria
Valenti, Tuline Ture, Charles Collins, Shylene Mata, Greg Larnell, Jodi Linley, Lynette
McGhee, Sydney Yoo, Guillermo Campos, Ashley Hannah, David Rogers, Melvin Escobar,
Kevin Khamarko, Meng-Shu You, Ebony Gilbreath, Christina Tucker, Jason Forney, Carmel
Martin-Fairey, Nkiru Nnawuzeli, Christina Campbell, Marcus Coleman, Eyitayo Onifade, Sinead
viii

Younge, Steven Pierce, Nate Bohy, Jordan Bohy, Derrick Forney, Joanna Arteaga, Jaime Inguez,
Gabriel Watson, Jennifer Battle, Baranda Jahel, Sallay Barrie, Mercedes Morales, Lizeth
Camacho, LaTonya Wilkins, Paola Leon-Ross, Aleksan Shanoyan, Brent Ross, Monique Lister,
Kellie Mayfield, Khamara Ewing, Joe Stramondo, Leigh-Ann Goins, Violeta Donowa, Paula
Miller, Sean Hankins, Brian Moore, Barbara Thelamour, Laura Hall, Russell Arthur Bauer,
Aaron Curtner, Joe Appelget, Khalfani Herman, Meeta Banerjee, Elena Martinez, Donta Fairey,
Shana Holet, Elena Goodwin Garcia, as well as the family of Heather and Jeremy Sprague.
There are many family members who have expressed support throughout this dissertation
in different forms yet I am most appreciative of my closest family members who have supported
me through each trying moment, even though they had little understanding of what I was
experiencing. With sincere gratitude I thank: my grandmother, Mary Jimenez, my mother,
Kathleen Jimenez, my father, Reynaldo Jimenez, my sister, Carrie McDonald, my brother in law,
Patrick McDonald, as well as my niece and nephew, Andrea and Kaelan McDonald.
Finally, it is of most importance that I acknowledge the ongoing spiritual support of
Hillary Lockwood and her many generations of students at Hilltop Yoga. Hillary provided space
in this community for me to hone my inner strength in the midst of chaos and learn how to stay
true to my inner voice. Her words have stayed with me throughout this expedition and will
continue to guide moving forward: “If you feel bound, you are bound. If you feel liberated, you
are liberated.” Namaste.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………..xiii

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………….xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The Power of We Consortium……………………………………………………….........4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Systems Change and Community Collaboration………………………………………...16
Interorganizational Collaboratives: Main Vehicles Promoting Systems Change…..........22
Participation and the Paradox of a Diverse Collaborative………………………….........32
Complex Adaptive Systems Theory and the Role of Organizational Culture…………...41
Study Rationale…………………………………………………………………………..50
Research Questions …………………….………………………………………………..51

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Community-Based Research Overall Approach.…………………………………………52
Scholarly Research Study Design…….…………………………………………………..54
Phase 1: System Network Analysis……..………………………………………………...56
Data Collection procedures...………………………………………………………..56
Description of Measures...…………………………………………………………...58
Network Analysis Procedures………………………………………………….........62
Phase 2: Qualitative Inquiry………………………............................................................63
Phenomenological Approach….....………………………………………………...64
Procedures………………………………………………………………………….64
Semi-Structured Open-ended Interviews…….…………………………………….66
Data Analysis Procedures………………….…………………………………….....67
Trustworthiness of Data and Validity of Analysis…….…………………………...69
x

Overall Data Management Procedures…………………………………………………..71

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Overall PWC Survey Responses………….………………………………………………..76
Network Relationships among Youth-Focused Coalition..…………..….......……...……..79
Factors of Organizational Culture Related to Network and Collaborative Participation.…94
Participation Differences across Organization Culture Type…………..………………...120
Summary Results Conclusion………………………………..…………………………...131

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Description of PWC and Youth-Focused Coalition Participation…….……………….....137
Participation Differences across Organization Culture Type………….…………………138
PWC Culture: Important Cultural Factors in Member Participation…..………………....142
Conflicts of Interest Regardless of Valuing Collaboration……………..………………...144
Limitations………………………………………………………….…………………….145
Implications for Research, Policy, Funders, and Practice…………..………………….....150

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Phase 1 Participant Consent Form…………………………………….156
Appendix B: Online Survey………………………………………………………….160
Appendix C: Phase 2 Participant Consent Form……………………………………..233
Appendix D: Interview Protocol………………….………………………………….236
Appendix E: Research Study Confidentiality Agreement…………………………...240

REFERENCES..……………………………………………………………………………….242

xi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: PWC Administrative Support Committees.…..……………………………………...8
Table 2: Twelve PWC Member Coalitions……..……………………………………………11
Table 3: PWC Focus Areas and Indicators for Community Health and Well-Being...………13
Table 4: Study Sample of PWC Coalitions…..………………………………………………54
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics Comparing Organization Culture and Collaborative
Participation…………………………………………………………………………………..93
Table 6: Organization Culture Differences in Collaborative Participation by Scale
Items.......................................................................................................................................127
Table 7: Organizational Culture mean Differences in Collaborative Participation by Scale
Items.......................................................................................................................................128

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Power of We Consortium Structure…..…………………………………………...7
Figure 2: Infancy to Innovation…...………………………………………………………..10
Figure 3: Proposed Study Model…………………………………………………………...50
Figure 4: Sociogram of PWCs 10 Coalitions and Affiliated Organizations….…………….78
Figure 5: Organizations and Coalitions of 4 Youth-Focused Coalitions in PWC
Collaborative……………………………………………………………………..83
Figure 6: Sociogram of PWC Youth-Focused Coalition Members….……………………..86
Figure 7: Organizational Culture & Centrality within Youth-Focused Coalition…………….
Network……………………………………………………………………………………..130

xiii

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Disparities in health and quality of life, health promotion, and disease prevention across
communities of people are being acknowledged as pressing and important social issues that need
to be addressed ecologically across multiple levels of analysis (e.g., Healthy People 2020, Center
for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2012; The American Health Quality Association May 13,
2011). These kinds of social problems are extremely complex in that they cross disciplinary,
organizational, philosophical, and sectored boundaries that challenge the usefulness of current
best practices and more traditional methods used to address human concerns. Addressing such
complex social issues requires innovative approaches to community and population level change
that can attend to the multifaceted interdisciplinary nature of human problems (Ackoff, 1999;
Jackson, 2003). Our society has come to recognize the disconnects across the services and
resources available to serve and support citizens of our nation at the federal level, and it is for
this reason there are several new priorities set to address social problems from an inter-sectoral
and interdisciplinary stance (e.g., Center for Disease Control, 2012; National Science
Foundation, 2012; Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, 2010; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). In fact, the United States Department of
Health and Human Services announced within the last year that 102 million dollars were
available through community transformation grants to “support the implementation, evaluation,
and dissemination of evidence-based community preventive health activities to reduce chronic
disease rates, prevent the development of secondary conditions, address health disparities, and
develop a stronger evidence base for effective prevention programming.” (May 25, 2011:
http://www.cdc.gov/communitytransformation/). This new funding, it “will allow communities
1

more time to engage communities and ultimately shift norms around healthy eating and physical
activity. It will also engage multiple sectors, encouraging community-based organizations, local
and state governments to work together to build sustainable, effective change.” (May 13, 2011:
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5902/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1164050)
In hopes of creating innovative solutions and sustainable living conditions, human
problems are increasingly being addressed using systems thinking and emphasizing systems
change (Foster-Fishman, Nowell, & Yang, 2007; Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, & Schley,
2008). The use of partnerships across sectors and organizations to ameliorate and prevent social
and health problems, streamline service delivery, and address complex social issues is a growing
global reality (Aguirre-Molina & Gorman, 1996; Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004; Senge, Smith,
Kruschwitz, Laur, & Schley, 2008). For many government agencies and foundations,
partnerships and collaboration have become the dominant preferred approach to dealing with
complex social and environmental problems, and often involve interorganizational collaborative
structures (O’Leary & Bingham, 2009; Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, & Schley, 2008).
Interorganizational alliances with multi-sectoral memberships have increasingly become
common practice among federal and state agencies (e.g., The Office of Special Education
Programs of the U.S. Department of Education funded the Center for Effective Collaboration and
Practice, 2012; The Center for Mental Health Services funds grants under The Comprehensive
Service System for Children’s Mental Health Program to build local, county, and statewide
systems of care, April 6, 2011; The Department of Justice funds Safe Futures and Safe Start
Programs, which build local collaborations to intervene with young children and with youth to
keep them in school and to prevent juvenile delinquency, 2012). Some funders have even made it
mandatory that grantees develop interorganizational collaborative bodies as a precondition to
2

receiving funding (e.g., W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation).
Given systems change goals and approaches to assessing collaboration, the
interorganizational community collaborative entity itself can be viewed as the engine of change.
Thus, participation of organizations within a community collaborative entity is not just
participation at this level of a change initiative (Marchand, Fowler, & Kokanovic, 2006; Mayer,
Soweid, Dabney, Brownson, Goodman, & Brownson, 1998; Page, 2003; Zakocs & Guckenburg,
2006), it is active enactment of an organization or agency’s role as a change agent within their
settings, and with relevant community groups that are the impetus for deep structural change
across a community system. While the interorganizational collaborative may be the entity
charged with the task of coordinating community and system level change, its success will
depend much upon how individual members of the collaborative perceive their role within the
context of systems change. The success of the interorganizational collaborative will also depend
upon its ability to transcend barriers to success.
Members of systems change initiatives are anticipated to act as change agents where their
influence within the community, and within their organizations, is critical to creating meaningful
and sustainable systems change (Butterfoss, 2006; Wells, Ford, McClure, Holt & Ward, 2007).
From this perspective, the role of the collaborative’s members is significant in reaching success.
Members are expected to provide access to resources when needed, take the necessary time to act
for the change initiative, to feel some pressure to act with the others in the collaborative, and
enact changes within their own organization. Unfortunately, organizational member participation
within interorganizational collaborative initiatives remains a difficult endeavor (Ospina & SazCarranza, 2010; Saz-Carranza & Ospina, 2011).
3

Given the growing popularity of systems change approaches to tackling community
issues, and the context specific nature of each systems change endeavor, addressing some of the
deep structural tensions related to their effectiveness is an important research venture,
particularly through in-depth case analyses of interorganizational collaboratives engaged in
systems change work. Therefore, this study conducts a systems analysis with a local systems
change collaborative for the purpose of identifying the context-specific deep structural
challenges associated with its work. To situate the focus of this study within the context of the
specific systems change collaborative of concern, I first provide a description of the
collaborative.

The Power of We Consortium
In 1995, the State of Michigan launched an effort at systems change by establishing a
multipurpose collaborative body in every county with expectations to communicate to the state
human service directors recommendations for policy changes that could improve the way
services are funded and delivered to improve the effectiveness (impact on goals) and efficiency
(better use of existing resources) of services (Ludtke, December 2008). Archival documents
maintaining a record of the history and current status of multipurpose collaborative bodies
describe them as follows:
“This approach represents a shift from vertical planning within one service system to
horizontal planning across service systems. To implement Coordinated Community
Planning in a county, the mental health director was required to convene a group of
directors (mental health, public health, substance abuse, child welfare [social services],
private sector) and the superintendent of the local intermediate school district. This
county-level structure was to be used for planning, coordination and development of
human services. It was also envisioned that this group would provide for increased
collaborative programming, referral linkages, shared funding and mutual assignment of
4

staff, training and consultation. This group would also provide for joint advocacy for
human services.” (Ludtke, September 2007)
Currently, all counties have an established collaborative addressing issues that impact the lives of
children, families, and special populations in their area. In 2004, Ingham County’s multipurpose
collaborative body was reorganized into the Power of We Consortium (PWC).

The PWC is a community-level systems change collaborative that envisions a healthy
community through collaboration. More specifically, the PWC seeks to “improve the quality of
life and self-sufficiency of all residents of Ingham County”, Michigan (Fitzgerald, Allen, &
Roberts, 2010; p. 20). A theory of change can be helpful for articulating how to achieve
solutions to complex problems, such as those addressed by the PWC, and is important for
conceptualizing the assumptions and actions of complex collaborative community work
(Connell, Kubisch, Schorr & Weiss, 1995). The theory of change set forth by the PWC can be
summed up in the following statement: A healthy community is built through collaboration.
Therefore, to address the complex problems facing the community, individuals and organizations
must engage in collaborative processes that develop capacity to strengthen services expected to
promote enhanced community well-being over time. Accordingly, the complex interdependent
goals developed by the PWC are achieved through a community-based decentralized
collaborative structure made up of twelve coalitions designed to broker relationships,
information, and resources involving three committees that support the work (See Figure 1)
(Fitzgerald, Allen, & Roberts, 2010; p. 21). Additionally, the PWC is supported by the
administrative resources of several of its member organizations. The Ingham County Health
Department is the fiduciary and staff home of the Power of We Consortium. With the support of

5

its many members, coalitions, and partners, the work of the Consortium is sustained to achieve
its goals. (See Table 1).

6

Figure 1: Power of We Consortium Structure.

Adapted from Fitzgerald, Allen, & Roberts (2010). Campus-Community Partnerships: Perspectives on Engaged Research. In
Fitzgerald, H., Burback, C. & Seifer, S. (Eds). Handbook of Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions (pp
5-28). Michigan State University Press. East Lansing, MI. Reproduced with permission, © Power of We Consortium. For
interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this dissertation.
7

Table 1: PWC Administrative Support Committees
Committees:
1) The Investors Steering
Committee (ISC):
2) The Leadership
Practice Committee
(LPC):
3) The Data Committee:

Function:
Monitors the PWC’s accountability to its members and funders
by coordinating and expanding local and external resources to
support activities.
Identifies capacity-building needs of faith-based and
community organizations and coordinates efforts to meet them.

Utilizes meaningful geographic and population-specific data
and information to monitor the outcomes of the PWC.
The ultimate goal of the PWC is that by 2020, all children, youth and young adults in the

capital area will have the skills and abilities to actively participate in the global knowledge
economy. To achieve this ultimate goal, the PWC actively addresses six domains that cut across
various sectors of the Tri-County community system relevant to well-being: 1) intellectual and
social development; 2) physical and mental health; 3) environmental natural resources; 4) vibrant
economy; 5) safe homes and communities; and 6) community cohesion. The PWC has developed
several indicators of progress within each of the six goal areas that will be discussed later on in
this introduction.
The Infancy to Innovation (i2i) Framework (previously known as the Birth-to-Work
Framework) is a systems change framework encompassing the human development lifespan and
various community sectors necessary to “improve developmental outcomes for children, youth,
young adults and their families, and to stimulate economic development” (Fitzgerald et al., 2010,
p. 24). This framework was created to give cross-sector cohesion to the relatively independent
sectors and is useful for visually grasping the complex system the PWC is working to change
(See Figure 2). The six domains actively addressed by the PWC have been mapped onto three
life course developmental periods that include: birth to 5, 9-14, and 18-25 years. The transitional
8

influences referenced in the framework demonstrate the various community settings and
resources relevant across developmental stages that need to be designed to promote resilience
and community well-being.
The PWC’s twelve member coalitions bring about most of the work to address the goals
of this collaborative. The focused activity and involvement of the coalitions allow the PWC to
closely monitor the needs and resources of the community as it relates to their more specific
missions and goals (See Table 2). Through informal communication networks and monthly PWC
meetings, each of these coalitions can inform the PWC members about their work and provide
local expert recommendations for how the collaborative can function to restructure resources to
best meet community needs. In particular, the collaboration processes employed by the PWC to
achieve goals, include five main community practices: 1) engaging and mobilizing community
members, 2) facilitating dialogue and creating connections, 3) identifying and supporting civic
leadership, 4) using all the assets of a community for change, and 5) sharing and using data and
information to support and monitor progress (Fitzgerald et al., 2010). These practices are
expected to lead to community-level change within several identified sectors.

Through the Data Committee, the PWC has identified 6 domains within Ingham, Eaton,
and or Clinton County to create community-level change. Across these 6 domains are a total of
33 community-level indicators intended to assess, and communicate for community stakeholders,
the overall community well-being of Ingham County. Reports are compiled by the Data
Committee on a regular basis to assess the level of change within each domain. These reports
serve to identify where they may need to shift resources and functioning as a collaborative (See
Table 3)
9

Figure 2: The Infancy to Innovation Framework.

Adapted from Fitzgerald, H. E. (2010). Birth to work: A community-driven framework for systems change. The Engaged Scholar, 5,
20-21, with permission from the author © Michigan State University.
10

Table 2: Twelve PWC Member Coalitions

PWC Coalitions

Description of Mission & Focus

1) The Asset Independence Coalition

Coordinates resources of public and private institutions to
promote the financial independence of low to moderate
income residents of related counties.

2) The Ingham Birth to Five, Great
Start Collaborative

Involves human service agencies, parents, and other partners
working together to develop a network of early education
and care to support children and families of Ingham County.

3) The Community Coalition for
Youth

Oversees planning, implementation, and coordination of
services aimed at positive youth development in Ingham
County.

4) the Community Economic
Development Network

Dedicated to improving the capacity of neighborhood
groups to support/foster revitalization and growth of
Lansing’s commercial corridors; more specifically to
improve the housing stock across Lansing utilizing
public/private partnerships.

5) The Greater Lansing Homeless
Resolution Network

Responsible for the development and implementation of a
continuum of care assisting homeless families and
individuals to successfully transition from homeless to
independent living.

6) The Immigrant and Refugee
Resource Collaborative

Works to provide services, promote opportunities, and build
relationships to make Ingham County a home for people
seeking a better life.

7) The Impact coalition

Embraces, serves, and supports children with serious
emotional disturbance and their families.

8) The Ingham Substance Abuse
Prevention Coalition

Works to reduce substance abuse, its related consequences,
and stigma.

9) The Infant Mortality Initiative

Works to address infant health disparities and ultimately
reduce inequities in infant mortality in Ingham County.

10) The Land Use and health
Resource Team

Educates and engages the community regarding impacts of
the built environment on health, and facilitates improvement
through refinement and promotion of a health impact
assessment tool.
11

Table 2 (continued)

11) The Long-term Care
Collaborative
12) The Strong Families/Safe
Children coalition

Addresses the long-term needs and preferences of older
adults and persons with disabilities and works to increase
choices for persons requiring long-term care.
A continuum of coordinated, integrated, family-focused
services for children and families that are community-based,
accessible, culturally respectful, responsive to family needs,
and intensive enough to keep children safe.

Table 3: PWC Focus Areas and Indicators for Community Health & Well-Being
1) Intellectual & Social Development:

School Readiness Indicators
High School Graduation Rates
Education Beyond High School
Teen Pregnancy
Juvenile Delinquency and Crime

2) Economy:

Greater Lansing Business Index
Knowledge Economy
Per Capita Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Use of Job Improvement Resources
Home Ownership
Homelessness

3) Health:

Infant Mortality
Childhood Immunizations
Substance Abuse
Health Care Coverage
Life Expectancy

4) Safety:

Child Abuse & Neglect
Domestic Violence
Unintentional Injury Deaths
Violent Crime
Neighborhood Safety

5) Environment:

Indoor Air Quality
Outdoor Air Quality
Surface Water Quality
12

Table 3 (Continued)

Groundwater Quality
Land Use

6) Community Life:

Social Capital

Taken as a whole, the theory of change enacted by the various interacting components of
the PWC act as a community-level systems change network mechanism created to promote
community well-being within 6 identified domains. The 3 PWC subcommittees act as the engine
of the collaborative in that they are the main decision-making bodies for the collaborative (ISC,
LPC, Data Committee). The PWC subcommittees use the i2i Framework to identify key
programs, institutions, resources, and policies relevant to human development in order to target
initiative activities. The collaborative network ideally provides access to the existing programs,
policies and resources related to the transitional influences across the life span through the 12
coalitions and 100+ accompanying organizations. Together, the i2i Framework and the PWC
collaborative network strive to promote positive transitions for county citizens that are tracked
by the 33 indicators of community well-being.

The PWC collaborative currently has connections with a vast array of organizations
through coalitions that span a variety of social and environmental issues, however, focusing on
the connections among aspects of this service system that are designed for youth are a primary
focus for this study for several reasons. First, the roots of this collaborative have been firmly
established in a main concern for addressing issues that impact the lives of children, families,
and special populations. Second, there is a heightened societal concern for supporting
developmental needs particularly within the early stages of human development. Third, the focus
of the i2i framework in use provides a means of conceptualizing the various systems components
particularly associated with youth programs. Therefore, while the connections across the entire
13

network of the PWC are important, emphasizing services and programs most directly related to
programming for youth is core to creating better long-term health and well-being outcomes for
this community.

Having participation from each member of the PWC is important in order for the PWC to
reach its systems change goals. According to the literature on community-level systems change,
the PWC must ensure they have a functioning interorganizational collaborative network in place.
Also within the literature, it is widely acknowledged that there are several challenges, barriers,
and tensions likely to occur within interorganizational collaboration (Berkowitz, 2001;
Butterfoss, 2007; Deets, 1991; Foster-Fishman, Perkins & Davidson, 1997; Harvard Family
Research Project, 1992; Jennings & Krane, 1994; Johnson, Zorn; Kai Yung Tam, Lamontagne,
& Johnson, 2003; National Symposium of Developing Partnerships, 1992; Nowell, 2010; Osher,
2002; Page, 2003; Stegelin & Jones, 1991; Taylor-Powell, Rossing & Geran,; Osher, 2002), and
that member participation is an important characteristic of effective collaboratives (Backer,
2003; Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002; Wandersman, Goodman & Butterfoss, 1997). There is a dearth
of literature; however, exploring the ways in which organizational culture of participating
members influences member participation within collaboratives and their interorganizational
network. Attending to the deep structures of internal organizational models within a community
system is a critical area of focus through the use of complex systems theory. Therefore, through
conducting a formative network analysis of the PWC, this study examines how the
organizational cultures of members of an interorganizational systems change collaborative relate
to participation. More specifically, this study addresses the following questions:

14

Central question: How does member organizational culture relate to collaborative participation
and network participation?
1. What are the network relationships among participants?
2. How does participation differ across the PWC’s youth-focused coalition members?
3. Which factors of organizational culture constrain or facilitate network and collaborative
participation?
4. How does participation differ across organization culture type?

15

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Overall, this review will link literatures on systems and collaboration as they are used in
conceptualizing and promoting systems change; use systems science concepts to frame the work
of the PWC; highlight lessons learned from effective systems change collaboratives, action
science practitioners, organizational science and management literature; and identify gaps in
understanding how to address tensions involved in creating effective systems change by
attending to deep structures. This literature will provide groundwork for understanding the work
of the PWC and the ways in which understanding this unique entity is a contribution to the
literature on systems change collaboratives. First, I will explain concepts from system science
that assist in understanding systems change, discuss the role of collaboration in meeting systems
change goals, identify what is known about factors that contribute to effective collaboration,
discuss the paradox associated with diverse interorganizational collaboratives, and justify
through systems theory how organizational culture of a diverse network may play a role in
interorganizational collaboration.
Systems Change and Community Collaboration
Over the last 15 years, systems change initiatives have become an important tool for
tackling complex human problems because they have the potential to address several interacting
parts of a community system simultaneously (Nowell, 2010). Systems approaches broadly span
numerous ecological and human sectors such as: community and economic development,
agriculture, justice, business, supply chain design, prevention, education, and public health; just
to name a few. Hundreds of millions of dollars, and countless hours of human capital, have been
16

funneled into systems change initiatives spanning complex social problems related to public
health (Buterfoss, Goodman & Wandersman, 1996; Kreger, Brindis, Manuel, & Sassoubre,
2007; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000), domestic violence, HIV/AIDS prevention (Botwinick, 2003)
substance abuse prevention, positive youth development, the creation of more accessible
communities for people with disabilities (Berkowitz, 2001; Bryson & Crosby, 2005; Gray,
2000), and more overarching efforts involved in creating community-wide Systems of Care
(Levinson-Johnson & Wenz-Gross, 2010). Research and theory from systems thinking and
systems science provide concepts helpful for understanding how community resources interact to
serve and meet the needs of citizens (Chekland, 1981; Holland, 1992; Anderson, 1999;
Reynolds, 2008).
Understanding systems and systems change. At its most basic and general level, a
“system” is a collection of parts that through their interactions function as a whole (Ackoff &
Roven, 2003). In other words, a system involves elements that are interconnected through a
shared functional purpose (Levine & Fitzgerald, 1992; Meadows, 2008). An example of a system
that meets such a description is the respiratory system of the human body. The shared function of
the respiratory system is to supply the blood with oxygen so that the blood can deliver oxygen to
the whole body. To achieve this function, the respiratory system exchanges gases through the
breathing process. The elements of the respiratory system that facilitate the breathing process
include: the mouth, the nose, trachea, lungs, and the diaphragm. Without these interconnected
system elements functioning to oxygenate blood, the more complex system, the human body,
cannot survive.

17

Human social systems are much more complex and can make addressing social problems
difficult. Community-level human systems, such as a health care system, education system, or a
county-level community system such as the PWC involves “the set of actors, activities, and
settings that are directly or indirectly perceived to have influence in or be affected by a given
problem situation” (Foster-Fishman, Nowell, & Yang, 2007; p. 198). Moreover, communitylevel human systems are particularly unique because they contain ever evolving structures.
According to Holland (1992), human systems are adaptive entities that change and reorganize to
adapt to survive in the midst of changing surroundings as problems arise. These kinds of systems
make it more difficult to define the system of interest and effectively enact systems change.
Systems thinking. Given the complex nature of human systems, it is useful to have a
clear conceptual understanding of how system parts interact. The concept of Systems Thinking
has been useful in opening up the ways in which people understand a community system and its
possible interactions. Systems thinking is when thinking occurs about complex wholes of related
parts and includes related disciplines associated with systems sciences (e.g., general systems
theory, complexity theory, and chaos theory) (Reynolds, 2008). Ultimately, the way a system is
defined provides the basis under which system thinking is structured (Davidz, 2006). Changing
mental models through systems thinking exercises among community stakeholders has the
potential to create change in and of itself in that it can change how people then begin to interact
in the world. Therefore, conducting a systems analysis of the PWC’s community of interest may
be helpful in defining the system, clarifying the collaborative’s goals, and clarifying important
leverage points for action (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007). It is through the tools provided by
systems science that we are able to gain a more in-depth and sophisticated understanding of
system functioning, measurement, and ways to evaluate systems change.
18

Systems science. Systems science is an interdisciplinary form of science used to
understand complex systems such as social and ecological systems. Systems science helps us
understand how things work. It does this by helping us understand the parts of a system, our
assumptions and beliefs about systems, and the relationships within the system. It is through
these relationships that the system functions (Parsons, 2007). In other words, we learn about the
culture and character of a system. Some examples of systems theory include systems dynamics
(Forrester, 2009), systems engineering, and system design. Ultimately, how a “system” is
conceptualized affects a person’s “systems thinking”, and these approaches provide templates or
models through which systems change becomes easier. Therefore this study conducted a systems
analysis to assist the PWC in visualizing the system of interest, the agents or parts of the system,
the relationships between system parts, and to uncover the culture and character of the system
and the potential leverage points for change (see description of a systems network analysis in
methods).
Systems sciences have developed sophisticated principles and rules to guide the types of
methodologies needed to understand and explain different types of questions regarding system
functioning, such as Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1981) and System Development
methodology (Finkelsetin, Kramer, Nuseibeh, Finkelstein, & Goedicke, 1992). When dealing
with complex social issues such as that of the PWC, an appropriate systems science approach
needed is complex systems. Complex systems are generally defined based on their diverse
attributes, ever adapting structures, and by their many interconnecting parts (Holland, 1992).
This is precisely why network theory is often used to understand complex systems such as
community systems (Cross, Dickmann, Newman-Gonchar & Fegan, 2009; Emirbayer &
Goodwin, 1994; Friedman, Reynolds, Quan, Call, Crusto & Kaufman, 2007; Luke, 2005).
19

Systems change. Systems change involves changing interacting system elements, the
relationships between interacting elements, and or the function of those elements. When
considering what change is, Weick and Quinn (1999) describe several ways in which change can
be specified depending on the type of change, the context of the change initiative, and the factors
involved. More specifically, they suggest that two characteristics are involved in specifying such
characteristics: 1) the nature of change, and 2) the degree of change.
The nature of change refers to the manner in which the change is intended to occur. With
regard to the PWC, the nature of change sought is called “continuous change”. Continuous
change is an accumulation of small ongoing adjustments created simultaneously across units that
cumulate and create substantial change (Weick & Quinn, 1999). This type of change can easily
be conceptualized through an analytic framework emphasizing a series of ongoing adaptations,
accommodations, modifications, and alterations enacted over time through reciprocal, varied
changes in practice over time. More specifically, continuous change occurs through several miniepisodes that might include dissonance between beliefs and action, reaching certain small
milestones, or substitution of old practices with more innovative ideas enacted by younger
generations. In other words, the continuous change endeavor involves some adjustment to the
functioning of a system, however, the changes happen at a much slower pace than something like
episodic change initiatives where fast replacement, quick triggers, and several simultaneous
shifts in functioning are more likely to occur.
The degree of change is the level at which change occurs within a given system and falls
within three main categories: first order change, second order change, and third order change
(Bartunek & Moch, 1987). It is important to specify the degree of change an initiative seeks
20

because it has implications for what parts of a system need to be leveraged for the idealized
change to occur. First order change achieves goals that alter the top layer of system structures.
This degree of change makes changes to things like daily practices. Systems change initiatives
with this emphasis are focused on first-order change that attends to individual and organizational
factors as key in facilitating change (Allen, Lehrner, Mattison, Miles, & Russell, 2007). An
example might include improving the alignment of practices to existing policies where the
policies in place are not in question. Second order change, sometimes termed “radical change”,
works to achieve shifts in the underlying deep structures of a system. An example might include
viewing social problems from the perspective of a different paradigm and recreating policies and
practices that align to address the new world view of how to resolve some specified social issue
from the new paradigm. The task becomes phasing in new ideas and phasing out the old. Third
order change is an even deeper level of change that seeks to build the capacity of organizational
members and leaders to develop their own new paradigms or schemas to implement on their
own. While choosing one level of change to work towards is important for directing systems
change initiative goals and activities, it has been argued that the most effective change processes
involve some level of both first order and second order change (Corrigan & Boyle, 2003). The
degree of change that best fits the emphasis of the PWC is difficult to specify, however it might
be suggested that the PWC is invested in all three degrees of change depending on which part of
the system one addresses. For example, the PWC partnering with this community-based research
study has the potential to bring about third order change depending on what they decide to take
action on after learning more about their network. However, the activity the PWC engages in on
a regular basis with their coalitions could be considered first order or second order change.

21

Overall, systems science has provided useful concepts for conceptualizing community
structures and processes. Additionally, the literature on systems change provides some
understanding of how to specify the nature and degree of change that is desired. The PWC is a
systems change collaborative most interested in creating continuous and varied change within the
Tri-County area of Michigan in an effort to attend to the multiple structural causes of the
inequitable distribution of resources, and to identify ways to restructure the system to fit the
needs of the various populations in this area. Despite the various types of social change that
might be sought, specifying the methods of creating such complex change is imperative. To date,
the most frequent method of systems change utilized by communities for this purpose are intersectoral interorganizational community collaboratives, however, it is controversial whether this
approach leads to desired systems change outcomes.
Interorganizational Collaboratives: Main Vehicle Promoting Systems Change
Within the last 10-15 years, community-level interorganizational collaborations have
become the primary vehicle for promoting community-level systems change (Backer, 2003;
Foster-Fishman et al., 2007) and are often utilized as governance mechanisms (Agranoff &
McGuire, 2001). Collaborations are useful because they have the potential to acquire or
reorganize resources through engaging organizations, agencies, and sectors of relevance to a
social problem of concern (Berkowitz, 2001; Emshoff, Darnell, Darnell, Erickson, Schneider, &
Hudgins, 2007; Kreger, Brindis, Manuel, & Sassoubre, 2007; Nowell, 2010; Roussos & Fawcett,
2000). Although there is little argument in the literature regarding the importance of using
collaboratives as the primary means for promoting community-level change (Alter & Hage,
1993), their effectiveness in achieving such outcomes is questionable (Backer, 2003; Kelly,
22

Schaan & Jonacas, 2002; O’Leary & Bingham, 2007; Park & Ungson, 2001). Despite
questionable outcomes, the cases that have been effective in reaching desired outcomes are
evidence of why they are more worth the effort than not.
Collaboration. Collaboration is broadly defined as what happens when “bringing
together two or more agencies, groups, or organizations at the local, state, or national level, to
achieve some common purpose of systems change (Backer, 2003; p. 4).” Within the
organizational science literature there are two ways to categorize collaborations: 1) “strategic
alliances and joint ventures among business organizations, and 2) cross-sectoral alliances among
business, governments, schools, NGOs, and other stakeholders concerned about a particular
problem domain.” (Gray, 2000; p. 243). This proposal is most concerned with understanding the
second categorization but it is expected that lessons learned from the literature on strategic
alliances and joint ventures may be applicable to the study being proposed given the focus on
collaboration as a tool for creating systems change. With regard to the focus of this study, and
the work of the PWC, collaboration will be defined more specifically in terms of its relevance to
systems change within the human sciences. Collaboration is therefore defined further as what is
occurring when two or more agencies, groups, or organizations at any level “[pool] resources and
ideas within or across disciplines for innovation, and problem solving” (Wood & Gray, 1991).
Across several disciplines within the literature, the term “collaboration” is often confused
with other terminology such as a network, cooperation, and coordination. What is misunderstood
is that while these are various aspects involved in building collaboration, each of these terms is
different. A network is an unstructured activity jointly supported by a group of community
organizations (Backer, 2003). Cooperation is more superficial interaction among organizations
23

or agencies where they interact to provide information to one another, and coordination involves
altering the relationships between individual independent organizations (Osher, 2002).
Collaboration differs from these other terms in that it is a more involved and committed level of
interaction among organizations and agencies that involves uniting organizations for the
purposes of achieving goals they cannot achieve alone. In essence, it is a stage of
interorganizational relationship that is acted upon when organizations realize their
interdependence and the significance of their participation with one another in concert to achieve
significant goals.
Collaboration is the main vehicle cited in the community psychology literature for
creating systems change. However, collaboration is not merely bringing together relevant
organizational entities, collaboration for systems change is a sophisticated level of relationship
interaction built among actors over time. In terms of systems change, collaboration is an ideal
stage in the transformation of relationships between and among organizations and agencies over
time (Alter & Hage, 1993; Lasker, Weiss & Miller, 2001; Osher, 2002). According to
organizational science literature, networks evolve from exchange to action network when
partners “contribute private resources for access to collective output, depend on the collective
output, and feel a normative obligation to comply with the coordinating mechanism” (Butterfoss,
2007; p. 29). This literature also suggests that an action network evolves into a systemic network
when partners produce together and with specialized roles within the collaborative which can
switch around as needed at any time (e.g., roles such as convener, funding conduit, catalyst,
facilitator, etc.). What is clear across these literatures is that a certain level of participation is
required for the benefits of collaboration to occur.

24

Confusion among interorganizational collaboratives. Community-level systems
change collaboratives are found across disciplines and vary in several ways. They can take on
various forms, involve any range and number of stakeholders, and have a variety of specific
goals they are designed to achieve. There are several case studies within the systems change
literature that all utilize some form of interorganizational relationship activity to achieve their
goals (Allen, Watt & Hess, 2008; Anderson, 2003; Brown, Feinberg & Greenberg, 2010;
Cheadle, Beery, Greenwald, Nelson, Pearson & Senter, 2003; Lindholm, Ryan, Saxe & Brodsky,
2004; Marchand, Fowler & Kokanovic, 2006; Page, 2003; Riggs, Nakawatase & Pentz, 2008;
Robertson, et al, 2004; Mayer, et al., 1998; Zakocs & Guckenburg, 2006) but there is a fair
amount of diversity within the partnerships investigated. For instance, Allen, Watt and Hess
(2008) qualitatively investigated the activities and outcomes of 41 domestic violence
coordinating councils described as collaborations. This study was able to investigate 41 out of 45
councils within the state. Among these councils, the size of them varied from 8 to 116 (with an
average of 39 members), and the organizations/sectors represented a mixture of different
community characteristics.
The systems change literature spans several academic disciplines and social issues where
the terminology used to describe systems change interorganizational activity and participation
varies. The literature on systems change and collaboration is inconsistent (Backer, 2003;
Wandersman, 2003). For example, some partnerships are referred to as coalitions, even though
they have unique structures not consistent with the definition of coalitions. A change initiative at
a minimum must involve at least two partners, which might include coalitions, coordinating
councils, and community partnerships. More recent literature within organizational science and
community psychology exploring community-level systems change across organizations has
25

discussed the term “community collaboratives” (e.g., Emshoff, et al., 2007; Nowell, 2010).
Among the inconsistent use of terminology there are some general trends within disciplines
regarding the use of interorganizational and community-based activity. Coalitions are more
commonly found in public health (Butterfoss, 2007; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000), coordinating
councils are common in literature discussing domestic violence, and interorganizational
collaborations are more common in business and management literature (Faulkner & De Rond,
2001; Nowell, 2010). Even more broadly, network and interorganizational management
literatures refer to these entities as “goal-directed networks” (Saz-Carranza & Ospina, 2011).
Some of this imprecise use of terminology regarding interorganizational activity could be
due to the nature of interpersonal and interorganizational work. Meaning, since relationships are
developed and change over time (Alter & Hage, 1993), while an initiative might be called a
certain type of partnership or network at one point in time, it may have developed into something
different at a later point. For example, Clarke-McMullen (2010) describes a shift in terminology
over the lifespan of a collaborative inter-sectoral entity. They describe up front how the coalition
called an “Action Network” was later described as a coalition because of how they later began
functioning like a coalition. In this case, the author of the article needed to explain this shift in
focus and function within their description of this systems change initiative, which was also
described as part of what made the initiative successful.
Despite these differences in mission and purpose, what is common across these
collaboratives is their use of relationships within and across relevant sectors of a community to
create systemic community-level change (Alter & Hage, 1993). Regardless of the term used, it
could be argued that what is learned from the study of coalitions may be applied to the work of
26

other collaboratives just based on the nature of all interorganizational work involving people,
groups, organizations, and agencies. What all of these interorganizational entities have in
common across all literatures cited is that they are all struggling with how to develop and
manage interorganizational relationships. Therefore, regardless of the imprecise use of the
various terms used, since this proposal is most concerned with relationships across diverse
organizations and sectors, to capture the lessons learned across the literature on
interorganizational dynamics within the literature, the term collaborative will be used.
Expectations of collaboration. Interorganizational collaboratives are theoretically
assumed to be important in addressing complex social problems because social problems are
inseparable from the fabric of society (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Wandersman,
Goodman, & Butterfoss, 1997) and collaboratives involve parts of the community system related
to the social problem of concern. Community collaborations are theoretically thought to be
critical to creating systems change because collaborative members have access to community
resources in ways that can potentially restructure how resources are utilized across organizations,
agencies, and groups within a community system (Mandell, 2001). Depending on the type of
systems change collaborative/initiative, community collaboratives can be designed to: “1)
leverage resources, 2) increase impact, 3) cut costs, 4) coordinate strategy, 5) increase
organizational visibility, 6) network, and 7) build the overall capacity of partnering organizations
to deliver services or otherwise respond to community needs.“ (Backer, 2003; p. 1)
Within the collaborative, the functioning of organizational members as part of the
community system plays an important role in creating systems change. In general, according to
Katz and Khan’s (1974) open systems framework, organizations act within an open system as
27

mechanisms for processing resources obtained from the environment into products that affect the
environment. In other words, this means organizations choose and utilize environmental
resources as needed to maintain their functioning. To be more specific in how this occurs,
Pretsby and Wandersman (1985) developed a framework of organizational viability suggesting
four components of organizational functioning: 1) resource acquisition, 2) the maintenance
subsystem, or the structure of the organization; 3) the production subsystem, or activities and
actions of the organizational players; and 4) external goal attainment or accomplishments. From
this perspective, an organization will most likely do what it takes to maintain functioning. It is
for this reason that intentional systems change collaboratives are potentially valuable. Systems
change collaboratives provide a centralized mechanism by which community entities are enticed
to work together and motivated to coordinate resources in ways that assist them in reaching
agreed upon goals. As discussed within organizational science (Wood & Gray, 199) and public
health literatures (Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002), this is precisely why collaboration is most likely
possible “when perceived need exists and an organization anticipates deriving a benefit that is
contingent upon mutual action” (Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002, p. 160).
Interorganizational community collaboration is anticipated to effect systems change
through engaging multiple constituents and sectors of a system working in coordinated and
value-added ways (Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman, 1996). They have the potential to tap
into dominant community resources by building trust across previously conflicted organizations
and create synergy among otherwise independent actors towards the development of more
positive outcomes of common interest to all stakeholders (Mandell, 2001). For example,
according to Clarke-Mcmullen (2010), coalitions increase health-promotion efforts by “acting as
direct links between agencies and communities, enhancing the ownership of programs, assisting
28

in mobilizing communities and resources to achieve program objectives, influencing public
policy, and raising the importance of specific health issues.” (pg. 241). Gray, Westley, and
Brown (1998) propose three general outcomes of collaborative efforts: 1) problem solutions, 2)
social capital generation, and 3) changes in the degree of institutionalization within the domain.
Gray (2000) emphasizes that optimal collaborative functioning would have some degree of
balance between the generation of social capital or resources and the changes in the degree of
institutionalization. In other words, the collaborative has a goal and pulls into its function all the
parts of the community it needs to generate change, pulling in resources as needed (i.e., funding,
collective power, advocacy, endorsements from powerful community leaders and the potential to
influence leaders who have the power to change existing policies and practices, etc.).
Although interorganizational collaboratives are a popular vehicle for creating systems
change, these collaborative entities have not previously proven to be successful in creating
community-level change empirically (Hallfors, Cho, Livert, & Kadushin (2002); Kreger, Brindis,
Manuel & Sassoubre, 2007; Kreuter, Lezin & Young, 2000; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000). For
example, Kreuter, Lezin and Young (2000) reviewed 68 studies of health changes that were
addressed using community collaborative interventions, and found there were only six examples
that documented any changed had actually occurred. Roussos and Fawcett (2000), reviewed 34
studies of 252 coalitions and concluded that they were ineffective in creating population-level
change. In addition, Hollfors, Cho, Livert, and Kadushin (2002) assessed the effectiveness of the
Robert Wood Johnson’s Fighting Back coalitions that sought to reduce substance abuse. They
examined the degree to which 12 coalitions adequately implemented the strategies required, and
the evidence regarding effects, and found that strategies aimed at either youth or
community/prevention outcomes showed no effects, and adult-focused outcomes showed
29

significantly negative effects over time when compared to controls. When they compared
coalitions that had a more diverse array of strategies, they demonstrated no more benefits than
others. Interestingly, these collaborative entities are not alone in their challenges. Within the
business management literature, an estimated 50% or more of businesses alliances fail (Kelly,
Schaan, & Jonacas, 2002); public and nonprofit networks have demonstrated difficulties
(O’Leary & Bingham, 2007); and many collaboratives are known to suffer from “collaborative
inertia” (Huxan & Van-gen, 2000).
Although systems change initiatives have not proven effective in creating communitylevel change there are methodological limitations associated with evaluating collaboration
effectiveness cited in the literature (Berkowitz, 2001; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000). When the focus
is on evaluating distal community-level change outcomes, Roussos and Fawcett (2000) recognize
that the results and effectiveness of coalitions are mixed, and Berkowitz (2001) acknowledges
that the lack of control group and points of comparison makes evaluation limited, at best. In
addition, upon a review of the literature, Kreuter (2000) makes three claims regarding limitations
in evaluating collaborative effectiveness with regard to community-level change: a) collaborative
mechanisms are inefficient and/or insufficient mechanisms for carrying out critical planning and
implementation tasks, b) expectations of health status/health systems change outcomes are
unrealistic, and/or, c) health status/health systems changes may occur but may go undetected
because it is difficult to evaluate and demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship. They conclude
that funders and practitioners are expecting too much and may not be asking the right questions
when evaluating collaborative activity.

30

Methodological critiques have brought about a renewed lens through which collaborative
researchers and evaluators examine and determine effective collaboration for systems change,
such as evaluating the extent to which collaboratives achieve internal or proximal outcomes
(Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010). Although interorganizational collaborations have not
historically proven to effectively promote or create community-level systems change, more
recent research has demonstrated their effectiveness in reaching proximal outcomes of the
collaborative unit that are logically expected to lead to more distal community-level systems
change. Therefore, examining the tensions involved in developing effective collaboration is an
important research agenda that can identify strategies for collaboratives, to augment what we
currently understand about enacting effective systems change.
What is effective collaboration for creating systems change? Over the last decade
there has been an increase in the literature addressing the need to understand effective
interorganizational collaboration for systems change. Although it is difficult to estimate longterm community-level change effectiveness, there has been a swell in the literature exploring the
most effective characteristics of interorganizational collaborations that develop successful
collaborative entities. This literature is inter-disciplinary and spans fields such as community
psychology, public health, organizational science, public administration, networks, action
science, and management. Sources in the literature discuss characteristics associated with
effective coalitions from the perspectives of empirical studies (Emshoff, et al., 2007), case
studies (Brown, Feinberg & Greenberg, 2010; Kreger, Brindis, Manuel, & Sassoubre, 2007;
Levison-Johnson & Wenz-Gross, 2010; Marchand, Fowler & Kokanovic, 2006; Mayer et al.,
1998; Page, 2003; Pretsby & Wandersman,1985; Hays, Hays, DeVille & Mulhall, 2000; SazCarranza & Ospina, 2011; Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010; Zakocs & Guckenburg, 2006;),
31

conceptual arguments (Backer, 2003; Butterfoss, 2007), theoretical frameworks (Butterfoss &
Kegler, 2002; Florin, Mitchell & Stevenson, 1993; Prochaska & DiClements, 1983; Prochaska &
Redding, 2002; Butterfoss, 2004; Butterfoss & Kegler, 2002; Brindis & Wunsch, 1996; Lasker
Weiss & Miller, 2001; Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004; Lasker & Weiss, 2003), and lessons
learned from practitioners (Arieli, Friedman & Agbaria, 2009; Chung & Lounsbury, 2006;
Kliebert, Osofsky, Osofsky, Costa, Drennan, Morese, & Morse, 2006; Wolff, 2001). What is
agreed upon across these literatures is the importance of participation promoting the utilization
of the diverse perspectives, resources and skills of organizational members. Several sources
discuss the importance of strengthening the work of the collaborative while simultaneously
building and maintaining relationships with community leaders and facilitating strategic
activities among partners around specific measures of progress particular to change goals
(Butterfoss, Goodman & Wandersman, 1996; Lasker & Weiss, 2001; Ospina, 2010; Provan &
Milward, 2001; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000; Saz-Carranza & Ospina, 2011;Wandersman,
Goodman & Butterfoss, 1997).
Participation & the Paradox of a Diverse Collaborative
At the level of the whole system network, interorganizational and inter-sectoral
collaboratives bring together a diverse set of stakeholders. The worldviews and expertise they
bring to the table regarding their sector of the community can change the way an entire
community of people conceptualize and solve complex and pressing social problems. To fully
address the multi-faceted nature of the social issues of concern, a representative collaborative is
necessary. However, collaboration is time consuming and hard work, and if there were some
other way to achieve the outcomes that the stakeholders seek, then they would most likely use
32

alternative means. Therefore, maintaining a balance of participation for the collaborative and
within the community while considering the resource constraints and motivations of community
partners is a must. Given the importance of a diverse collaborative network in effectively
meeting proximal collaborative-level and distal community-level outcomes, an examination of
participation is particularly relevant to understanding how to best support and address tensions
associated with it.
Participation. Interorganizational members are the greatest asset in a change initiative
(Butterfoss, 2007). Ideal participation is related to community and collaborative engagement
where partners actively participate in pressing community issues by way of leadership,
utilization of social networks, and access to resources or power (Butterfoss, 2006). This level of
participation requires high levels of commitment to the collaborative mission and goals that will
lead to hard work among partners not only within the collaborative but within the community
network of organizations, agencies, and groups that make up the community system of concern.
Within collaborative and coalition literature, a few articles suggest collaborative success
is a function of managing internal collaborative processes (Emshoff, 2007; Lasker, Weiss &
Miller, 2001; Page, 2003), while other literature stresses the importance of connections within
the community (Hays, Hays, DeVille & Mulhall, 2000; Zakocs & Guckenburg, 2006). Therefore,
upon review of this literature, participation can best be conceptualized in terms of participation
within both the collaborative and within the community-level network. Collaborative
participation refers to a social process where groups from a certain geographical area with
shared needs “actively identify needs, make decisions, and set up mechanisms to achieve
solutions” (Butterfoss, 2006; p. 325). This domain of participation is most related to achieving
33

the proximal outcomes of the systems change collaborative. Community-level Network
Participation involves “set[ting] up mechanisms”, referring to the development of relationships,
structures, or resources necessary to achieve goals, which are expected to involve the acquisition
of resources, resource contribution, and or utilizing community-level network connections to
achieve goals. This domain of participation is most related to achieving distal community-level
outcomes of the systems change collaborative.
Taken as a whole, effective collaborative participation is the active involvement of the
members of a collaborative working to achieve shared goals within these two participatory
domains simultaneously. Consistent with the management literature, Ospina and Saz-Carranza
(2010) refer to the management of these domains as attending to the inward and outward aspects
of interorganizational collaborative work. Whether examining collaborative participation or
community-level network participation, Ospina and Saz-Carranza (2010) argue that such
collaborative processes are laden with paradoxes that can create insurmountable challenges for
managing and working within such processes.
The paradox. The benefits to organizations being associated with and participating in
collaborative change endeavors are potentially many. However, the diversity of perspectives and
worldviews the organizations and agencies bring to the table also present various challenges to
achieving the goals of the work. Diverse collaborative groups can lead to tension, conflict
(Kreuter, Lezin, & Young, 2000; Wandersman, Goodman, & Butterfoss, 2007) or complete lack
of continued investment and participation in the group. Within the organizational science,
management, and action science literatures, interorganizational collaborative tensions are
discussed essentially as the paradox of participation (Arieli, Friedman & Agbaria, 2009; Chung
34

& Lounsbury, 2006; Ford & Backoff, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010; Poole
& Van de Ven, 1989).
A paradox is “dynamic tension grounded in the coexistence of opposites” (Ospina & SazCarranza, 2010; p. 3). A paradox is present when a situation has both contradictory and
interrelated elements that are quite logical when considered in isolation but contradict one
another when considered together (Lewis, 2000). Participation within systems change
community collaboratives fit the description of a paradox in both collaborative participation and
community-level network participation because in each domain contradictions exist. Within
collaborative participation, there is an effort to build a sense of community and unity among
participants around some shared goal while simultaneously seeking to engage a diverse
interorganizational membership in strategic planning that will likely disagree about how to
address such issues. Within community-level network participation, there are strategies
developed to confront certain community agencies and organizations about faulty practices or
policies while simultaneously seeking to engage them in intimate collaborative processes such as
dialogue where they may be asked to share resources (Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010).
Depending on the mission and goals of the systems change collaborative, it is important to have
the most relevant and diverse mix of stakeholders actively involved (Lawson, 2004) yet
combining these stakeholders brings tension.
The extent to which members of an interorganizational collaborative participate is
important because the effectiveness of a collaborative depends heavily on participation in both
the collaborative and the community-level network (Butterfoss, 2006; Butterfoss & Kegler,
2002; Granner & Sharpe, 2004; Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001). Not only is having active
35

participation important, having a diverse set of interests involved as collaborators are a benefit to
the collaborative efforts because they can speak to the issues of relevance to the community, can
access an array of needed resources, and make contacts with various powerful people within the
community network as needed to create change. In an interorganizational collaboration,
members ideally include a diverse set of representatives from several sectors of the community
including: the police department, the school district, the health department, the university,
foundations, business representatives, and the housing department, just to name a few. Whether
it be a small group collaboration for purposes of a group project or an interorganizational
collaborative made up of hundreds of organizational types, the tensions involved in creating
unity while appreciating and drawing on the strengths of diversity within any group activity is
not new (Smith & Berg, 1987). It can be anticipated that even the least diverse collaborative
network must expect to cope with the diversity of organizational characteristics (Saz-Carranza &
Ospina, 2010).
Challenges, barriers, and tensions associated with diverse collaboratives. Many
investigators have identified barriers, challenges and tensions associated with diverse
interorganizational collaborative success (Deets, 1991; Foster-Fishman, Perkins & Davidson,
1997; Harvard Family Research Project, 1992; Jennings & Krane, 1994; Johnson, Zorn; Kai
Yung Tam, Lamontagne, & Johnson, 2003; National Symposium of Developing Partnerships,
1992; Nowell, 2010; Osher, 2002; Page, 2003; Stegelin & Jones, 1991; Taylor-Powell, Rossing
& Geran, 1998). Across all of this literature, there are three main ways in which challenges,
barriers, and tensions have been discussed: 1) local context-specific challenges, 2) collaborative
structural barriers, and 3) interorganizational community-level network tensions.

36

Local context-specific challenges refer to the local characteristics of community settings
and the people that make up the interpersonal dynamics of the interorganizational communitylevel system. Specific contexts in which collaboratives function significantly influence how
stakeholders proceed to participate in collaboratives (Fishman, Perkins & Davidson, 1997) and
the literature on this topic brings light to the importance of considering such context-specific
dynamics at the outset of collaborative activity. Challenges discussed include the history of
strong competition, personality conflicts, personal concerns about job security, and people or
organizations in debt from the start of a collaborative effort. These context-specific challenges to
collaboration for change may or may not be consistent across communities; however it seems
possible that such concerns like job security, for example, might be prevalent in any change
effort within any community.
Collaborative structural barriers have received the most attention. Collaborative structural
barriers refer to those barriers to collaborative functioning that occur within the leadership,
coordination, and facilitation of collaborative activity (Butterfoss, 2007). Within the
management literature, it is common belief that network failure is a function of poor
management (Meyer, 1999). Therefore, there is a large set of literature within this field exploring
how to better manage goal-directed interorganizational network collaboratives. Some structural
barriers identified in the literature include faulty communication or goal conflicts; procedural
rigidities; lack of complete knowledge or information needed in order to act; unclear goals and
objectives; difficulties in identifying resources for the collaborative effort (e.g., time, funding);
establishment of a new layer of bureaucracy; difficulties in defining decision-making rules; lack
of consensus on issues of confidentiality; lack of sustained availability of key people; and undue
or inaccurate consideration of time and expenses involved in the collaborative effort. These types
37

of barriers are the ones that have received the most attention in practice and in literatures on
topics such as public and policy networks, public/private partnerships, collaboration
management, and business alliance and networks. All of these research streams discuss the
ambiguity, complexity, and tensions involved in network management and agree that managing
these paradoxical tensions is an art to be mastered (Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010).
Interorganizational community-level network tensions refer to challenges of dealing with
diversity and unique perspectives within the collaborative and in accomplishing community
system change goals (Foster-Fishman, Perkins & Davidson, 1997; Johnson, Zorn; Kai Yung
Tam, Lamontagne & Johnson, 2003; Nowell, 2010; Osher, 2002; Page, 2003). This literature
draws attention to the role that the unique perspectives and perceptions of partners play in
interorganizational collaboration. In other words, much of this literature is concerned with the
diverse perspectives and worldviews that partners bring to the work of a collaborative, the
assumptions through which they address a social issue (e.g., different perspectives on the
necessity and urgency of working together), and the perceptions they have about how others
contribute to critical tensions in the collaborative process.
As we know from the use of the terms inter-sectoral and interorganizational
collaboration, these types of collaborations are comprised of a mixture of perspectives and
worldviews about the etiology of a social problem of concern and how to address it. FosterFishman, Perkins, and Davidson (1997), based on experiences with interorganizational or intersectoral collaborative practice, discussed how stakeholder epistemology and biases of modes of
inquiry act as barriers to the collaborative approach. They note that the competing
epistemologies of partners and the specific contexts in which the collaboratives functioned
significantly influenced how stakeholders proceeded to invest in the collaborative. Additionally,
38

Nowell’s (2010) study of partner perceptions as barriers to collaboration concluded that the
presence of collaborative partners perceived to be philosophically out of sync by other partners
in their understanding of domestic violence, negatively influence the effectiveness of the
collaborative over and above the impact associated with the general degree of alignment in the
collaborative. Nowell’s empirical study essentially confirmed the practical experiences reflected
upon by Foster-Fishman et al. (1997). Implications of these findings highlight how managing
multiple perspectives within a collaborative may be an important focus point for collaborative
leadership and coordinators to consider, however, this literature does not inform what aspects of
these epistemologies and worldviews are most critical to address within collaborative
relationship building and communication.
Within action research literature, a recent article identified struggles associated with
working in the paradox of participation and lessons learned about how to deal with it in terms of
relationship building and communication strategies. Ariele, Friedman, and Agbaria (2009) used
the action science method of joint critical reflection to examine the tensions involved in the
failure of a 2-year effort to build participatory relationships between Jewish researchers and a
Palestinian Arab non-governmental organization. Action research involves a particular kind of
participation referred to most commonly as participatory action research (PAR) that seeks to
bridge a relationship between ‘researchers’ and ‘the community’ in an effort to create ‘cooperative inquiry’ (p. 264). This is relevant to the building and maintenance of
interorganizational collaborative relationships in that these efforts involve the incorporation of
two (or more) paradigmatically and philosophically different entities working together to reach
shared goals.

39

Consistent with Nowell (2010), findings from this study acknowledge the extent to which
collaborative partners were ‘out of sync’ and further elucidate how assumptions of partners
impeded the collaborative process. Since this is an action-based article, findings were most
clearly discussed as suggestions for how to deal with the paradox of participation stating how
they would have acted differently to avoid falling into the paradox. They would have engaged in
several action strategies such as: 1) test their assumptions, 2) be prepared to share resources at
the beginning of the process, 3) be prepared to place action before inquiry, 4) make power and
cultural differences discussable from the outset, 5) engage conflicts about roles, tasks,
boundaries, and authority early on, 6) establish time for systematic joint reflection, 7) make
reasoning explicit among partners, and 8) take initiative in admitting errors. What this reflective
study suggests is the necessity of being clear about the cultural assumptions, values, and
resources that partners bring to the table at the outset of relationship development. In terms of
building and maintaining co-operational working relationships among an interorganizational
collaborative community-level network, these findings suggest a clarification of cultural
assumptions and differences in power that shape the system of concern at the network-level.
While it is clear that diversity of collaborative membership provides several benefits to
collaborative partners, the paradox is that it can also bring about several potential barriers to
pursuing and creating systems change. Identifying what contributes to this major misalignment
in approaching the issues of concern is important because if the collaboration proceeds to address
the social issues of concern in ways that are inconsistent with some of the membership, and
without their buy-in, the collaborative risks losing the resources initially hoped to be enacted in
the collaborative effort.

40

Through an understanding of factors potentially influencing collaborative participation
we gain some understanding of how to manage some of the group dynamics through
collaborative structure mechanisms. However, this literature is limiting in the sense that we do
not gain an understanding of the system-level influences that, for example, contribute to the
power of different sectoral and organizational worldviews to shape perceptions and actions of
partners within the collaborative context (Maton, 2000). Through the application of complex
adaptive systems theory it is possible to consider how deep structures within community systems
that partners function in play a role in interorganizational collaborative participation. By
focusing on the behavioral settings and contexts that people function in and are constrained by, it
may be possible to identify intervention points that could better facilitate inter-sectoral and
interorganizational collaboration (Kelly, Ryan, Altman, & Steltzner, 2000).
Complex Adaptive Systems Theory & the Role of Organizational Culture
Among systems sciences, the theory of complex adaptive systems (CAS) (Anderson,
1999; Holland, 1992) is uniquely related to understanding the challenges associated with
participation in an interorganizational collaboration such as the PWC. A CAS refers to a network
of diverse, rule-based, interacting components with an evolving structure that steadily exhibits
emergent behavior. Much attention is focused on how behaviors emerge from the interactions of
system parts and therefore the main interests of CAS theory are to understand the aggregate of
the system’s behavior.
CAS is unique to studying complex systems that have the ability to learn and change over
time (Holland, 1992). CASs have three identifying characteristics: 1) adaptive – have the ability
to learn and change over time; 2) anticipate – in adapting to changing circumstances, parts of the
41

system develop rules that anticipate consequences of certain responses; and 3) lack central
control – there is no single governing equation or rules that control the system. A main feature of
CAS is that it takes into consideration the existence of an “evolving structure”, meaning the
structure of a system changes or reorganizes itself to adapt to changing conditions in the
environment. This is the main reason these types of systems are so difficult to understand and
control.
In using this framework to consider the interorganizational work of the PWC
collaborative system, the behavior of system parts and the relationships between systems parts
are likely to function based upon the choices such parts need to maintain existence as conditions
change over time. Much like the framework of organizational viability developed by Pretsby and
Wandersman (1985), system parts (organizations) and their relationships with other system parts
(organizations, agencies, groups, etc.) will function based on the needs of that particular
organization in maintaining their existence and viability. In other words, based on CAS theory, it
can be anticipated that organizations are likely to develop and maintain relationships with other
parts of the community system in ways that maintain their optimal functioning. This might
include partners they are comfortable with, have history with, share funding with, or already
coordinate activities with; partners that do not pose a threat. For example, Zakocs and
Guckenburg, (2006) studied the relationship between coalition factors and organizational
capacity to identify what aspects of coalition functioning were related to higher levels of
organizational capacity. Within a sample of 12 coalitions, 2 sites experienced major
disconnections with government offices. In one case, the city withdrew support because the
coalition decided to compete on a federal grant rather than collaborate on it, and in the second
case, the city pulled support when questions about mismanagement of funds arose. In these
42

cases, the barriers to collaboration between the community and the initiative involved
competition for resources and a reduction of trust between the initiative and the city. Although
we only know the results of these decisions, we do not know why these decisions were made on
the part of the coalition. When the organization is not held to any community-centered mission
or goal, it can be anticipated that collaborative stakeholder organizations will maintain activities
that contribute to maintaining and sustaining their existence leading to varied community-level
outcomes that are likely to serve their individual organizational interests. From this perspective
we might also suspect that partners may find it difficult to share resources with other
organizations that differ significantly in how they view social problems.
Also consistent with the CAS theory, interorganizational community systems, such as
that of concern to the PWC, do not function under any central control. Although community
organizations and agencies are set up to function within a set of federal, state, and county-level
laws and policies, there are little other criteria by which they are required to function. If
community-level interorganizational systems were functioning under some kind of central
control they would be more intentionally coordinated to meet the needs of a central mission, but
this is not how these organizations or agencies have been set up. Therefore, each agency,
organization, and group is free to vary in so far as their funding sources and leaders allow.
Within these non-centrally functioning community systems, where each entity has the ability to
function somewhat independently, coordination among the various community entities may be
fragmented at best.
The PWC provides a means by which community entities are enticed to work together
and motivated to coordinate resources in ways that assist them in reaching shared goals.
43

Although organizations associated with the PWC are encouraged to collaborate for shared
mission and purposes, efforts of building collaboration among this set of actors may create
dynamics between organizations that perpetuate competition for resources and therefore barriers
to collaboration because each part (organization) is governed and functions based on its own
rules and adaptive system. Within each of the organizations comprising a CAS, the organization
utilizes internal models or specialized worldviews to anticipate the future and choose certain
actions. CAS theory provides a rationale for which it becomes important to consider the ways in
which organizational culture of PWC network members may be influencing the extent to which
members participate in the PWC collaborative and the community-level network.
Organizational culture. Culture as a concept within organizational science literature is
taken quite seriously because of its importance in understanding and enhancing organizational
functioning. Knowledge about the culture of an organization is important when it comes to
understanding behavior and, in some cases, can be strategically manipulated to change how
leadership, managers, and employees relate to one another to enhance productivity (Alvelsson &
Karreman, 2001). In fact, organizational development literature suggests that organizational
culture can act as a barrier to internal strategic change initiatives (Cooper, Cartwright, & Earley,
2001). This is particularly relevant in that PWC member organizations have been invited to
participate in the consortium because they are anticipated to have the power and access to
influence relevant levers of community change, such as aspects of the organizations in which
they function. Based on this literature, we might expect that PWC organizational representatives
will experience some conflict of interests between the goals of their role as a member of the
PWC and the position they hold in their organization.

44

Although there is no agreed upon way of conceptualizing organizational culture in the
literature (Cooper, Cartwright, & Earley, 2001), organizational culture is most clearly
conceptualized in two different ways from two different paradigms across literatures. From a
sociological perspective culture is a metaphor for describing what organizations are; that culture
is an explicit social product arising from social interaction as intentional or unintentional
consequences of behavior (Cameron & Etington, 1988). From an anthropological perspective,
organizational culture is implicit in social life in that it naturally emerges as individuals
transform themselves into social groups (Alvesson, 2002; Schein, 2010). This viewpoint views
culture as a process rather than a product or a variable. It can be argued that both
conceptualizations can be useful in assessing this construct.
Organizational culture: The sociological perspective. When considering organizational
culture as an organizational attribute within a larger sociological context such as within an
interorganizational community-level network system, the competing values framework is a
useful theoretical tool. According to Cameron and Quinn (2011) organizational culture refers to
“an enduring set of values, beliefs, and assumptions that characterize organizations and their
members” (p. 169). Culture more specifically is concerned with the implicit more indiscernible
aspects of organizations, as opposed to the more observable attributes of organizations, often
referred to as organizational climate. From this conceptual perspective organizational culture is a
potential predictor of other organizational outcomes such as participation within a network or
collaborative.
The competing values framework identifies four major cultural types, or values systems
based on two main dimensions: effectiveness and orientation. Effectiveness refers to what people
value about an organization’s performance. Orientation refers to whether they are more
45

internally or externally oriented in focus. These dimensions identify what an organization is
more likely to value, to view as good or appropriate, and define the core values upon which
judgments are made about organizational effectiveness.
Based on the dimensions described above, the four main competing values systems are:
1) Hierarchical (control), 2) Market (compete), 3) Clan (collaborate), and 4) Adhocracy (create)
(Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Within each of these 4 types are dominant characteristics such as:
basic assumptions, cultural characteristics, values, leadership, and management styles.
Hierarchical organizations are best characterized as a formalized and structured place to work
where formal procedures, rules, and policies govern what people do and hold the organization
together. Effective leaders are considered good coordinators and organizers that maintain smooth
running processes within the workplace. The long-term concerns of the organization are stability,
predictability, and efficiency. Often within hierarchical organizations there are multiple
hierarchical levels focused on standard procedures and an emphasis on rule enforcement.
Market type organizations are highly competitive, operate primarily through economic
market mechanisms, and are focused mainly on monetary gains. Profitability is their bottom line
so they are often looking for ways to enhance profitability by reaching towards market niches,
stretch targets, and to secure consumer bases. Effective leaders are hard-driving producers and
competitors, tough, and demanding. The focus of these organizations are on transactions that
provide them with strong external positioning and control with constituents, including suppliers,
customers, contractors, unions, regulators, etc. These organizations assume the external
environment is hostile and that they need an aggressive strategy to obtain values of productivity
and profitability.

46

Clan type organizations are more collaborative in style with an internal focus. They are
more like extended families than economic entities with characteristics such as: teamwork,
employee involvement programs, and informal management levels (e.g., work teams run the
business), and corporate commitment to employees. Basic assumptions involve viewing
customers as partners, the importance of facilitating their employees' empowerment,
commitment; and loyalty; and the importance of informality and self-management.
As the name might suggest, adhocracy type organizations can best be characterized as
temporarily focused, specialized, and dynamic units most responsive to turbulent hyperaccelerating conditions present within the external environment. These organizations assume that
innovative and pioneering initiatives lead to success; organizations are mainly in the business of
developing new products and services focusing on preparing for the future, and that adaptation
and innovativeness lead to resource acquisition and profitability. Therefore, the major task of
management is to foster entrepreneurship, creativity, and activity on the cutting edge. Effective
leadership involves a lack of centralized power or authority relationships where power flows
from person to person or task team to task team depending on problems being addressed.
Identifying the more dominant values systems prevalent within the interorganizational
community-level network allows for this organizational attribute to then be compared to other
network level characteristics and outcomes. Unfortunately this conceptualization is limiting in
that we are not able to adequately assess the ways in which individual behaviors are shaped by
organizational culture. Therefore, shifting the lens by which we conceptualize organizational
culture to a more explicit context-specific framework is helpful.
Organizational culture: The anthropological perspective. To bring the focus from the
level of the interorganizational community-level network system to the level of the individual
47

functioning within localized organizational settings, an anthropological perspective such as the
definition of organizational culture provided by Schein (2010) provides a helpful framework:
“a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be
considered valid and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2010; p. 18).

If we view the workplace from a systems perspective, there are several types of parts
within this sub-system that need to be considered, specifically in the context of what levers or
factors may be acting as a barrier to, or influencing, collaborative member participation with the
community-level systems change collaborative. In fact, it is important to recall that the
workplace cultural context, within which the collaborative partner is a member, is likely a part of
the larger community-level system that may need to change how it functions and serves its
constituents. Conceptualizing organizational culture through the organizational setting in which
people work allows for a consideration of the potential context-specific attributes of an
organization, and implicit, often indiscernible levels of a cultural system that can act as barriers
or facilitators of interorganizational network and collaborative participation. Applying Schein’s
framework of organizational culture allows for such an analysis to be made when applied to very
specified and localized inquiry.
Schein’s theory of culture contains three levels. The first level is the most visual aspect of
a cultural system because it concentrates on the artifacts and creations of the culture. This
includes articles such as physical surroundings and language. Examples of articles within
organizations might include written documents such as bylaws, policies, mission statements,
work plans, logic models, websites, etc. that describe what actions to take, how to take action, or
how to make decisions. Although representative of underlying assumptions, values, and beliefs,
48

articles such as these help to “construct the physical and social environment” that are accepted
and perpetuated throughout the membership (Schein, 2010; p. 15); often termed climate.
Level two of Schein’s theory involves the values of an organization. Organizational
values may be set by the leadership and communicated through written or verbal artifacts of the
setting. This level of culture is much less tangible than the first where values components can be
conscious or unconscious, meaning organizational members may be unaware of the values of
their organization until explicitly asked.
Level three of Schein’s theory involves basic underlying assumptions of an organization.
Basic assumptions are described as “preconscious” and are taken for granted ways of viewing the
world in an organization and at this level of the organizational culture; organizational members
will likely have become so accustomed to the culture that it may be difficult for them to identify
the assumptions under which they have learned to function. Understanding the basic assumptions
of some setting requires deep investigation with organizational members in order to uncover
cultural assumptions.
Across both disciplinary conceptualizations of organizational culture there is congruence
in that both frameworks of organizational culture investigate the basic assumptions and values of
organizations. When applying these frameworks through the use of mixed-methodologies it is
possible then to use qualitative and quantitative data to triangulate the findings of a study on
those dimensions but also allows for a clearer understanding of the specific cultural factors that
may deeply affect levels of participation behaviorally within an interorganizational network or
collaborative. Additionally, for more practical purposes (as is also an aim of this study) by
investigating the aspects of organizational culture using Schein’s framework, it is possible to
49

learn about what cultural artifacts have been created based on certain basic assumptions and
values that can be altered to promote shifts in interorganizational and collaborative participation.
Study Rationale
Collaborative partners are paid participants within the organizational culture of their
workplace and therefore have some obligation to function within the norms of their workplace,
in relation to their assigned role, in that cultural setting (e.g., Deputy Director, team manager,
Public Relations Specialist, case worker, etc). Given the motivations partners have to behave in
alignment with the various aspects of their organizational employers (Kanfer, 1990), it is
possible the deep organizational structures to which partners are committed, will have an
influence on the extent to which partners can and will participate in a systems change
collaborative, as well as within the broader community-level network. Therefore, organizational
culture is anticipated to play some role in the individual behavior of the members within the
inter-sectoral collaborative; such as how much time they spend on collaborative activity, what
resources they contribute to the initiative, and to what extent they can or will compromise the
work more directly affiliated with their organizational role to meet the needs and goals of the
collaborative. It is for these reasons it is expected that organizational culture may play some role
in collaborative and interorganizational network participation for the PWC. Therefore, this study
seeks to answer the following research questions:

50

Organizational
Culture

Collaborative
Participation
Network
Participation

Figure 3: Proposed Study Conceptual Model
Central question: How does member organizational culture relate to collaborative participation
and network participation?
1. What are the network relationships among participants?
2. How does participation differ across the PWC’s youth-focused coalition members?
3. Which factors of organizational culture constrain or facilitate network and collaborative
participation?
4. How does participation differ across organization culture type?

51

CHAPTER 3
Research Design and Methods
Decisions have been made in research design and methods that relate to the intersection
of making contributions to the local community and to scholarship. Therefore, this chapter will
provide a detailed description of the community-based research approach to the overall project;
describe the participant sample; describe the two phases of the research study design, protocols,
measures, and analysis used to answer each research question; explain procedures for data
collection; methods of data management; and methods used to ensure trustworthiness and
validity of data analysis.
Community-Based Research Overall Approach
This study has been designed using a community-based research paradigm. The emphasis
of the research process is on the shared relationship of the research endeavor where the
participation and influence of nonacademic collaborators are involved in the process of creating
and benefiting from knowledge gained from the study. According to a review of communitybased research partnerships (Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998), this type of research
involves 8 main principles and most community-based research studies will fall somewhere on a
continuum on each principle. These 8 principles include the following: 1) recognizes community
as a unit of identity; 2) builds on strengths and resources within the community; 3) facilitates
collaborative partnerships in all phases of the research; 4) integrates knowledge and action for
mutual benefit of all partners; 5) promotes a co-learning and empowering process that attends to
social inequalities; 6) involves a cyclical and iterative process; 7) addresses health from both
positive and ecological perspectives; and 8) disseminates findings and knowledge gained to all
52

partners. The design of the study was as closely related to the local issues for two reasons: 1) so
that the scholarly contribution would include an accurate representation of what happens in reallife collaborative contexts, and 2) to ensure that information obtained and analyzed for reporting
purposes will be of most use to the needs of the community partner.
Formative systems analysis. The literature on interorganizational collaboratives asserts
the importance of assessing and evaluating intermediate collaborative process outcomes, such as
community participation, to link them to realistic, corresponding community outcomes
(Butterfoss, 2006). Formative evaluations are one way to inform collaborative partners about
how they can refine their activities by using data that will provide feedback regarding how to
improve activities that will lead to outcomes (Patton, 2002). Formative evaluations often involve
various forms of data to answer pragmatic questions of concern to the partner, such as
observations of meetings, participant surveys, event or activity logs, key informant interviews,
focus groups, and reviews of existing documents (Butterfoss, 2006). A formative evaluation
approach is used for deciding what data will provide for a more practical system analysis. These
particular data are collected specifically for providing feedback to the PWC collaborative about
how to refine their practice and act more effectively.
Participant Sample. In seeking to explore the relationship between organizational
cultures of partners within a collaborative, a community collaborative was sought that was
interorganizational and inter-sectoral in nature. The collaborative needed to also have been in
existence for an extended period of time where retrospective participation experiences could be
explored. The potential for the research partnership with the PWC was facilitated through the
Michigan State University i2i Framework team within University Outreach and Engagement.
53

The PWC coalition members were sought to participate in this study through the main
coordinator of the PWC as well as through the coordinators of selected PWC coalitions.
The PWC involves twelve coalitions that comprise its interorganizational network;
however, this study will examine the network of only the six coalitions that focus on the early
stages of human development (youth-focused coalitions). This study follows the rationale of a
primary prevention approach because the focus of the study is on parts of the community system
that address early human development. This study focuses on the organizations, agencies, and
groups most associated with the health and development of the population within the ages of 0-to
14 years old (See Table 4).
Table 4 : Study Sample of PWC coalitions
1. Birth to Five Subcommittee
2. Infant Mortality Initiative
3. Strong Families, Safe Children
4. Community Coalition for Youth
5. Impact
6. Immigrant and Refugee Resource Collaborative

Scholarly Research Study Design
This is a cross-sectional non experimental research design best described as a case study.
Case Studies are a terminal form of inquiry that are chosen as an approach that will intentionally
capture specific, complex, and bounded information about some functioning program, person, or
other entity (Yin, 2003). A case study approach is being used to capture the context specific
nature of the community-based collaborative through the collection of both quantitative and
54

qualitative data. Case study research is based on a naturalistic methodology that makes it
possible to deal with the subjective and complex nature of particularly complex phenomenon
under study (Stake, 1995). In a more practical sense, collecting quantitative and qualitative data
is recommended to provide more comprehensive understanding of not only organizational
culture, but also particularly collaborative development, function, and impact (Goodman, et al.,
1996; Israel et al., 1998). Due to the complexity associated with assessing systems and
interorganizational collaboration (Patton, 2011), it has also been suggested by Goodman,
Wandersman, Chinman, Imm, and Morrissey (1996) that utilizing multiple types of data through
triangulation, can be helpful in avoiding bias inherent in any one type of methodology and for
enhancing validity.
Two-phase sequential mixed-methods approach. This study used a mixedmethodology called a two-phase sequential mixed-methods approach because it begins with a
quantitative study and is followed by a more in-depth qualitative study. This mixed –method
approach is “characterized by the collection and analysis of quantitative data in a first phase of
research followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data in a second phase that builds
on the results of the initial quantitative results”(Creswell, 2009). Using mixed-methods can be
controversial because of the paradigmatic differences inherent in the nature of both forms of
inquiry; however, this approach is based on a pragmatic worldview which assumes that
collecting diverse types of data best provides an understanding of the research problem. A
paradigmatic worldview acknowledges the strengths that each line of inquiry brings to
understanding of the research questions at hand.
Particularly for this study, the sequential mixed-methods approach is parsimonious with
the explanatory mechanisms that can be explored within social network analysis methodology in
55

terms of structuralism and connectionism (Borgatti, 2003). Structuralism focuses on the structure
or configuration of ties in a network, whereas a connectionist approach focuses on understanding
the resources that flow through social ties with an emphasis on relational embeddedness and ties
as conduits. Through the use of quantitative and qualitative methods, it can be argued this study
is allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of the culture and character of the network
under study by allowing for inquiry using both methodological techniques.

PHASE 1 – System Network Analysis
Data Collection Procedures
Step 1: Obtaining buy-in and increasing chance of data collection. To increase
chances of collecting data on the global network of PWC organizations, a presentation and
discussion of the project and its benefits took place at a monthly PWC meeting whereby the
researcher obtained verbal and written support for the project. The PWC coordinator emailed the
PWC listserv to inform members they will be receiving an online survey from the researcher and
to fill it out as soon as possible. To further increase probability of support and collection of data
among the organizations, the researcher attended several monthly meetings for each of the 6
coalitions associated with the PWC to discuss the project's cost-benefit status and obtain support
from the overall coalition so that organizational leaders would be more likely to fill out the
survey when they received it.
Step 2: Creating a global network roster. Although this study only analyzed the data
associated with the six identified coalitions, a description of the process of data collection for all
coalitions will be described because the procedures used to survey all coalitions were combined
56

in the same process. A phone call and email was sent to each coalition coordinator listed on the
contact list to obtain the contact information for their participating organizations (name and
email address) and the name of the person who could best speak to the organization they
represent and who could describe the organization’s connection to the work of the PWC.
Each list of organizational contacts for each coalition was added to the overall list of
PWC participants provided by the PWC coordinator where all contact lists were compared. Next,
these lists were crosswalked with the list of organizations on the PWC membership roster and
the PWC Leadership list to create a final participant pool and global network roster. When cross
walking these lists, the researcher was careful not to delete organizations repeated across lists
that have different contact person names associated with them. This was done because I wanted
to include potential contacts listed for the same organization in as much as representatives from
different parts of an organization may attend different types of meetings associated with the
broader collaborative (e.g., CMH executive director may attend PWC leadership meetings, CMH
project coordinator may attend PWC monthly meetings, and CMH case manager may attend
coalition meetings, etc.). I wanted all of the data for that organization so that I could fully
understand the organization’s participation within the collaborative and among the network of
partners.
Step 3: Collecting data. Once a global network roster was created, an online survey link
was emailed to every person on the list. The survey was emailed to the list three times to increase
the chances of collecting data from the entire list. The investigator was informed that many
people may be taking vacations during the month of July so the online survey was resent to those
who had not submitted their survey again in August. As participants submitted their online
surveys, the data were automatically entered into an online database that was then exported into
57

an Excel document and subsequently imported into UCINet for analysis. Some participants were
not familiar with online surveys or did not have the technological capacity to fill out an online
survey and in those cases a hard copy survey was delivered to the participant along with a selfaddressed and stamped return envelope to be mailed directly to the researcher at the University
Outreach and Engagement office. A hard copy was only necessary for one participant.
Description of Measures
This study utilized several measures intended to access information across multiple levels
(e.g., individual-level, organizational-level, coalition-level). Measures include participant
demographics, organizational attributes, organizational culture, PWC collaborative participation,
and network participation. What follows are in-depth descriptions of each construct measure.
Participant demographics. Demographics include data collected to understand the
presenting state characteristics of the participants filling out the survey. These data include
member demographics (e.g., gender/sex, racial/ethnic background, age), the role of the
participant within the organization, the length of time they have been with the organization, and
a description of any roles they have within the PWC collaborative.
Organizational attributes. Data were collected on organizational attributes including the
problem domain the organization addresses, whether the organization is a member of the PWC
collaborative, the sector of the community, the organization name, the type of organization (e.g.,
state government, city government, local economic development, etc.), and the county it serves.
Organizational culture. This study used the Organizational Culture Assessment
Inventory (OCAI) to assess the dominant type of organizational culture present within a
58

participating organization. The OCAI is based on a competing values framework that “identify
aspects of the organization that reflect key values and assumptions in the organization, and then
give individuals an opportunity to respond using their underlying archetypal framework”
(Cameron & Quinn, 2011; p. 173). This is similar to a psychological archetype commonly used
to organize information. Each participant is asked to construct an organizational culture profile
by responding to six main questions assessing six key dimensions of organizational culture: 1)
Organizational Characteristics – what the overall organization is like; 2) Organizational
Leadership – the leadership style and approach that permeate the organization; 3) Management
of Employees – the style that characterizes how employees are treated and what the environment
is like; 4) Organizational Glue – bonding mechanisms that hold the organization together; 5)
Strategic Emphasis – what areas of emphasis drive the organization’s strategy; and 6) Criteria of
Success – how victory is defined within the organization and what gets rewarded and celebrated.
For each of the six questions there are four alternatives, each of which receives a rating (A =
Clan, B = Adhocracy, C = Market, D = Hierarchy). Each of the four alternatives describes
scenarios that exemplify each of the four archetypes. In this questionnaire participants were
asked to divide 100 points among these four alternatives depending on the extent to which each
alternative is similar to their organization. Under each question, the alternatives were rated a
different percentage out of a total of 100 where the higher percentages rank high because they
are most similar to a description that matches characteristics of the participant’s organization
(See Appendix B). The researcher scored the OCAI scale by adding together all responses for
each alternative and computing an average score for each so that the organization received an
average score for each culture type indicating the types of culture dominant in that organization.
The cultural type most dominant within the organization identifies the organization’s dominant
59

cultural type. Internal reliability coefficients for each of the cultural archetypes are: Clan = .74,
Adhocracy = .79, Hierarchy = .73, Market = .71. Face validity was assessed and confirmed by
talking with 10 people informally about this measure (2 sociology students, 3 psychology
students, 1 agricultural economics student, 2 organizational change consultants, 1 city worker,
and 1 chef).
PWC collaborative participation. Data were collected to assess the level of
participation organizations have within the PWC collaborative, such as decision-making, time
spent on PWC activities, involvement in meetings, extent to which they lead activities with the
PWC, and extent to which they contribute in-kind or financial resources to the PWC. This scale
was developed with the coordinator of the PWC to ensure the range of ways organizations might
participate in the collaborative are represented and in tandem with literature discussing measures
of coalition participation (Butterfoss, 2006). The potential weakness of this measure is that it has
no pre-established validity or reliability. However, there is excellent internal consistency with a
Cronbach alpha of .908 for the total measure.
Network participation. This study collected network data on the organizations related to
the work of the PWC (nodes) and the relationships they have with others in the network (tie).
Social network measures used for analysis include: relationship multiplexity, network
centralization, network density, degree centrality, and relationship quality (see Appendix B).
Node and tie identification. To identify what nodes (organizations, agencies, groups) and
ties (relationships) are present, this study requested organizations to identify those organizations
they have interacted with in the last year related to their problem domain in the community (i.e.,
What organizations has your organization worked with in the last year that are related to the
60

community issues your organization addresses?). This survey used the roster method that lists all
the organizational members that comprise the overall global network of the PWC. From this
global roster, participants were asked to click the box next to all the organizations they work
with.
Multiplexity. Relationship multiplexity allows for understanding the types of resources
exchanged through identified relationships. To assess level of multiplexity, the following
variables were used (survey items Question 24 and 27 items 2-8): 2) Does your organization
EXCHANGE INFORMATION with this organization? (e.g., leadership communication, share
announcements about activities) [y =1, N =0], 3) Does your organization EXCHANGE DIRECT
FINANCIAL RESOURCES with this organization? (e.g., grants, paid contracts) [y = 1, N = 0],
4) Does your organization EXCHANGE IN-KIND RESOURCES with this organization (e.g.,
other commodities such as personnel time, administrative assistance, expertise, etc.)? [y = 1, N =
0], 5) Does your organization EXCHANGE SERVICES with this organization? [y = 1, N = 0],
6) Does your organization REFER other organizations, agencies, groups or people to them? [y =
1, N = 0], 7) Does your organization have a LEGAL/OFFICIAL document that binds you to this
organization?, [y = 1, N = 0], 8) Do you SOCIALIZE WITH anyone from this organization
outside of work? [y = 1, N = 0]. A total multiplexity score was calculated by summing the
number of types of relations the organization has aggregated across organizational
representatives to obtain one value to describe the strength of the relationship. Values can range
between 1 and 7 where the value represents the number of types of exchange in the relationship.
For example, an organization with a total multiplexity value of 7 is engaged in all the types of
exchange possible.

61

Network Centralization. Network Centralization examines the distribution of centrality at
the network level to determine if a sociogram is more “centralized” in one direction due to the
highly central participatory behaviors of specific nodes and is measured by summing the
differences in the centrality of the most central node to all other nodes, normalized by the
maximum possible (Freeman, 1979).
Network Density. Network Density refers to the overall connectedness among
organizations within a network (Provan et al., 2005) and is calculated by dividing the total
number of present ties by the total number of possible ties. Network density is represented by a
value between 0 (an empty graph) and 1 (a complete graph, or everyone is connected to everyone
in the graph).
Degree Centrality. Degree Centrality identifies nodes with high degree of centrality in a
network structure, which means the node maintains more numerous relations than other nodes in
the network (Knoke & Burt, 1983). A node that occupies a position of high degree centrality is
anticipated to potentially have more access to resources and have more influence within a
network (Freeman, 1979).
Relationship quality. Although this study was not designed to specifically assess
relationship quality, data collected did allow for analysis of ease of the relationship, relationship
satisfaction, and the importance of the relationship for achieving organizational goals.
Network Analysis Procedures
The first step in conducting a network analysis involves constructing a visual sociogram.
Sociograms represent a “social network as a model of a social system consisting of a set of social
62

actors and the ties between them” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). The sociogram is a visual
representation of the network graph that enables one to visualize two sets of information: 1) the
nodes (i.e., organizations), and 2) the ties (i.e., relationships) that exist between them. Through
sociograms we are able to understand the social structural properties of a social system which
includes: the presence of clusters, concentrations of ties among nodes, the distribution of
organizational (node) attributes within the system and how they may be related to relationship
ties. This is equivalent to running descriptive statistics in order to observe patterns within the
network. Sociograms were produced using UCINet software which allows for the estimation of
calculated values such as centrality, density, and multiplexity (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman,
1999). This software allows for the visual plot to be generated using NetDraw.
PHASE 2 – Qualitative Inquiry
Use of Qualitative methods
The topic of the role of organizational culture within interorganizational collaborative
and network participation has received little investigation in the literature. While the social
network analysis allows for a broader network-level understanding of how organizational culture
types relate to participation, qualitative inquiry was used to gain a more in-depth understanding
of what aspects of organizational culture are related to network and collaborative participation.
Qualitative follow-up interviews therefore are appropriate because they can more fully explore
the in-depth and complex human experiences related to such types of participation within a
specified context (Geertz, 1973). Together both types of inquiry provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the answers to the research questions.

63

Phenomenological approach
A phenomenological framework elucidates how people make sense of lived experiences
and how the sense-making process may influence consciousness around a particular phenomenon
(Van Manen, 1990). This study used an inductive phenomenological strategy of inquiry to
understand lived experiences as they is related to interorganizational collaborative processes
(Creswell, 2009). Within this approach, the researcher brackets their own perspective and
experiences to understand the experiences of those participants in the study to acknowledge the
lens of the investigator separate from the data. In this study, the phenomenological approach was
be used to assist in the development of a coherent story or narrative about how organizational
culture plays a role in a participants’ ability to participate in an interorganizational network and
collaborative entity through their reflections on experiences of such entities.
Procedures
Sample. To allow for maximum variation of the findings, a purposive sampling
technique was used (Patton, 2001). To identify the sample of organizations to be interviewed, 15
organizations were randomly identified across the 4 types of organizational cultures (5 =
Hierarchical, 5 = Adhocracy, 5 = Clan, 5 = Market). A random sample from each category was
used because there is no theoretical basis upon which to sample in a more specific way. It was
anticipated that sampling five organizations from each organizational culture type would allow
equal weight in understanding the different types of organizational cultures within a network
more broadly. As a result of this sampling method, I was not unintentionally sampling one
organizational type more than another. However, once all organizations were categorized by
culture type, there were not enough organizations within the Market type category that fit the
64

sampling criteria for interviews. In an effort to obtain some information about Market type
organizations, I conducted an interview with the one representative. Additionally, there were
only 5 organizations categorized as Hierarchical type and two of them did not participate (one
person never responded and the other insisted they had nothing to comment on due to being new
to her position and having a lack of understanding about the PWC). Therefore, the final
interview sample includes a total of 14 interviews including 3 Hierarchical, 5 Adhocracy, 5 Clan,
and 1 Market type organization. At the individual-level, survey data associated with each
respondent interviewed can also be considered within the interviews. It is important to note that 1
participant was black/African American and all others were white. Regarding gender/sex, 9 are
Female and 5 are Male. Within each interview, levels of participation were explored in more
depth.
Recruitment. Participants from each identified organization were recruited using the list
of contacts provided by each of the six participating coalitions. The person asked to be
interviewed for each organization was the person thought to have the most intimate
understanding of the organization’s activity with the PWC collaborative and broader knowledge
about their organization’s interorganizational activity. To get the contact information for this
person, information was acquired from the PWC coalition they were most connected to. This
information was acquired upon the collection of data for the full network roster discussed in
phase 1.
Each person was contacted first by email and then by phone if they did not respond to
email. They received an explanation of the project, and asked if they were interested in
participating in the study. Upon contact, the investigator: 1) introduced the purpose and
65

background of the study, 2) explained the potential contributions their participation could make
in terms of benefits to the PWC and their own organization; 3) described what participation in
the study involves (e.g., consent form, length of interview, types of questions to be asked,
recording of the interview); 4) notified them of their rights as participants; and 5) explained the
process of ensuring confidentiality. If interested, an interview time was scheduled. If they were
not interested, the reason was assessed and another random name that met the sampling criteria
was contacted by the same procedures. A copy of the consent form (See Appendix C) was
emailed or mailed to the member in advance of the scheduled interview and acquired by the
investigator at the time of the interview after assessing whether the participant had any further
questions. Participants were given a copy of the consent form and contact information of the
investigator in case questions arose at any point after the discussion. All interviews were audio
recorded and subsequently transcribed in an effort to acquire accurate data.
Semi-structured open-ended interviews. Interviews were guided by a semi-structured,
open-ended protocol (See Appendix D). The areas of inquiry explored within the interview
protocol included: 1) the perspective of the participant as it pertains to their role within their
organization, 2) a general understanding of the organizational culture they work in (e.g., the
assessment of values and assumptions based on artifacts including: physical symbols, stories,
language systems, traditions, and behavioral norms ), 3) an understanding of the organization’s
participation with the PWC collaborative, 4) an understanding of the organization’s participation
within the network, and 5) the organizations role in the community. For each area of inquiry,
questions and probes were asked in an effort to uncover the organization’s cultural assumptions
and values of organizational members. Interviews lasted approximately 60-90 minutes.
Interviews were recorded using digital recorders.
66

Data Analysis Procedures
Broadly, this study used within-case analysis to understand each individual’s perceptions
of contextual factors related to their participation within the four types of organizational cultures
as well as cross-case analysis to identify the possible patterns of themes across the experiences of
participants. Cross-case analysis was used specifically to understand if and how organizational
culture relates to participation across culture type. Throughout both the coding and analysis
processes, detailed notes were taken to describe how decisions were made.
Interviews were transcribed, quality checked for accuracy, and organized within word
document files on secure server for further data management and analysis. The data was
organized and reduced to a more manageable form of data analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
This process included identifying within each transcript the data that pertains to the research
questions (as described above) and resaved as a second file for analysis. This was done in an
effort to maintain an original copy of the data file just after cleaning.
Within-case analysis. Within-case analysis was used in an effort to examine the
individual lived experiences of organizational participants as it pertained to understanding the
cultures of their organizations and how that related to participation. Brief case summaries were
created for each organization to detail the: organizational attributes, participant’s role/perspective
on the organization, relationships with the PWC collaborative, relationships with the
interorganizational network, and perceptions of the organization’s role within the broader
community. From this analysis it was possible to examine the unique contextual or individuallevel factors that may be influencing personal experiences related to the findings. Teasing out the

67

differences between personal perspectives on the work and dominant organizational perspectives
on the work were documented in this analysis process.
Within case descriptions were compared with the cultural type identified from the survey
categorization for triangulation purposes. Qualitative findings further confirmed that the OCAI
cultural type categories were valid as it was discovered that the descriptions of organizational
culture captured in the interviews matched the definitions of each culture type within the OCAI
measurement handbook. These findings were consistent across all interviews within each cultural
type. Therefore, the OCAI descriptions of organization assumptions associated with each
organizational culture were used to assist in deducting the organizational assumptions underlying
the values and beliefs associated with network and collaborative participation. Deducting
assumptions from the data was suggested as the method for identifying organizational culture
assumptions when using Schein’s theoretical framework (Pedersen & Pedersen, 1989).
Cross-case analysis. Inductive and deductive analysis processes were used to identify the
factors of organizational culture related to member participation. First, inductive content analysis
was used where pre-existing frameworks were bracketed so that findings were extracted from
only the data to discover patterns and themes across cases (Patton, 2001). The process involved
open-coding all of the transcripts to identify patterns and themes across cases that pertain to the
focus of each research questions (research questions 3 and 4). Patterns and themes developed as
the data were coded and initial coding schemas revised as coding continued across transcripts.
An analysis code book was used to log the codes identified, the definition associated with each
item and the decision criteria used for each decision along the analysis. A full set of codes was

68

then applied to all of the transcripts. Next steps involve creating categories called second-order
themes which integrated meaning across codes.
Second, deductive analysis involved viewing the inductive coding structure from the
perspective of a prescribed theoretical lens (Patton, 2001). Using Schein’s theory of
organizational culture (Schein, 2010), each set of codes were fit within this theoretical
framework where an integrated framework was created. Schein’s theory of organizational culture
encompasses all aspects of organizations (artifacts, values and beliefs, assumptions); therefore
every aspect of the inductive coding structure fits within this theoretical framework to identify
the overarching culture and characteristics of the PWC network that facilitate or constrain
network and collaborative participation.
Trustworthiness of data and validity of analysis
Specifying validity and credibility of the data and analysis process is important in both
quantitative and qualitative analysis. “Trustworthiness” refers to the internal validity, external
validity, reliability, and objectivity of the data and analysis process (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).
This is important so that interpretations do not reflect only the researcher’s own biases (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990). To minimize threats to the validity and credibility of the findings, several
criteria were used: 1) negative case analysis, 2) member checks, 3) prolonged engagement, and
4) assessing the non-generalizability/transferability of the findings.
Negative case analysis involves searching for alternative themes, divergent patterns and
rival explanations (Patton, 2002). Member checks involve bringing findings back to participants
to get feedback from participants on the connections made in the analysis and interpretation
69

(Patton, 2002). Since “another way to enhance credibility is to have the intended users of [the
findings] provide feedback” (Patton, 2002; p 136). The investigator took the findings to the
organization representatives to get their feedback on the ideas that emerge in the analysis and
incorporate this feedback into the data coding. Prolonged engagement involves having an
ongoing relationship with the participants. Given that the researcher is conducting a formative
evaluation with the collaborative, and has a working relationship with them, this criteria is met.
The final criteria used to minimize threats to the credibility of the findings included
assessing the non-generalizability/ transferability of the findings. The findings are based on a
very specific sample from a specific geographic location and is therefore not necessarily
generalizable to all other collaborative bodies. This is apparent in the exploratory nature of the
study but will be continuously explicit from proposal throughout to the presentation and potential
publications of future findings. However, this is a case study which allows the inquiry to take
place for intrinsic reasons (i.e., the PWC is an interesting collaborative to explore for the sake of
interorganizational exploration) and instrumental reasons (i.e., a case study is necessary for
exploring a research phenomenon based on clear theoretical constructs as defined in literature;
Stake, 1995). Given the in-depth nature of the research questions at hand, a case study was most
instrumental in allowing these particular questions to be answered.
While generalizations may be limited based on the specific context of the PWC, the
findings must be taken seriously in terms of what we learn about the constructs explored.
Multiple case studies of similar type may prove generalizable across collaboratives; however, it
has been argued more recently in evaluation literature that understanding the more personal
relationship-based details of cases are important in understanding complex phenomena.
70

Therefore, within this type of context-specific highly complex systemic inquiry, “the stories are
the point” (Patton, 2011; xii) and making generalizations are not particularly necessary.
Overall Data Management Procedures
An Information and Technology (IT) team manages and oversees the security of the University
Outreach and Engagement (UOE) computer and data security system. All survey data were
stored electronically and all interviews digitally recorded and saved to a secure computer APUO
server within the UOE computer and data storage system. The secure computer server APUO
domain is built off the Windows Active Directory structure using the New Technology File
System (NTFS). Active Directory provides information security and a single sign-on for user
access to networked resources. Combined with the NTFS, directory and file access is controlled
not only on a user based level, but also on the type of access, such as read only. All of these data
share criteria were administered by the investigator under which the data “belongs”. Data were
stored on both the local workstation as well as on the main APUO server. Access to the data is
limited to only the data owner and student research assistants via use of secure password
protected computers. All data were backed up on a nightly basis. Backups were kept as far as 30
days back. Data for this project is stored for four years after the project has been completed.
With regard to confidentiality, any and all hard copies of data were stored in a locked
cabinet in the UOE office. In order to maintain confidentiality, identification numbers given to
data were saved in an electronic file completely separate from names of participants. All
transcripts were coded and cleaned so that names of participants could not be linked to
transcribed data. Cleaning transcripts entailed more generally renaming or coding parts of an
interview transcript that may identify the participant and creating a separate codebook for
71

logging information that will inform a data analyst of the original words of the interviewee so
that actual interpretation is not lost through the cleaning process. It was expected that the
renaming or coding of the parts of an interview would be clear enough so there is no need to
refer to the codebook however, in the case of any confusion, the codebook was retained
electronically in a separate file from the names of participants and transcripts. Students assisting
with any of the transcription underwent Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB) online training in order to learn about research ethics and confidentiality issues, and were
required to supply a certificate of completion prior to working with data. Students signed a
confidentiality agreement (See Appendix E) stating that they will not disclose identifying
information from interviews to any third party and underwent training so they knew how to
follow strict procedures regarding the storage of data.

72

CHAPTER 4
Results
Overview
The study was designed to answer several research questions as they relate to the network
of PWC you-focused coalitions. The research questions explored in this study include: 1) What
are the network relationships among participants? 2) How does participation differ across the
PWC’s youth-focused coalitions? 3) Which factors of organizational culture constrain or
facilitate network and collaborative participation? 4) How does participation differ across
organization culture type? To answer these questions, this study used a sequential mixedmethods study design that involved the collection of data from two separate phases. The social
network data and interview data form the basis for understanding collaborative member
participation with the PWC. Results are presented as they relate to the research questions across
phases 1 and 2.
Introduction to the PWC Network
It is important to note that early in the process of developing the global roster of
organizations of interest for this study, it was discovered that two of the 12 PWC coalitions were
not able to participate in this study as anticipated for different reasons. It was discovered that the
Strong Families/Safe Children coalition is no longer a true coalition. Strong Families/Safe
Children was initially represented as a coalition within the PWC but over time has been reduced
to a representative of the state office that occasionally provides funds to support programs and
initiatives for families and children within Ingham County. The PWC recently updated their
73

materials to exclude this as a coalition. The IMPACT coalition is a true coalition of the PWC yet
they were not interested in participating in this study. An attempt was made to understand why
they were not willing to participate but no response was received. Both of these entities were
originally identified as an important part of the population of concern in this study, which only
includes the youth-focused coalitions, a total of 6. Therefore, of the 6 coalitions originally
identified as the primary study sample, only 4 are included in the results that follow.
The revised sample of youth-focused coalitions involved in this study include: 1) the
Infant Mortality Initiative (IMI), 2) the Birth to Five Ingham Great Start Collaborative (IGSC),
3) the Community Coalition for Youth (CCY), and 4) the Immigrant and Refugee Resource
Collaborative (IRRC). Since this study is embedded within a broader formative evaluation of the
entire PWC, I will first describe the overall responses received across the PWC and then focus
more specifically on the network participation of the organizations related to the 4 main youthfocused coalitions of interest to this study and their affiliated organizations throughout the
remainder of the results.
Review of Network Analysis Measures
The primary measures used for analysis will briefly be reviewed. The first two research
questions regarding network participation will be answered through an exploration of network
sociograms. A sociogram allows for the visualization of organizational relationships through the
nodes (i.e., organizations) and the ties (i.e., relationships) that exist between them. The
sociogram serves the interests of the community partner in learning about the dynamics of the
network but also answers the research question through identifying the interorganizational
network structure of relationships are among participants. Two main sociograms were created to
74

obtain a basic understanding of the interorganizational network relationships among: 1) the
broader PWC network, and 2) the 4 youth-focused coalitions of concern in this study.
The sociograms are discussed in terms of multiplexity, Network centralization, network
density, and degree centrality measures primarily because these indices assist in understanding
the overall composition of a network and identify more prominent or influential nodes
participating in the network. Multiplexity is defined as the strength of the relationship between
individual network partners based on the amount of types of relations they maintain (Provan et
al., 2005). A total multiplexity score was calculated by summing the number of types of relations
the organization has aggregated across organizational representatives to obtain one value to
describe the strength of the relationship. Values can range between 1 and 7 where the value
represents the number of types of exchange in the relationship. For example, an organization
with a total multiplexity value of 7 is engaged in all the types of exchange possible.
Network Centralization examines the distribution of centrality at the network level to
determine if a sociogram is more “centralized” in one direction due to the highly central
participatory behaviors of specific nodes. Critical to understanding network centralization is an
understanding of centrality and centrality is a function of the number of nodes an organization
nominates (out-degree) as well as the number of nodes that nominate them (in-degree). Network
centralization is measured by summing the differences in the centrality of the most central node
to all other nodes, normalized by the maximum possible (Freeman, 1979). Network Density
refers to the overall connectedness among organizations within a network (Provan et al., 2005)
and is calculated by dividing the total number of present ties by the total number of possible ties.
Network density is represented by a value between 0 (an empty graph) and 1 (a complete graph,
75

where everyone is connected to everyone in the graph). Degree Centrality identifies nodes with
high degree of centrality in a network structure, which means the node maintains more numerous
relations than other nodes in the network (Knoke & Burt, 1983). A node that occupies a position
of high degree centrality is anticipated to potentially have more access to resources and have
more influence within a network (Freeman, 1979).
Overall PWC Survey Responses
Through the development of the global roster, a total of 358 organizations and coalitions
were identified across the 10 participating PWC coalitions. Individual-level data were not the
primary interest of this study, however, based on the more practical aspects of this research, 14
individual citizen at large representatives were also identified through the PWC’s member roster.
Therefore, a total of 372 surveys were sent. Of the 358 organizations and coalitions the survey
was sent to, 123 surveys were submitted as complete, which is a 34% survey return rate. Of the
123 completed surveys, 10 represented coalition coordinators and 113 surveys represented
organizations.
To place an analysis of the youth-focused coalitions within the broader context, a
sociogram (graph) depicting the entire network of the participating 10 coalitions and affiliated
organizations of the PWC is presented in Figure 1. Of the 113 organizations that completed the
survey, only 92 organizations submitted surveys that had a complete the network section of the
survey, which means the following sociogram of the PWC network only includes data from 92
organizations. Of these 92 organizations there a total of 157 representatives that responded to the
survey to represent those organizations. Therefore, within the sample that are represented in the
following network graph are the following demographics: Regarding race/ethnicity 116 are
76

white, 20 are Black/African-American, 2 are Native American/Alaskan native, 6 are
Hispanic/Latino, and 20 are other (mixed-race, Arab-American, Lebanese); regarding
sex/gender, 95 are Female and 52 are Male; and regarding ages, respondents ranges from ages
18-79. These demographics are provided to allow for a deeper understanding of the people
involved in reporting data for the PWC collaborative.
A description of the PWC network involves an understanding of organization-level
attributes as well as network-level attributes. First, organization-level attributes include the types
of organizations included and the counties they serve. Regarding the types of organizations
involved (more than one type could be clicked): 5 represent federal organizations, 2 represent
state organizations, 17 represent county organizations, 6 represent local economic development
organizations, 17 represent community organizing organizations,31 represent
education/information providing organizations, 30 represent service providing organizations, and
68 represent non-profit organizations. Regarding the counties they serve: 109 serve Ingham
County, 69 serve Eaton County, 53 serve Clinton County, and several representatives clicked
“other” to write in variations on what areas they serve (e.g., Shiawasee, Barry, Ionia,
neighborhood-level, Tri-County, statewide).
Among the participating organizations, the network density of this sociogram is .72
(72%; which reflects a relatively high level of linkage among the points in the graph. This means
the overall PWC network is a fairly tight knit network where no nodes are left hanging separately
or out of touch with other organizations in the network. In more practical terms, this network is
well connected and it is likely that information is shared rapidly with high exchange of resources
among network participants.
77

Figure 4. Sociogram of PWC’s 10 Coalitions and Affiliated organizations

78

Degree centrality allows for an understanding of the most prominent or important
organizations within the PWC network in terms of the degree of other organizations that work
with them. Degree centrality measures have identified the following nodes with their most
central scores in this network: 26 (87.9), 103 (71.4), 41 (70.3), 3 (67.03), 24 (61.5). We might
expect these organizations to have easier access to resources because of their more central
positions. These organizations are state agencies and non-profit organizations, where two of the
state agencies are PWC Founding Partners. The state agencies provide services that no other
entity can provide within these counties so it makes sense that they have access to critical
resources. These state agencies are also staffed with several hundred employees from varying
focused sub-units which means their reach has the potential to be particularly far within the
network if they prioritize such collaborative type work. Interestingly, an in-depth interview with
node 41 revealed how this particular organization has more recently extended its mission to
focus more on community development in addition to service provision, which explains their
more central position. The director of this organization described this mission redefinition as a
natural shift to better describe the activity the organization was already engaged in. This type of
activity is acknowledged by their position within the network.
Youth-Focused Coalition Survey Responses
In order to provide a description of the organizations and the representatives that
completed the surveys, I will first report some basic demographics. Of the 4 youth-focused
coalitions a total of 35 organizations were included in the full analysis for this study. Within
these data there were a total of 60 respondents that reported on the 35 organizations (there could
be multiple representatives of each organization within the survey data). Within these 35
79

organizations there are several organization-level and individual-level demographics to consider.
From the organization-level perspective, the types of organizations included (where more than
one option could be clicked): 30 are non-profit organizations, 21 are educational/informational
type organizations, 13 are service providers, 5 are community organizing entities, 2 are local
economic development organizations, 4 represent a state organization, 3 represent a county
organization, and 2 represent a federal organization. Many organizations serve more than one
county where 48 serve Ingham County, 26 serve Eaton County, and 23 serve Clinton County.
Additionally, there is few data to consider at the individual-level; however in an effort to keep
the survey at a reasonable length, data was only collected on gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Of
the 60 representatives, 42 are female and 15 are male. Ages of representatives ranged from 25-79
where 60% fell within the range of 42-64. Fifty-six responded to race/ethnicity: 48 are white, 7
are black/African American, and 1 is Lebanese.
Research Questions 1 & 2: What are the network relationships among participants? How does
network participation differ across the youth-focused coalition members?
Of the 113 surveys representing organizations and coalitions, 43 are affiliated with the 4
youth-focused coalitions of interest in this study. Of the 43 organizations affiliated with the 4
youth coalitions, only 35 are analyzed within the network because they represent the
organizations that completed the network section of the survey. The focus of the study research
questions are on the activity of organizations, therefore the data provided by coalition
representatives regarding coalition activity are not included. In sum, the following results discuss
data for 35 organizations of the 4 youth coalitions.

80

When examining the network participation of the 4 youth coalitions of interest, it is
helpful to understand them within the broader network of the PWC. Viewing the relationships of
these organizations in this way gives us some visual sense of how well organizations and
coalitions are connected within the broader PWC network. With more central organizations
being slightly to the right, we can see a cluster of nodes caught within a fairly dense network,
which could mean there are some organizations within the 4 youth coalitions that are more
central to the work of the PWC overall. These organizations represent state-level, non-profit, and
service provider type organizations.
Figure 5 depicts the organizations of the 4 youth coalitions relevant to this study as they
exist within the broader PWC network structure (red) and the 4 coalitions (blue). Separate
density and centrality scores do not exist for this particular sociogram because these nodes
adhere to the parameters of the previous network structure. Using the sociomatrix for the entire
PWC network from Figure 4, this subgraph was developed based on selecting organizations
affiliated with the 4 youth coalitions within the larger sociogram as well as the 4 coalitions. A
discussion of coalition and organization participation in this network is provided to provide an
understanding of their participation within the broader PWC network.
Within this broader network, centrality measures for youth coalitions suggest that node
13 is more central than other coalitions with a centrality score of 61.5, followed by node 44
(36.3), node 93 (21.9), and 95 (10.9). Node 13 has most numerous ties in this network.
According to these data, coalition node 13 maintains more numerous relations than others in the
network which could be due to their longer history with the PWC and wider mission focus in
terms of the age ranges they are concerned with. Node 95 has the lowest centrality value which
81

makes sense given that the focus of this particular coalition is narrower in mission and
population of concern.

82

Figure 5: Organizations and coalitions of 4 Youth-Focused Coalitions in PWC collaborative
203

87
158

97

93

95
215
194

190

162

44

133

21

125

161
106

189

58
104

22
103

176

198
13

32 23

41

64
201

24

3

86

96
177
217
72
200
74

145

83

Figure 5 also depicts that there are fewer peripheral organizations on the perimeter of the
network, yet they are still connected. Of the perimeter outliers, node 96 was interviewed for this
study, and a more detailed rationale for this network location can be explained. Node 96 is a nonprofit service oriented organization that has existed for less than 5 years and just beginning to
gain independence. The director of the organization described being at a point in their
development as an organization where focusing on identity and service outputs are the most
important focus for their survival at this time:
“It’s not a zero sum game, but it requires the investment of our time…to build that
partnership, and so we’ve not done a lot with the Power of We, and I’d like to work with
[one particular coalition coordinator] a lot more. We don’t work with anyone as much as
we’d like. There’s too much on my plate already…I have to prioritize brutally…but the
highest priority is to be in places where we can have the most impact…and that means
the most kids showing up regularly and the most adults showing up regularly for
instruction. That’s what we do, that’s the heart of what we do…and if it furthers that,
that’s our first priority.” (13-24)
This particular organization also described in the interview how much their survival depends on
building and sustaining relationships in the community because so much of their mission is
focused on reaching youth in the community. In fact, the director of this organization believes it
is his priority to focus on the organization mission because that is his organization’s contribution
to more positive outcomes for youth in this community. This in-depth description of this
particular node’s experience as an organization within this network provides a clearer
understanding of why they are seen at the more peripheral edge of this overall network yet still
connected.
If we create a sociogram examining only the PWC collaborative’s organizations within
the scope of this study, we see a very different structure and must interpret new network density
and centrality scores separately (See Figure 6). Figure 6 was developed based on a different
84

sociomatrix dataset comprised of only those organizations within the 4 youth coalitions. This
means the sociogram is a reconfigured depiction of the organizations affiliated with the 4 youthfocused coalitions based on network parameters of only the relationships of these organizations.
Observing a sociogram consisting of only the relationships among those in the 4 youth coalitions
allows for an analysis of the working relationships among the organizations and agencies
working towards shared outcomes for youth populations in this community. The density of this
sociogram is .26 within a range of 0 to 1. A density close to 1 indicates that all individuals work
together. A density value of .26 (26%) indicates that the general level of linkage across the
network is relatively modest. In comparison with the broader PWC network, it is interesting to
note that 4 of the 5 most central organizations within the broader PWC sociogram are active
participants within the youth-focused coalition network.

85

Figure 6: Sociogram of PWC Youth-Focused Coalition Members
145
74

72

64

198

217
201

104

203

200

177

194
3
190

41

32

86

103

96

24
161

58
23

125

21

189

22

87

106

176

133

162

215
158
97

86

Multiplexity. Multiplexity is the strength of the relationship between individual network
partners based on the amount of types of relations they maintain (Provan et al., 2005). A total
multiplexity score was calculated by summing the number of types of relations the organization
has aggregated across organizational representatives to obtain one value to describe the strength
of the relationship. Values can range between 1 and 7 where the value represents the number of
types of exchange in the relationship. For example, an organization with a total multiplexity
value of 7 is engaged in all the types of exchange possible. Figure 6 sociogram is a valued graph
which means we can see relationship multiplexity.
From this sociogram we can see there is a more close-knit relationship among the
organizations slightly left of center (between nodes 41, 103, 21, 24, and 3). Not only are there
more tie connections in this section of the network but there are also thicker ties which indicates
there are more types of exchanges happening within their working relationships. These particular
nodes represent state agencies and non-profit organizations of which almost all are PWC
founding partners. However, not all strong relations are found within the center of the graph,
many of the more peripheral nodes also have strong multiplex relations with others in this
network. For example, node 176 is a parent-run entity that has a range of multiplex values from 1
to 5, where 5 is the average. This can be interpreted to mean that this node is engaged in various
types of exchange with 13 different nodes in this network, indicating that parents have relatively
strong direct working relationships within this youth-focused network.
We also see nodes that have fewer ties in the network overall and are therefore more
peripheral to interorganizational network activity. The network placement of these more
peripheral nodes is consistent with their placement within the broader PWC sociogram which
87

indicates that the interorganizational activities of these nodes are similar within both contexts. In
other words, when we only consider the working relationships between youth-focused coalitions,
interorganizational activity does not change. For example, if we revisit node 96 discussed above,
this node has 4 low multiplex relationships with the entire PWC network (Figure 4) as well as in
this youth-focused network (Figure 6) which indicates that the primary activity of this node is
within the youth-focused coalition network. Interestingly, this observation matches the goals and
mission of this particular organization, as well as the explanation provided in the interview.
Network Centralization. To understand the above observations and broad dynamics at
play within a particular network, network centralization can assist in determining if the overall
network is dominated by any particular node or set of nodes, or if potential influence/power is
equally distributed across network participants. Network centralization examines how unequal
the distribution of centrality is within the network to determine if the graph is more “centralized”
in one direction due to the high centrality measures of specific nodes. Network centralization can
be measured by summing the differences in the centrality of the most central node to all other
nodes, normalized by the maximum possible (Freeman, 1979).
Using Freeman’s degree centrality measure, the out-degree network centralization
measure is 26.9% and the in-degree network centralization measure is 22.7% out of a total of
100%. Overall, the in-degree and out-degree values are consistent with one another and indicate
low differences between the most central node compared to all other nodes. In other words, there
is a more equal distribution of centrality across the network. In terms of participation, it could be
interpreted that although some nodes are more or less central in the network, participation is
more equally dispersed across the network. With regard to the number of other organizations
88

one has access to; we could argue that all organizations within this network have equal access to
each other. Examining node centrality measures can begin to provide a more in-depth account of
dynamics at play in this network.
Degree Centrality. Degree centrality measures are used to explore the centrality of
individual nodes in the network. This measure indicates nodes with more numerous relations
than other actors in the network, not accounting for differences in in-degree or out-degree ties. In
general, nodes with larger values indicate greater centrality in the network. To provide a basis by
which to evaluate the most central and least central nodes with the average values, the mean
degree for this sociogram is 39.5. Degree centrality measures have identified the following top
five nodes as the most central: 103 (76.5), 3(76.5), 41(73.5), 24(70.6), 194(67.6). These nodes
represent 3 state funded organizations that provide resources and services that no other
organization can provide to the community as well as 2 very well-connected non-profit
organizations.
Degree centrality measures identify the following 6 nodes as least central: 145 (8.8), 74
(8.8), 200 (11.7), 96 (11.7), 189 (17.6), and 203 (17.6). By observing the degree centrality
measures we can see that three of these nodes share these least central locations in the network.
These nodes represent all non-profit organizations with the exception of node 145 which is a
state government office. Almost all of these nodes serve youth directly with some type of
specialized entertainment service or provide youth education or information. We already know
that node 96 is a fairly young organization in process of working toward ensuring their own
survival and are slowly building relationships in the community.

89

Since each county in Michigan mandated multi-purpose collaborative bodies to
coordinate the activities and outcomes of state agencies since 1989, it makes sense that these 3
state organizations are more central to the network of coalitions related to improving outcomes
for children and families. It is interesting to note that node 3 maintains an equally top central
position along with a state agency in the network without policy mandating their participation
and without being a founding partner within this network. In theory, the total number of ties a
node has in the network is an indication of their level of anticipated advantage and influence in
the network. The position of node 3 potentially provides the organization with the power and
influence needed to advocate against this state agency if needed. Since a degree centrality
measure does not tell us how they are more central, we are unable to determine why and how
they occupy such central positions in this network without further exploring directed relations.
Directed Centrality. Directed centrality provides a more in-depth understanding of the
interorganizational relationships among nodes in the network. Directed sociograms describe the
number of ties a node connects to (out-degree) and the number of ties that others seek to connect
to (in-degree). Nodes with more in-degree ties have been nominated by more organizations as
one that others work within the network and therefore may be viewed as more important or have
more prestige in the network. Nodes with more out-degree ties have nominated more
organizations they work with and may be more influential through their relationships.
Within this sociogram, the 5 top nodes with the highest in-degree values include:
103(21), 24(20), 133(19), 3(18), and 125(17). Not surprisingly, nodes 103 and 3 share top
rankings with regard to the number of other organizations that acknowledge working with them.
Node 103 is a state agency and node 3 is a non-profit local community-based organization.
90

Nodes 103, 24, and 133 are all founding partners of the PWC who were mandated to participate
in the multi-purpose collaborative and appear to maintain some level of importance or prestige
within the current network. Node 24 is non-profit organization, is a founding partner of the
PWC, and serves 3 counties. Node 133 is an Education/Information focused organization which
is also a founding partner of the PWC which makes sense given that the mission of this
organization is tightly coupled with the goal of improving outcomes for children and families
through the services they provide to the community. Node 125 is an Education/Information
focused organization which may be highly nominated because they are perceived as an important
resource within the network.
Nodes with the lowest in-degree values include churches, community schools, parent
associations, state government offices, and a new youth-focused service organization (node 96).
With in-degree measures being an indication of how organizations perceive the importance of
nodes in a network, it appears that many organizations in this network are seeking to connect to
PWC Founding Partners and other state-level organizations and are not seeking to connect to
more local community-driven entities (aside from node 3).
Within this sociogram, the 5 top nodes with the highest out-degree values include: 3(23),
194(23), 41(22), 103(19), and 21(17). Nodes 103 and 3 share the top rankings in out-degree as
well as in-degree indicating their level of importance and potential influence in the network;
however node 3 works more with others by a few partnerships. Node 194 is a youth focused
education/information focused organization. Node 41 is a state-level service oriented
organization that provides a service not supplied by any other to a broad population. As
previously noted, this organization has a broader mission of community development as well,
91

which would further explain its position. Node 21 is a youth and families-focused non-profit
organization that identifies as service oriented and provides education/information. Nodes with
the lowest out-degree values include community services organizations, hospitals, state offices,
school districts, and an educational office serving university-based students. With out-degree
measures being an indication of the level of outreach or exchange of resources conducted by the
organizations, it is not surprising to find youth and families service-oriented organizations in
these top positions within this network.
Research Question 2 (Continued):
Collaborative participation is examined through the PWC collaborative participation
scale (see Appendix B). There are various organizational attributes that could have been
analyzed to explore differences in collaborative participation; however given the structure of the
PWC, and interview trends, I chose to explore basic descriptive statistics and coalition affiliation.
Descriptive statistics were run to obtain summary information about the data to observe any
trends in the data, and t-tests were run to explore whether collaborative participation differed
depending on the coalitions organizations were affiliated with.
The total sample includes 35 organizations; however, we only received collaborative
participation data for 33 organizations. The sample as a whole has relatively low levels of
collaborative participation (M = 2.32, SD = .758). Scores of 1.7, 2.1, and 2.8 represent the 25th,
50th, and 75th percentiles, respectively. The median is 2.09, and the mode is 1.64. To explore the
differences across organizations affiliated with the 4 different youth-focused coalitions, t-tests
were used to compare means (see Table 5). The mean collaborative participation score for
organizations affiliated with the IMI coalition is 2.95 which is higher than other organizations
92

with marginal significance (t(31) = 1.84, p = .075). Overall, collaborative participation data was
normally distributed with relatively low overall levels of participation across the youth-focused
member organizations. T-test results demonstrate affiliation with certain coalitions does not
explain the low levels of participation, however organizations affiliated with the IMI coalition
participate more in the PWC collaborative on average.
Table 5. t-tests Results Comparing Collaborative Participation across Youth-Focused Coalitions
Coalition

n

Mean

SD

t

p

CCY

16

2.37

.70

0.397

.694

IGSC

15

2.49

.84

1.165

.253

IMI

4

2.95

1.11

1.84

.075

IRRC

8

2.48

.88

0.692

.494

Question 1 & 2 Summary
The PWC collaborative is a fairly dense network across the full network; however, there
is less density when considering only the organizations associated with the 4 youth-focused
coalitions which means they are less connected overall. An important observation of these two
network graphs is that no nodes are left hanging alone, which means every organization is
connected. According to multiplexity measures, strong multiplex relationships exist among
several more central founding partners within the network. There is more equal distribution of
centrality across the network, meaning that participation is more equally dispersed across the
network. The most central organizations in the network are founding partners and the least
central organizations are mostly non-profit organizations focused on entertainment products for
93

youth. Additionally, directed centrality measures identify several state agencies as more
important in the network and more service-oriented organizations in the lowest connectivity.
Research Questions 3: Which factors of organizational culture constrain or facilitate network
and collaborative participation?
Several factors or organizational culture were identified across organizational
representatives as facilitating and constraining network and collaborative participation. Using an
inductive and deductive cross-case analysis process, findings have been merged into Schein’s
framework of organizational culture through a deductive analysis process in order to more
clearly identify the factors of organizational culture related to member participation through the
lens of artifacts, espoused values or beliefs, and assumptions. A minimum of 3 different cultures
needed to fit within a category before themes were considered. Due to the fact I identified only
one Market type organization, in many cases, themes were identified when multiple
organizations within at least the other 3 cultures discussed a theme. All participant responses are
discussed as “she” to mask participant identification as much as possible.
Organizational Assumptions
According to Schein’s theory of organizational culture, understanding basic assumptions
are most important for understanding all other aspects of an organization. Schein’s defines basic
assumptions as a set of unconscious ground rules that are developed when the organization
comes to believe that the nature of reality works in a particular way. This belief system becomes
so engrained in the ways of the organization that they develop taken for granted assumptions
about how the world works and how the organization should function. According to Schein,
94

“shared basic assumptions that make up the culture of a group can be thought of…as
psychological cognitive defense mechanisms that permit the group to continue to function.” (pg.
29). While assumptions are the most invisible aspects of organizational functioning, they are the
reason why the organization engages in certain behaviors.
Basic assumptions are aspects of the organization’s cultural system that provide an
organizational sense of identity. This is also the aspect of the organization that unconsciously
informs organizational representatives of who they are and how they should behave toward one
another. Since organizational basic assumptions unconsciously shape behavior, they are
extremely important in understanding PWC member participation. However, identifying basic
assumptions is challenging and requires deducting assumptions from the articulation of artifacts,
values, and beliefs articulated about the organization. The process of identifying basic
assumptions within this study required deductive analysis of the quotes identified within the
espoused values and assumption quotes, therefore, the basic assumptions mentioned below are
mostly interpretations made by the main research analyst based on both organizational culture
theories used in this study (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Schein, 2010). Quotes are provided where
assumptions were explicitly articulated by participants. Common assumptions made across
organizations included:
Working together leads to ideal outcomes – “It takes a village.”
Change happens through relationships
Use community development principles – “Do no harm.”
Achieving organizational goals depends on work with others
There is no prescribed approach to this work
Partnership choices depend on project goals
Innovation/creativity important to reach goals
Race is not already explicitly addressed but needs to be to solve our social problems
Collaboration key to high quality outcomes
95

Innovation requires interorganizational collaboration
Innovation needed to meet client needs – current system not working
Do whatever it takes to help people
Meeting mission and goals of the grant will likely include collaboration
Overall, given this list of shared assumptions, it seems that the PWC collaborative involves using
innovative collaborative approaches to solving social problems that are intentional in addressing
issues of race with a focus on ensuring that people of the community get what they need.
Organizational Values and Beliefs
According to Schein’s framework, it is through the artifacts that we obtain a window into
understanding the deeper espoused values and beliefs that give rise to common participatory
behaviors affiliated with organizations in the PWC. However, gaining an understanding of the
values or beliefs of an organization prior to examining artifacts can provide a more in-depth
explanatory basis for which artifacts can best be understood. Values and beliefs are not clearly
defined within Schein’s framework, however, Pedersen and Sorensen (1989) expanded on the
framework by more clearly defining it as:
“…an individual’s convictions, ideas and aspirations, which have not been accepted
widely enough to be considered valid solutions to problems. These ‘values’ are still not
shared among the members and are therefore in a phase of questioning, debating, and
challenging. Over time, if a value and its attached directions for behavior seem to work,
the value gradually generates a process of cognitive transformation into a belief and,
ultimately, an assumption.” (Pedersen & Sorensen, 1989; pg. 14)
Having a clearer understanding of the values and beliefs that underlie the work of the
participating organizations allows for a deeper understanding of why the organizations
participate in a collaborative endeavor. Through viewing the inductive codes and themes through
this lens we can identify what values and beliefs facilitate or constrain member participation. The
following common values and beliefs were identified by 12 of 14 organizations as facilitators
96

and constraints associated with PWC member participation: 1) value collaboration, 2) believe in
team mentality, and 3) value consumer satisfaction.
1) Value Collaboration
Valuing collaboration involves valuing a collaborative approach to their work. Almost
all organizations discussed the value of collaboration (12/14). The value of collaboration is a
main facilitator to both interorganizational and collaborative participation within the PWC.
Comments made about the value of collaboration were embedded within a concern for people,
making sure people get what they need, and wanting to do what’s best for the community:
“I believe and I think the agency believes that true change takes place in the context of
relationships. Uh but maintaining a professional relationship with boundaries you know
that allows them to develop uh you know uh, you know a level of compassion and
understanding and empathy without crossing the line…many of our programs are
designed where you need to get to know who they are, we need to know what they’re
thinking and they’re feeling and so that develops a level of; you need a level of trust and
respect and understanding to do that. And so you have to get to know the people and you
have to be able to develop a relationship.” (8-6)
“Umm…I think it’s the fact that we, um, I mean, we, we want to provide these
children, like I said, with an educational experience prior to entering kindergarten, in
hopes that it will improve their academic success. Um, but beyond that, we also
genuinely care about the children and even their families as a whole, and so, if by us
partnering with other organizations, can better support them, [I: mhm] then, you know,
we definitely want to do that, um, and…[I: so, service is the bottom line.] Right. Right,
right. And Making sure that we’re providing the best services that we can, and if there’s
more we need to be doing, then we need to find ways to do that.” (14-23)
Organizational representatives discussed how they value interorganizational partnerships in
different ways. Working with various community groups and individuals are an important way
some organizations are able to enact their values:

97

“Um [long pause] in a way that really is consistent with our values and beliefs um about
equality and about justice and peace. Those are core elements and values of the mission
and it’s not just what we do because those are elements of our program, but it’s really
important to use to have integrity that we actually practice in those same ways.” (11-6)
One representative values collaboration because they count on the reciprocity of their partners to
provide resources and supports to assist in achieving goals. Another representative discussed
their belief that collaboration leads to innovation and that they have to stay innovative to stay
current and alive in this market:
“Well, it’s important for us because we really, um, because we live in a world, um, where
the environment we’re working is changing a lot. And, I think the line, too, between, um,
public monopolies, which is what we’ve always run, and the private sector competitive
market is fading. And because over the last, you know, 30 years the public sector has
privatized a lot of things. Um, and so what they said is “Hey public sector, body, CMH,
public health, schools, etc., we’re going to put you in a competitive market. Ready,
go…I’m a huge believer that you always…if you sit back and say, “well, we’ve always
been supported.” And, I , I have 45 other [colleagues from other orgs like this] who are
around the state, there are 45 other [of these organizations], and you can, you can see the
contrast in some communities their clinical work is, um, antiquated and their political
base is weak, and their financial base is weak, because it hasn’t, um, innovated. And so,
so, it’s entrepreneurial clinically. It’s entrepreneurial from a market standpoint. It’s
entrepreneurial in its, in our partnering. It’s entrepreneurial in our thinking of who’s
going to finance it. Um, I’m a huge believer that if we have to keep swimming in and
searching for this, if otherwise, we really do, um, tank pretty quickly. [I: mhm]. It’s so
stale that you’re almost irrelevant to the public, um, tax payer.” (10-8)
Ultimately, they all believe they are dependent on the community to reach their goals in different
ways:
“Because, we do our work through, through relationships with organizations…My belief
is, and you have to remember, my, I’m an old public health nurse, you know, I’m , I’m
very much of the mind of the public health process. So, I’m a believer in community
owning an issue, and if they are doing just fine, and if you give them the information they
need, you provide the evidence, you’ve given the structure, if they can take it and run
with it, that’s the way it ought to work. If they need someone from, like an organization
like ours to provide the training, the information, the support to serve as a member on a
team, and if that helps the process, oh you bet, I will absolutely do it. But I, it isn’t our
98

job to move into a community that’s functioning well and say “hey, we’re here to tell you
what to do.” That, that, it just, is this making sense?” (9-7)

2) Believe in Team Mentality
Belief in team mentality was not an explicitly mentioned facilitator of member
participation but was identified across organizations through analysis of data describing
organizational culture. Ten out of 14 organizations mentioned their belief in the importance of
working as a team in reaching their goals. Within this theme included a belief in the value of
enacting a teamwork mentality and believing that teamwork is key to producing quality
outcomes:
“Um we um, work in teams for projects, um and they’re at least two person teams and
so, people who are open to other’s ideas and people who are um, good at, uh both
listening to other ideas, putting forth their own, mixing it up um, you know
constructively. Uh, and and really looking for, um, also looking for where you know, my
skills fit with somebody else’s skills and we can produce something better by working
together, so collaboration is really, key to high quality outcomes.” (13-9)
Among larger organizations, managing hundreds of employees requires engaging in a lot of adhoc teamwork:
“Tons. Literally. [I: Yeah [laughing]]. So, um, every week we, as top management meet.
And then the, um, programs, which are each of those 12 folks, meet with their staff, their
top management every week or every couple of weeks, and then, you know, those, those
staff meet with their direct line staff, um, every week or two depending on their clinical,
uh, structure. So yeah, I mean, we, we, we’re, we’re kind of big on cross-discipline. We
do a lot of cross-discipline meetings and there’s lots of cross discipline, um, ad hocgroups that will go for a year. Like, we have one on welcoming environment. We’re
trying to improve the environment and the behavioral one and the physical one for all of
our consumers when they get welcomed. Well, that’s cross-discipline. We have
physicians and nurses, and uh, group home staff and consumers and secretaries and front
desk people, all meeting to build that. So, we do a lot of that.” (10-12)
3) Value Consumer Satisfaction
99

Valuing consumer satisfaction is both a facilitator and a constraint to PWC member
participation. Valuing consumer satisfaction refers to staying focused on the service or outputs
the organization is committed to, or funded to provide, to individuals in the community. Valuing
consumer satisfaction was mentioned explicitly by 3/14 organizations. One organization
discussed how the organizational context she works in keeps her focused on service outputs to
individuals and restrains her behaviors for other organizational goals:
“Well like right now what their looking at, is how reimbursement is going to go is based
on the public survey that they put out through Medicaid/Medicare, so they call HCAP it
really is a consumer survey on how they rate the hospital, so if your HCAP scores are low
you may not be reimbursed as well as other hospitals so if you look at financial liability
um how, I-I’m spending more time um with families than ever before…looking at them
to, to um feel like they can give a positive score to [this organization]. …So if I look at
where I concentrate my effort, I’m being given more direction by my director on those
kinds of things that I need to do. [I:mhm] So that some of my, my freedoms I can pick
and chose that I like to use my expertise on starts being limited. ….I: But it’s these scores
that show your value, on the scores are provided by the parents. [P: right]. Right because
if a mom’s unhappy about how nurses communicated to her about the care her baby is
getting then they can mark that down. [I: I see, but this all leads to the money.] P: It
does…But if you don’t have the money, you can’t do some of the stuff, you can’t buy
new equipment, um the incubators that we use are thirty-seven thousand dollars each and
Medicaid does not pay a babies full cost, they only pay a percentage of the bill for a
certain number of days. So we can get babies that have Medicaid bill of two hundred and
fifty thousand dollars… And you still have to pay for twenty-four nursing care and all the
other supplies that they used.” (4)
This value can be considered a facilitator to community network participation particularly when
the organization values collaboration and believes in the teamwork approach to achieving
outcomes. Under such conditions an organization representatives described developing
partnerships when it is perceived that working with others will help them to serve the population
of concern.

100

While valuing consumer satisfaction is a potential facilitator to network participation,
it can be a constraining factor as well. Keeping too much of a focus on consumer satisfaction can
be a constraint to member participation because this narrow focus can keep organizational staff
focused on individual services over broader community-level health and well-being issues. This
is more of an issue for service-focused organizations because they can become so concerned with
their service outputs that they lose the broader picture of how their service outputs are connected
within the broader community network. There was one organizational representative that
struggled to articulate this very issue and ultimately come to the conclusion that by focusing on
their organizational mission and goals, they are participating in the work of the PWC:
“What we do in our organization contributes towards systems change in [the local city].
Okay, so so that is part of um, the systems changing and we’ve learned a lot from the
consortium and from [other organizations] and so on about what it means to make
systems change, um so we can structure our programs in such a way that we move that
along. Uh and so that’s contributing to the um, the mission um, through our work for the
systems change in [this local city]…The nature of our work is doing that. And so in your
study I think you may want to separate out, you know…are you participating in the
systems change work that the consortium is doing directly? [for me?] no, nott much in
my case. Um are you, aligning your programs with the priorities of and the um, mission
of and the, you know the, um trying to figure the right way to say this, but the, are we, do
we program in such a way to push things a long in ways that are consistent with goals of
the system’s change initiative and so we absolutely are.…I mean, because what does
participation mean within this systems change initiative?” (13-27)
To value consumer satisfaction is valid; however, they are then more concerned with focusing
their daily activities to meeting individual needs and see less purpose in allocating time and
resources to the PWC collaborative planning.
Organizational Artifacts

101

The artifact level of culture is referred to by Schein as the physical and social
environment. Artifacts are easy to assess because they are visible and audible behavioral patterns
that can be observed. The artifacts of an organization include visible products such as language,
jargon, manners of dress, artistic or creative expressions (e.g. work plans, mission statements,
terminology, stories, etc.), among others. Identifying the artifacts related to network and
collaborative participation brings to light the climate of common participatory behaviors within
the membership of the PWC. The artifacts that both facilitate and constrain participation include:
1) organization mission, 2) common issue focus, 3) funding incentives, and 4) individual
organizational roles.
1) Organization Mission
Several organizations identified their mission as an important factor facilitating
member participation (12/14). Organizational representatives with missions that facilitated
member participation included a focus on community, equity, systems thinking, and community
development:
“[this organization] is a collaborative early childhood entity for [this] county so um it’s
collaborative in that it includes parents, it includes all the agencies uh profits, nonprofits,
anyone basically who wants to be a part of it um can be a part of the [this
organization].…the collaborative’s job is to set the early childhood action agenda for
[this county] and of course to make that public and to work with all of our different
entities, um so that we’re all working together and headed for the same goals, same
objectives and um, as I always say, playing nice in the sand box together.” (5-1)
“[our mission is] about um…creating sustainable communities that are equitable for all
children and the way that we do that is we really focus our work on three different levels,
looking at the individual level, the organizational level, and the systems level. And we
engage in partnerships and really it’s about testing new ideas in different ways to code
this equity back in a couple of different areas. But poverty and children of color are our
primary focus.” (11-6)
102

“…about four years ago we changed the vision of [this organization] and, on top of
service delivery, we added community development as one of our missions to make sure
the whole community’s stronger. And so, partnering is just a natural part of community
development.…In fact, we really encourage it, actually. In fact, when people call and
complain to me about the partnership didn’t work, we talk to staff immediately because
we see partnership development as really critical. It’s also great for community support
because those same partners are also tax payers, they’re also…you know what I mean.
Everybody has influence.” (10-9)
While the mission was a facilitating factor for many, there were aspects of the mission acting as
a constraint to member participation mentioned by 3 organizations. One representative
mentioned that strict adherence to their organizational mission gets in the way of engaging in
more creative solutions for addressing problems they deal with as employees:
“Oh yeah just generally speaking it’s just the opposite. We make the referral hoping the
kid doesn’t get removed and then we see safety concerns and so we end up pulling them
and then there’s members of the team, the Impact team, that think “oh no we could have,
we could have salvaged it” kind of thing. And we’re like na, it’s it’s too close to um,
there’s too many risk factors in keeping that kid there….And I know the whole thing
about when they leave they’re at more risk of being hurt than had they just stayed in it,
and their risk of homicide goes up, I’m well aware of that, but our goal isn’t to protect the
parents, our goal is to protect the kids. You know. “(7-28)
2) Common Issue Focus
Similarly to the organizational mission, placing strong emphasis on addressing a specific
social issue by the organization facilitates collaborative member participation within the network
and the collaborative. Ten of 14 representatives mentioned common issue focus facilitating
member participation. One organizational representative pointed out that she became the chair of
a PWC coalition because she was already working on a particular issue of concern to the PWC:
“You always want to look at how you can make your community better and so I think
that they um really felt that it was a perfect lead in since I was already involved in the
community, to go ahead then and to support that coalition, plus at one time, one of they,
ah well, ah eh, they do look every once in awhile ah working with other areas, Sparrow
103

does. What’s the health assessment for the area? And ah infant mortality we know is big,
and Ingham County was one of the top eleven counties with the highest black/white
infant, disparity and infant deaths.” (4)
In addition to collaborative participation in the PWC representatives also discussed how common
issue focus facilitates participation in the community network through providing services
because they will develop direct relationships with other organizations and agencies to provide
services that address a common issue:
“There’s a work plan. And typically, and I, I’ve…this is probably difficult…most
contracts that come out of MDCH or any other, um, government organization…generally
you contract, they contract with you to do X, Y, an Z. [I: yeah] You have a work plan,
which we follow and report on quarterly. Um, to do certain things. And um, they contract
with us to do work around the issue of infant safe sleep and around the issue of grief
services for families, so we…And then in response to that um, we will do trainings and
develop, uh, curricula. We’ll do materials. Um, we’ve done webinars, you know. [I:OK]
As well as provide technical support, and actually, if, if families do not have the support
they need, they can call us, and, and I will talk to them.” (9-4)
Initiatives or Programs. When the overall organizational mission is not the driving
force for member participation, having a specific initiative/program unique within the broader
goals of the organization can facilitate collaborative member participation, particularly in efforts
to address a common social issue. Sometimes, having a particular initiative or program focus was
how the work on a common issue was able to take place. Five of 14 organizations mentioned
having initiatives or programs that made their work relevant to the work of the PWC in some
way, most often at the level of coalition involvement.
“We’re are now I’m, I’m starting to go and be real involved in what they’re planning and
there, uh, they got a new initiative that they kicked off called uh, Choosing Health, which
is trying to provide a healthier lifestyle for the four county area.” (3-29)
“And we also have the My Team Approach that’s coming, and basically that is um I
guess kinda the well I don’t know how I want to put this um basically when you have
kids that are in care, in foster care, or relative care or you have kids in the open protective
104

services case it’s kinda uh trying to put some shared responsibility for how we fix things,
if you will, so the My Team is the parents team and the kids are on the team, but also the
team is comprised of people in the community or service providers people from our
agencies.” (7-4)
“I would say yes, probably one of the big things is when they first started the Early On
program they connected Neo-Natal units and asked for a representative from those units
sometimes it was a physicians, sometimes it was um nurse managers, um to sit on their
interagency coordinated counsels.…and so we kinda for the, we were kinda ah the
connection, the link between that community service and what happened in hospitals.”
(4)
Having a common issue focus is a main facilitator for many organization of the PWC
however, too much focus on one common issue can also be a constraint to collaborative
participation. Focusing on addressing one social issue can constrain participation because
representatives need to stay focused on expending resources in directions related only to that
social issue. If they get too focused, they may not see where they can make a contribution more
broadly. For example, one organizational representative is only involved in committees and
coalitions that are related to the social issue she works on because she doesn’t think she has
anything else to contribute to other committees:
“And again, it’s not my areas of expertise and my knowledge is so limited to my
specialty that if it came, to what’s going on with transportation and things like that I
would have no idea or even any suggestions where I see a gap.” (4)
It may not be clear to representatives how they connect within the broader PWC collaborative
agenda:
“Now, if the Power of We had a particular concern with infant mortality and wanted us
to participate, you bet we would. It just, it, you know, so it’s now, we haven’t
purposefully not linked with them. It’s just it’s the missions. It just hasn’t, hasn’t come
up.” (9-11)
4) Funding Incentives
105

Funding was discussed as an important issue for 10 of 14 organizations and the views of
representatives on this issue are mixed. There are ways funding incentives can encourage
network participation and ways it can constrain. Funding incentives facilitate member
participation in two ways: 1) participate to obtain funding, or 2) participate by providing funding
to obtain services needed.
For some organizations the issue is pragmatic where they are dealing with limited funds
to conduct their work and therefore believe they need to work with others to ensure meeting
community needs. In this case they acknowledge they are dependent on one another:
“So we are always looking for partnerships and you know uh with the funding being less
and less every year for certain things we have to collaborate as much as possible with
community organizations to make sure that there isn’t duplication of services or
overlapping or hopefully people are able to just provide their niche and then work
together so that he clients get everything they need.” (15-26)
Even when funding does not require organizations to work with others, and organizations have
all the funds they need to maintain functioning on their own, valuing collaboration and teamwork
can override that independence where they choose to work with others in the community
network to problem solve problems:
“I’m a huge believer that you always…if you sit back and say, “well, we’ve always been
supported.” And, I , I have 45 other [colleagues from other orgs like this] who are around
the state, there are 45 other [of these organizations], and you can, you can see the contrast
in some communities their clinical work is, um, antiquated and their political base is
weak, and their financial base is weak, because it hasn’t, um, innovated. And so, so, it’s
entrepreneurial clinically. It’s entrepreneurial from a market standpoint. It’s
entrepreneurial in its, in our partnering. It’s entrepreneurial in our thinking of who’s
going to finance it. Um, I’m a huge believer that if we have to keep swimming in and
searching for this, if otherwise, we really do, um, tank pretty quickly. [I: mhm]. It’s so
stale that you’re almost irrelevant to the public, um, tax payer.” (10-8)

106

Financial incentives can also act as constraints to network or collaborative participation. In some
cases the problem is that there are not enough funds to provide services and they turn further
inward to decide how to make do with the funds they have:
Need more funds to provide the services: “Um, a lack of funding. [P: a lack of funding]
And, I, and, and our CPA tells us we’re quite healthy for a non-profit in this climate [I:
yeah, it seems like it], But it, you know, it’s still just, lack of funding, lack
of…sometimes, lack of understanding of the need. We’ve, we’ve actually had people tell
us about adults, “They’ve had their chance. I don’t have any patience for them. I don’t
want to spend any money on them.” (12-16)
Additionally, when there is no funding enticing organizations to work on the issues they cannot
make the time to do that work because they are dependent on external ratings for funds and need
to ensure quality outputs to maintain funding:
“Well like right now what their looking at, is how reimbursement is going to go is based
on the public survey that they put out through Medicaid/Medicare, so they call HCAP it
really is a consumer survey on how they rate [this organization], so if your HCAP scores
are low you may not be reimbursed as well as other hospitals so if you look at financial
liability um how, I’m spending more time with families than ever before…looking at ah
them to, to um feel like they can give a positive score to [this organization].” (4)
One hierarchical organization already has the funds they need to maintain functioning so there is
really no need to collaborate, however because they believe in the value of collaboration in
creating innovative solutions to the pressing social problems of their clients they collaborate
anyway:
“I mean people with…almost all these people talk about it, but when they start living it
they realize “oh my goodness, why are we negotiating with so and so” you know, “it’s
our money or our legal mandate, or it’s our staff, or our client, or whatever” you know [I:
mhm], “I don’t want to go through this.” (10-6)

107

The issue could be that having a constant unquestioned stream of funding could be considered a
constraint to network and collaborative participation because there is no external funding
incentive enforcing network or collaborative participation.
5) Individual Organizational Roles
Nine of 14 organizations mentioned having a specific job role in the organization
dedicated to outreach, partnership, or collaboration more broadly. Representatives describe
having a job role dedicated to network partnership development or outreach, an aspect of their
organizational functioning that would not exist without the individual job role. For one
organizational representative, collaborating with the PWC was written into her job role:
“Yes. It’s actually part of, um, one of my job’s duties, um, was specifically to, um, be an
active member of the [local babies and children’s collaborative], and to attend the
monthly meetings. Um, as well as become involved with, um, some of the different work
groups. Um, specifically, I was the um, co-chair of the Kindergarten Transition Work
Group, which was a work group, um, run through the [local babies and children’s
collaborative]. P: The co-chair position? [I: mhm] It, it was actually a requirement of my
job. [I: Oh] Yeah, it, it was written into my job description. (14-3)
In one case respondents acknowledge that although it is part of her job role to collaborate it
makes her work easier to do. In this case she values collaborative participation regardless of the
fact that she is required to work with others:
“I mean I attend a lot of meetings, it’s a lot of my job that there’s nobody saying ‘You
have to attend them’, but it surely makes my job easier because I have the connections
with people. And the one thing when you’re doing collaborative work, you’ve got to
realize if I want them to come and sit at my table, then I better be prepared to go sit at
some of their tables [laughs]. You know, like I sat on the E-Tran, the [local]
Transportation Authority Advisory Committee, you know I’d ask the director to be on
our [organization] and join us, and she goes, “Well if I do that, will you come and be on
my advisory committee?”, so those kinds of things happen. Um again, do I have to be at
them? No, but it sure makes the job a whole lot easier to communicate and to kind of
know how all the other systems work together…um part of what we do under our
108

collaborative work is um help, um facilitating and operate the Great Start Preschool for
three of our um, local school districts who did not have that um going in them before. So
there’s six staff that are assigned specifically to that…Like twenty-five percent
employees of [the local school district] and seventy-five percent director of [this
organization]?...That’s what I’m funded for, yes.” (5-2)
One organizational respondent was told to attend collaborative meetings as part of her job role
because the meetings concern the services they provide:
“[My boss] wanted me to um make a lot of time for them, not a lot in recent months but a
there was a period of time where I was probably in two or three meetings regarding
Impact activities a week, I got involved with that because [my boss] just wanted me, just
one of the managers to be very involved in the whole Impact process and how we were
referring cases to Impact and CMH and that sort of thing. I’m not sure if I’m answering
your question or not, but okay I got involved in that because [boss name] expected, it was
one of his expectations of me, and so that meant that um I was going to a lot of meetings
with different groups that they have, they have a communication work group, and um uh
a training work group and that sort of thing.” (7-5)
Individual Job Role Characteristics. Characteristics of these individual job roles vary
but include several common themes across organizations that assist in facilitating network and
collaborative participation. These characteristics include: a) Freedom with work, and b) Personal
relationship building and maintenance.
Freedom with Work. Nine of 14 organizations mentioned their position was allotted
the freedom to do their work as needed and this seems to be an important job characteristic
associated with collaborative and network activity. The length of time a person spends in their
position was mentioned as important because they needed to develop a level of trust with their
organization to be given the freedom required of the position. This concept of trust was discussed
in a few different ways. One organizational representative built trust within her organization and
developed the freedom to work as needed within a position that was collaborative in nature:
109

“Um…why do I have freedom [laughs while asking herself]? I think part of it is um…just
the history of the, the position. It’s a collaborative position—you know I do a lot of work
with other agencies and a lot of conversations and meetings and stuff with other folks—
and so unlike say a school teacher who has to be at a certain place from this hour to that
hour. Um there has to be a lot of trust in whoever is in this position that they’re doing
what they’re supposed to be doing um or it just isn’t going to work. And I think you
know, I have built that trust, I have built um all the agency folk, you know I know these
people, I know the county and so I think my supervisor trusts me very much to be out
there doing what I’m supposed to be doing because reports get done, my um you know
my grant reporting and everything is taken care of so she doesn’t feel like she has to be
on top of me or whatever for any of those kinds of things. So I think the freedom is just
part of that when you show that you’re responsible for doing what you’re supposed to be
doing, then the freedom just kind of comes with it.” (5-5)
Another organizational representative discussed how understanding the culture can build the
level of trust leadership has with her to provide her with the freedom they needed to do the work:
“But, a lot of freedom. Um, I think, over, over the years the trust level on our board has
really grown, and, and, and, you know, I have a number of constituents, where the board
said “go” if the staff that work with me say “stop, we’re not doing it”, it’s not going to
happen. So, we really do, um, both a lot of freedom. But, you know, I think, it sounds odd
to say, but the freedom is almost always a function of do you get the culture of the place,
do you get the culture of the board, of the community.” (10-6)
In many cases representatives would be given freedom as long as they abided by the goals of the
funding source:
“But anyway, so yeah. I guess that’s, you know, total freedom to go for it, but [I: yeah].
And, like I said, you know, everybody within, we have to…if someone gives me money
to do “X” I can’t do “D”. I have to do “X”. So, like I said, we have lots of freedom as
long as we stay within the intent of the funding source. [I: mhm] But I’ve got a lot of
funding sources, and they tend to, and like, some funding sources only want to endorse
kids’ programs. Well, I can’t use that money for an adult program. I have to use that for a
kids program, and vice versa. So, like I said, we do stay within the constraints of
whatever our funding says.” (12-5)

110

In one case, a representative was given freedom because they wanted to support her growth into
the position, which means they gave her more freedom if her goals were to become more
professionally affiliated with the organization (i.e., more embedded in the culture of the
organization):
“Um, and I also felt supported in terms of growth as well. That, that there was definitely
like, and that’s where I think you get more into, like, the community or family feel, where
I felt like they really wanted, from day-to-day, even, they wanted what was best for me,
and, and, and I was given the freedom to make some decisions and do some things, um,
just based off of, um, their wanting to see me grow professionally.” (14-7)
Freedom to work is a particularly interesting collaborative and network facilitator
because the organizational representative is provided the freedom to do their work under the
condition that they can be trusted to represent the assumptions and values of their organization as
they work with others. It is possible that an employee of an organization in this role that does not
follow the cultural values and practices of that organization will be perceived as someone who
can’t be trusted, or an outsider, and could lose their job. Therefore, network and collaborative
participation can be a tricky position where an organizational representative must learn to juggle
more than one agenda or perspective while maintaining the goals of the organization they are
employed by.
Personal relationship building and maintenance. Through a focus on building and
maintaining personal relationships representatives discussed the importance of building and
maintaining personal relationships with partners and the value associated with having personal
relationships with partners. Personal relationship building and maintenance was closely tied to
facilitating factors such as: a) being involved in local ways geographically, and b) being present
at meetings.
111

“But you know uh, many of our programs are designed where you know we need to you
know get to know who they are, we need to know what they’re thinking and they’re
feeling and so that develops a level of; you need a level of trust and respect and
understanding to do that. And so you have to get to know the people and you have to be
able to develop a relationship.” (8-6)
One organizational representative mentioned that having close personal relations with partners
allows them to more easily leverage resources:
“I think probably the best example of that is um our relationship with the Community
Coalition for Youth. Um…we…we are a member of the coalition but we also provide
management support to the organization and we do that in a very invisible kind of way.
Um, the coalition has limited resources, we have limited resources and what it allows us
to do is to leverage one another’s assets. We have the ability to innovate programming
that has an impact with the population and we really try out a lot of ideas and
um…through even my prior history as a consultant working with nonprofits, so those are
assets that I can bring to the coalition. But what the coalition allows us to do is really cast
out our theory of change. And so a lot of the work that we’re doing on by partnering with
the [a certain initiative] and with MSU and with Power of We on the innovation project, I
mean all of that is, it traces right back to our strategic plan in and our theory of change.”
(11-7)
Local affiliation is important. In some cases organizational representatives tend to favor local
needs because they are geographically close and know the people directly:
“…because our office is located in Lansing, we tend to favor our local
neighborhood…and I have worked with the Ingham folks for many years, um, even
before they became attached to the Power of We. And, um, and I know a lot of the folks,
and, and so, of course I’m, I’m going to, I’m going to um, give them whatever they might
need, should it be of interest to them.” (9-6)
Being present at meetings is how you work together so those organizations that value teamwork
mentality and collaboration were more inclined to discuss the importance of this kind of
participation. These organizations had specific things to add about the value of being present at
meetings. One organization mentioned that being present reminds others of what you have to
offer:
112

“I think just being there is what facilitates [participation] and keeping hammering on
them over and over and saying remember, remember we’re here. Remember we’re part of
you. Some members are better than others about realizing this.” (3)
Other organizations participate to ensure they stay connected with community issues:
“yeah, we don’t require anyone [to attend meetings]. We, we are members of several
coalitions uh, when I first got to [this organization] I attended a, uh I think two [main
PWC coalition] meetings and then uh and then ultimately we made a decision that one of
our senior managers would be our representative at the [main PWC coalition]. And then
uh and then we, each of the ten counties we’re in they all have different levels of
collaborative bodies or multi-purpose bodies. And so we’ve tried to strategically place all
of our staff, you know, to kind of have uh, so the agency has a finger on the pulse in each
of those communities. So my direct involvement with [the main PWC coalition] has
really been minimal. (8)
Other organizations make sure someone from their staff attend PWC meetings regularly because
they want to be part of the planning or learn about important meeting topics:
Want to be part of the planning when acting as a partner: “And so, and, and the other
thing is, when we’re working with groups, we don’t want them to see us, oh this is be, I
know this is sort of contrary to what I just told you, but we’re not just there as a
promotion. We want to be actually part of what you’re doing, and what you’re
planning…and that’s were I have been with [the main PWC coalition we’re involved
with]…planning, and getting input there and having an effect on what they’re doing.” (327)
“Every now, it, it depends on the subject, you know of what, if they have a particular
class for something or other, I might send somebody else because that will help them in
their job, but for the most part, if it’s just meetings or organizational meetings, then it
would be me. So, I guess it depends on the meeting [laughing]. [I: yeah] If it’s something,
if it’s a training component or something like that, I could very easily, or most likely send
somebody else to take the training, but…” (12)
In one case, one organizational representative stated she attends PWC meetings so the
organization can maintain connections with the PWC because she chairs one of their coalitions:
“Mmm no, in my role as [the GLHRN chair] chair I’m supposed to be attending the
Power of We, the actual Power of We meetings every month and I haven’t been so good
113

about doing that but we are supposed to be connected there.…Um because um we felt we
as the [coalition] or GLHRN felt that um the chair needed to be connected, to stay
connected with the Power of We so that they should attend those meetings as the chair of
[the GLHRN coalition] to have a presence at that meeting if we could.” (15-10)
Given the unique roles of these particular organizational representatives, and the initiative
they work on, it makes good sense that they dedicate resources to building and maintaining
personal relationships. Being involved locally in the community and attending meetings are
important mechanisms promoting participation within the PWC, however, if the organization did
not value at least some aspect of what they get from this involvement they would not likely
participate. This brings us to other constraints that challenge network and collaborative
participation with the PWC.
6) Other Constraints
Nine of 14 organizations mentioned other constraints not related to any other areas of
content. Resource constraints were identified across organizational culture types. Two main
resource constraints were identified: 1) human resources, and 2) time.
Human Resources. Human resources include the energy and expertise of organizational
staff. This resource was mentioned by 2 organizations. One staff person likely does multiple jobs
as needed so there are no extra resources for additional work outside of the organization:
“Everything [laughing] Um, I do, I help with the programming, I help, uh, let’s see. We,
we do trainings of volunteers, we do recruitment of volunteers, we do, um, assessments.
I, I have not done assessments. That’s the one role in this organization I’ve never done.
Any other role, I’ve done it at one time. Um, so I can step in and fill in and we have
tutoring programs for children. I can step in and do something there if I need to. I, I help
guide, you know, what we’re doing this term or not. There are, um, and I write grants and
do the reporting, and payroll, and I…it’s like I have to prove everything, every check that
get’s written, I, I approve it and code it to a grant. I, I take out the trash, [laughing]. I,
114

literally. I mean, we’re a, we’re a small organization, and it’s, there’s only three of us that
are full time, and one of them coordinates two different programs which makes her be
full-time, then. Um, I think I have a total of ten people working here now, paid, I should
say. [I: hm] We have, you know, a couple hundred volunteers, but there’s no time for
anything extra.” (12-3)
Time. Time was discussed as a constraint to network and collaborative participation even
more often than human resources (6/14).
“Okay, are there certain things that are barriers to doing the work you do with either the
coalition or consortium?...I think that its part of that, there are some many things that I
need to get done, it’s my job expectation, that there just isn’t enough hours in a day.” (4)
In some cases the work that organizational representatives do with the PWC are not covered in
the work day so her individual motivation to address a particular social issue is an important
aspect of meeting the goals of this work:
“I think that its part of that, there are some many things that I need to get done, it’s my
job expectation, that there just isn’t enough hours in a day.” (4)
Two other types of constraints were also mentioned that include: 1) view of community
organizations, and 2) conflicts of interest among organizational representatives working on a
change initiative.
3) View of Community Organizations
The view of organizations by the community was also viewed a constraint to network
participation (4/14).
“I maybe the one thing that gets a little in the way is that we are so different that almost
all of them, that um, ah… because the kind of direct services that we provide is, is really
different… that so many of that ones that we work with. Number one, um, I don’t know
quite how to explain it. Um, we’re just so…. Nontraditional for what you think of as a
service agency. (3-24) P: So maybe that’s what gets in the way. I: Getting in the way is
115

them not realizing P: mhm mhm. And, and thinking this isn’t where, you, you broadcast
programs, what are you talking about. (3)
4) Conflicts of Interest.
There were a couple different types of organizational representatives that discussed
situations where even with the best intentions to collaborate in an effort to address some
community-level issue across the network, there are still barriers to achieving collaborative
goals. One representative described a situation where individuals representing different
organizations acting as coalition partners created contention when a message was sent on behalf
of the coalition that made the organization they represent look like they were doing something
bad:
“Well, there was some confusion from [coalition] members who went on both [listserves]
and they took exception with some of the stuff that was in the press release about the
[coalition], even though the [coalition] is a program of CCY. So as the coordinator of
multiple projects, it was one of the projects that was included in the, that members of the
[coalition] you know, actually exerted an inappropriate level of authority about what was
in a CCY press release. And really what it did is it, it kind of really drove the point and it
was a good opportunity to talk with some of the leadership about, you know, we’ve got to
decide about whether or not the [coalition] needs to be separate, should it get a 501C3,
and it just kind of crystallized it for me. That they have actually grown to the point where
um they really do need to be a separate organization. And yes, and so that was, they were
sort of confused. I got this about the [coalition] press release, it’s like – ‘no, [this
coalition] is a program of CCY’… Um some of the disparity data that; one of the systems
felt like it was too heavily negative and that it implied that the outcomes were intentional.
Well you know your results that you get have disproportionate impact on the population
within the system. And it is documented as data, it is what it is but the system leaders
took exception to that being included in the press release…In the context of community
violence…yeah within that context it appeared, it appeared to set across a kind of
negative light on one system in particular because it was specifically about violence. If it
had been about education, our friends in the education system would have felt slighted…
it was individuals…I mean they were individuals who happened to be on the [coalition]
116

commission but there, it was not a [coalition] document, so it was not submitted for
[coalition] approval, they just happened to be on both mailing lists.” (11)
In this case, there was a lot of cross-communication across listserves about a problem in
the community they want to address to all the representatives of the community that have a stake
in the issue. However, there were some individual representatives that didn’t like the way the
message was sent because it made it look like the organization they were personally affiliated
with was not addressing the issue. Interestingly, the message was sent out to the listserv written
in a particular way by the coalition because they wanted to create the impetus and momentum so
that others will take action on the issue. There appears to be a clash in organizational interests,
coalition interests, and individual interests. This conflict does not appear to be a problem
affiliated with organizational culture but rather an issue of political interests being crossed,
unintentionally, based on confusion about who was representing what. Whatever way you slice
this conflict of interest, there is some paradox of participation occurring where individuals must
be careful about how actions are taken in efforts to create community change.
Similarly, another organizational representative discussed a network partnership that
didn’t work out with a different system of services that functions under an entirely different
philosophy about how to address the social problem:
“It’s been very difficult, and [the partnership is] shrinking a bit because we’ve realized
the two cultures are like a different planet and we knew that. All of us knew it, but it
was…it was worth the risk. And so, we learned from it, and we’re, we’re moving on
through that, all of us smarter. They’re still with us in partnership, you know, existing,
but nowhere near the size we had, we had pictured.” (10-7)
Another organizational representative discussed how the history of relationships among
organizations created a lack of trust, which created hesitancy about whether or not to collaborate
with others:
117

“I think, sometimes, interests might just be more of a, the nature of people, but I know
sometimes I would question, um, their complete intentions for wanting to collaborate
with us. Just because, you know every organization has an agenda that they’re trying to,
to reach or follow. Um, they have their end goal, or end result that they want to see
happen. And so, sometimes I was a little hesitant, just wondering what their reason was.
Um, not that I didn’t trust them, and most of the time I moved ahead and collaborated
with them anyways, um, but I know sometimes there was some hesitation on my part, just
wondering, like, what their full intention was for wanting to do this with us, or you know,
collaborate with us…Um, it would just be like, um, a lot of it ended up, usually having to
do with past experiences that the program, the program or my organization had had with
that particular organization. [I: hmm] And so, then, but me being new in my position, um,
trying to move past that, um, and that why, like I said, most of the time I would find a
way to move past that initial gut reaction, and then find that, that gut reaction was
completely wrong because, although, you know, it may have been, um, you know, in the
past there may have been some, some, um, difficult situations, but that’s not the case
now. [I: Mhm. So, there was some lack of trust.] P: Oh, a little bit, but like I said, it
wasn’t based on my experience. It was based on past experience. [I: mhm] Um, and that’s
why I would push to move ahead, and to sort of give, give it another chance. (14-23)
In another case, one representative spoke of turf wars regarding clients. Even in their best
attempts to collaborate in order to ensure they are providing the best services to clients; they
were unable to do so because each organization wanted to carve out the clients that they were
funded to serve so they could maintain their individual organization funding streams:
“Everybody, it, it’s very much a turf-war. And there’s still a lot of, um, ethnic turf-wars.
…Why? Why? You know, [laughing] what? [I: mhm] You know. And so [the director
here] wrote up a little summary plan of, this is how this summer program could work
effectively, and she gave it to him. And they used it that year. The next year they sent
somebody else, because it was a different person in charge, and said “we did this last
year”. But it’s like, you know, “we don’t want to come to your trainings. We don’t want
to do it ourselves. Just, you, you’ve got it. Just give me everything. But, we’re going to
call it our program.”…And she said, don’t you think, wouldn’t it be wonderful instead of,
Black Child, instead of Hispanic Child, instead of Asian Child, couldn’t we just have
Urban Child? And staff went “No. No. We can’t have that.” [[I: hmm] whether it’s a loss
of identity, or whatever, but it’s like, rather than piecemealing it out, and duking it out,
can’t we just work together for the better of the whole society? [I: mhm]. And then, yeah,
the answer was no.” (12) CLAN
118

Question 3 Summary
Assumptions of this youth-focused network highlighted that the PWC collaborative uses
innovative collaborative approaches to solving social problems that are intentional in addressing
issues of race with a focus on ensuring that people of the community get what they need. Based
on these assumptions, several cultural factors were identified as facilitators and constraints to
network and collaborative participation. Overall, a set of facilitators and constraints were
identified separately for collaborative and network participation.
Facilitators of collaborative participation included: valuing collaboration, believing in
team mentality, organizational missions, funding incentives, and specific job roles encouraging
PWC collaborative participation. Constraints involve: valuing consumer satisfaction, having a
common issue focus, and resource constraints. It seems that when organizations are more
community focused, as opposed to individual-level focus, they are more inclined to participate in
PWC collaborative planning processes.
When considering the cultural factors that facilitate or constrain network participation
there is a different set of factors including: valuing consumer satisfaction, having a common
issue focus, organizational mission, funding incentives, specified job roles, and personal
relationship building and maintenance through local engagement in the community and meeting
attendance. Constrains to network participation include: resources, view of the organization by
the community, and conflicts of interest. We know from cross-case analysis of all interview
content that participants believe these factors influence their participation. However, further
research corroborating these themes and demonstrating a clear relationship between these factors
and participation is needed to be more conclusive.

119

Research Question 4: How does participation differ across organization culture type?
There are 4 possible categorizations of organizational culture: Clan, Hierarchical,
Adhocracy, and Market. The most prominent organization culture type within the network are
clan organizations (25/35, 71%), followed by hierarchical organizations (5/35, 14%), adhocracy
organizations (3/35, 9%), and market organizations (2/35, 6%). Each type of organizational
culture has unique values and makes unique assumptions consistent with the OCAI measure.
Each culture type will be explored individually using qualitative, quantitative, and social network
forms of data that demonstrate how member participation differs across culture type.
Qualitative Difference in Organizational Culture
Clan-type Organizations
Clan-type organizations dominate the youth-focused coalition network (25/35). They are
collaborative in approach like extended families that assume teamwork leads to good outcomes.
Clan organizations believe that change takes place through relationships and that participation is
key to achieving goals. From the 5 interviews conducted with clan-type organization
representatives, these organizations are a natural fit for working in the PWC collaborative and
have significant overlap in the PWC focus areas. Many of these organizations value working
with the PWC, have mission’s that overlap with the PWC, and participate in the collaborative in
various ways (e.g., leadership, coalition-level work). Those organizations with higher
collaborative participation had a longer relationship with the PWC and know the history of the
PWC. Cultural factors that facilitate clan-type participation include: mission, common issue
focus, funding incentives, individual organizational roles, local affiliation, presence at meetings,
120

as well as a collaborative approach to the work, and teamwork mentality. Qualitative analysis
indicated that cultural factors that created constraints to participation with the PWC include
funding, time, view of their organization by the community, and turf wars with other similar
organizations.
Hierarchical-type Organizations
Hierarchical organizations are more formalized structured places where a controlling
environment is assumed to lead to ideal outcomes (nodes 133, 41, 104, 103, 133, 158).
Hierarchical-type organizations in this category differ in their network and collaborative
participation – not consistent within this category. Each of these organizations represents a state
funded entity and follows the values system of a hierarchical organization. These are the most
complex organizations within this sample and are difficult to describe as a group. This
complexity is heightened in this study because the person interviewed for each of these
organizations represents a different level of the bureaucracy. I spoke to the executive director of
one organization (node #41), a service representative of another, and a grant manager of a subunit in a third. Each organization describes a different level of participation based on their job
role and perspective on the organization. These were not the only representatives I could have
spoken to, merely the random sample of people chosen. Keep in mind these are the
representatives of these larger organizations that are involved within the 4 coalitions of concern
to this study, so they are bringing the perspective of the organization that interfaces with this
aspect of the communitywide system most concerned with youth.
All hierarchical-type organizations are involved in coalition-level activity at a minimum.
These organizations are more central in the network sociogram and this could be because they
121

are all state funded service providers where no other entity in the community can provide their
services. They seem to participate in the coalitions of the PWC based on the need to be involved
in anything that has to do with providing services related to a specific social issue (e.g.,
education, mental health, child protective services).
The cultural factors that characterize the participation of hierarchical-type organizations
in the PWC do not fit expectations for this type of organization in general. Cultural factors that
facilitate Hierarchical-type participation include: mission, common issue focus,
initiatives/programs, funding incentives, specific job role, as well as taking a collaborative
approach to the work, and having a team mentality. The cultural factors that constrain
participation include: funding, time, view of their organization by the community, and conflicts
of interests. There could be many reasons why these organizational representatives discussed
unexpected aspects of their work environment but the clearest explanation is that there are
aspects of these particular organizations that are unique to their leadership, unique in that they
have been required to participate in multi-purpose collaborative bodies, and I interviewed people
who work in specific initiatives/programs that function quite differently from the rest of the
organization.
Adhocracy-type Organizations
Adhocracy type organizations are the third most represented organizations in the data
(3/35: 215, 161, 96). Adhocracy organizations function like dynamic units that value innovation
and assume innovation leads to success. These types of organizations are interested in
developing innovative ideas, working with relevant others, and being on the cutting edge of
activity, which requires little oversight and lack of centralized power or authority in their work.
122

There were 5 interviews conducted with adhocracy-type organizations. Cultural factors that
facilitate Adhocracy-type participation include: mission, common issue focus,
initiatives/programs, funding incentives, specific job role, presence at meetings, as well as taking
a collaborative approach to the work, and having a team mentality. The cultural factors that
constrain participation include: human resources and conflicts of interests. Since these
organizations are by nature collaborative entities it makes sense that the only constraints to their
participation with the network and the collaborative is that they lack the amount of human
resources to take on new projects or experience conflict with others in the community. These
organizations discussed participating with the PWC in various ways but much of their
participating was at the coalition level. Network participation for these types of organizations is
high primarily because they believe that their goals are achieved through partnership. Adhocracy
organizations seem to be as much of a good fit with the PWC as clan-types are.
Market-type Organizations
Market type organizations are minimally represented within the data (2/35: 198, 75). Market
organizations are highly competitive organizations focused on monetary gains and the external
environment. These organizations are particularly focused on transactions with external
customers and suppliers. Through the 1 interview conducted with a market-type organizational
representative (node #198), this organization fit the description of a market organization with the
exception of the social issues they address through the PWC. Since they are primarily concerned
with service outputs and service evaluations to ensure funding, there is little time for engaging in
broader community change processes.

123

Based on qualitative data, this market-type organization in the youth-focused network
participates only within one coalition, and the reason they are able to take the time to work on
this coalition is because they have developed a “pillar” in their strategic plan to address the social
issue. The unique role of the representative has facilitated participation with the PWC (e.g.,
coalition coordinator) and without her involvement it is questionable whether this organization
would be participating in the PWC at all. Cultural factors that facilitate market-type participation
include: common issue focus, initiatives/programs, and having a specific job role dedicated to
collaborative work. The cultural factors that constrain participation include: mission, issue focus,
funding incentives (there are none), and lack of time. The network data this representative
reported for her organization is not completely representative of the activity of her work on the
social issue she addresses within the network because she misunderstood the survey question.
Through the interview I learned that she felt she should have included more relationships in her
network data response. Hence, many of the ties that are attached to this node in the network
sociogram are mostly in-degree relationships (See Figure 7).While this network data is not
entirely accurate in that not all the organization’s relationships are represented, the relationships
that were reported are accurate. Given the case study nature of this inquiry, these data were
included to provide the most accurate portrayal of the relationships possible given the
limitations of this study.
Quantitative Differences in Organizational Culture
Collaborative participation was measured quantitatively using a participation scale
developed with the coordinator of the PWC (Alpha = .908). To determine if there are any
differences across organizational culture type, overall means were calculated for each type: clan124

type is 3.4, adhocracy-type is 4.0, market-type is 2.5, hierarchical-type is 3.4. A one-way
ANOVA was used to test for differences among the level of collaborative participation.
Collaborative participation did not differ significantly across the 4 organization culture types,
F(3, 31) = .611, p = .613.
Since the quantitative data does not include the adequate number of cells per organization
culture category that are needed to conclude anything substantial from an ANOVA test, I used
some non-parametric ways of exploring this data. Table 6 is a breakdown of the means and
ranges of responses for each organization culture type for each item on the Collaborative
Participation scale. There are several observations that can be made from this descriptive
information that could not be gleaned from the ANOVA conclusion. Two tables are provided to
explore the data from different perspectives, but the observations converge across tables.
Overall, very few respondents from organization culture types rate Collaborative
Participation as “entirely” for any aspect of their work with the PWC (See Table 6). Most
organization culture types range in the middle (2-4) on all participation across culture type. The
one market culture organization does not have a group size large enough to provide a range of
activity that might not fit market-type cultures in general, or even the sample of market-type
organizations within the PWC, which is even more difficult to understand because we have some
zeros. Overall, the hierarchical organizations appear to play a significant role in the work of the
PWC with ranges of activity being mostly between 3-4, with lower activity occurring within
transportation and leadership meetings. Adhocracy organizations are much like the clan type
organizations in that they have a wide range of level of involvement across the various activities
available within the PWC. Many of the clan and adhocracy organizations marked having no
125

involvement with several aspects of the PWC, as we can see by the existence of “1” being in
their range of participation with the PWC.
To further explore the same mean values using the conditional formatting function in
excel, the differences in groups becomes much more salient. Conditional formatting of these data
allows for a display of the more subtle differences occurring within the data. Table 5 involves the
same data as Table 6 so the observations are very similar. However, Table 6 provides a different
lens through which to observe the same data. In Table 7, the color shading is based on mean
values for each group in relation to each item from the Collaborative Participation scale. Brighter
Green indicates higher scores, brighter red indicates lower scores, and yellow indicates scores
somewhere in the middle.

126

127

Overall, it can be observed that the Hierarchical organizations have higher participation
levels on many items (more green) and Clan-type organizations have lower participation levels
(more red). Through further analysis of this table the least amount of participation occurs in
Leadership/Practice committee meetings and Transportation meetings with more of that
involvement coming from the Hierarchical-type organizations. Table 6 also makes it clear that
Hierarchical-type organizations are contributing more funds/in-kind resources to the PWC. The
one Market-type organization is clear that it regularly attends PWC monthly meetings and
provides input into the PWC, along with some involvement in coalition activity but otherwise is
not really involved or unaware of other types of involvement the organization might have.
Interestingly, all types of organizations seem to get a great deal, or at least some of what they
need from the PWC overall.

Table 7. Organization Culture Mean Differences in Collaborative Participation by Scale Item
Collaborative Participation Scale Items
Organization Culture Type
Scale values: 1=not at all, 2=a little, 3=to
some extent, 4=a great deal, 5=entirely, 0 =
Clan
Adhocracy Market Hierarchy
don’t know
1: Provides input into PWC
2.57
2.88
4.00
4.17
2: Spends time on PWC activities
2.49
2.75
2.00
3.63
3: Spends time on PWC Coalitions
2.97
3.20
3.00
3.60
4: Regularly at PWC mtgs.
2.35
1.88
5.00
4.10
5: Regularly at Steering Committee mtgs.
1.40
1.50
0.00
3.50
6: Regularly at Data Committee mtgs.
1.73
2.00
0.00
3.50
7: Regularly at Leadership/Practice
1.60
1.00
0.00
2.67
committee mtgs.
8: Regularly at Transportation committee
1.36
1.00
1.00
2.71
mtgs.
9: Lead activities for the PWC
1.66
2.50
0.00
4.30
10: Contribute funds/in-kind resources to
1.86
2.50
3.00
4.75
PWC
11: Participates in PWC because we get what
3.13
3.25
3.00
4.00
we need from it overall
128

Cultural Differences in Network Participation
Each culture type is represented in the Figure 7 by color (red = clan, purple =
hierarchical, green = market, light blue = adhocracy). In an effort to examine participation of
different organization cultures within the network, degree centrality and organization culture are
graphed. The sizes of nodes in the following sociogram have meaning. The bigger the size of the
node, the more central the organization is within the network. In general, clan and hierarchical
type organizations are more centrally located, and potentially more influential, or important, in
the youth-focused coalition network.

129

Figure 7: Organization Culture and Centrality within Youth-Focused Coalition Network
145
74

64

198

72

217
201

104

203

200

177

194
3
41

32

86

190
103

96

24
161

58
125

23

21

189

22

87

106

133

176

162
215
158
97

130

Question 4 Summary
Clan-type organizations represent more of the youth-focused coalition network while
market-type organizations are the least involved. Clan and hierarchical-type organizations are
more central in the network indicating that these types of organizations are potentially more
important in the network. Through examining the collaborative participation scores across
culture types it was found that there are no significant differences in collaborative participation
levels according to culture type. By examining the differences among organization culture type
we learn that clan and adhocracy-type organizations are a natural fit within the PWC network in
general due to matches in assumptions about the world, which involves assuming that
partnership is required to meet their goals. Additionally, we learned that hierarchical
organizations in this network have an unexpectedly good fit with the PWC. Hierarchical-type
organizations represent a large proportion of this network and are more central which makes
sense because they are the founding partners of the PWC and are state or county-level agencies
where other organizations are mandated to work with them for various reasons (e.g., pre-school
education, mental health services, child protective services). Market-type organizations
minimally participate but decide to do so when they have a social issue they must address. This
type of high participation within the PWC network makes sense given they value teamwork,
believe their organization goals are reached through partnership, and are mission-driven with a
primary concern for people.
Summary Results Conclusion

131

There were a variety of different data sources and several potential findings throughout
this exploratory study thus to draw your attention to the most salient aspects of this study, the
following section summarizes the main findings associated with each research question.
PWC Network Participation
Social network analysis graphs identified the structural network participation of the PWC
and the youth-focused coalition members. Overall, the PWC is a highly connected collaborative,
yet the youth-focused coalition network is a less connected set of organizations. PWC founding
partners occupy more central positions in the network, which makes sense given the history of
the multi-purpose collaborative in Michigan counties. Centralization measures indicate that
participation is more equally dispersed across the network which means no particular node or set
of nodes has a substantial amount of more power or influence in this network over others.
What is particularly interesting about the network structure is that founding partners are
technically more central, meaning they are likely to have more influence and be perceived by
others as more important in the network. These more central organizations have resources no
other organizations have, more employees to conduct their work, more stable funding streams,
and more commonly accepted practices within the community than other organizations in the
network. More peripheral organizations serving the same population have less influence in the
network and are perceived as less important by others, just given their in-degree measures. These
organizations are more likely non-profit values driven organizations that believe differently
about what leads to ideal youth outcomes than founding partners yet their ability to influence the
direction of resources and activity in the system may be limited in the connections they have
within this network.
Differences across Organization Culture Type
132

Mixed data sources were used to examine organization culture type participation with the
PWC through different lenses. Findings revealed cultural differences in network participation
and qualitative data that were not prevalent in collaborative participation data. Quantitative data
regarding collaborative participation identified no significant differences in collaborative
participation by culture type. This means no cultural type is more involved in PWC collaborative
planning and organizing than any other. However, qualitative and network data discovered
different dynamics.
Qualitative data reveal very little differences across cultural type. Clan-type and
adhocracy-type organizations are a more likely fit in general due to overlaps in assumptions
about the world and their approach to their work being team focused. It was surprising to learn
that the hierarchal-type organizations involved in this network have absorbed characteristics
more like adhocracy-type and clan-type organizations.
Network data revealed that market-type organizations are the least good fit within the
PWC. It could have been anticipated that market-type organizations would be least involved in
the PWC network overall, just given they are the type or organization that values monetary gain
over anything else, however, qualitative data revealed ways in which market-type organizations
could be enticed to participate in this kind of community, particularly the overlap in mission
through strategic planning documents, contribution of human resources, and personal
motivations of the organizational representative. When considering they type of culture this
organization is, the way this market-type organization has engaged with the PWC should be
noted for seeking to involve other market-type organizations in collaborative efforts. Overall,
findings indicate that organization culture is less a factor in network participation when
collaboration is valued.
133

Important Cultural Factors in PWC Member Participation
Cross-case inductive and deductive qualitative findings with a diverse organizational
sample identified the culture of youth-focused coalition member network. From this sample, it
was found that this network assumes using innovative collaborative approaches to solving social
problems is important, that they need to be intentional in addressing issues of race in this
community, and that it’s important to stay focused on ensuring that people of this community get
what they need. Overall, these organizations value a collaborative approach to conducting their
work and believe team mentality is important for reaching their goals. They also value
individual-level consumer satisfaction. There were no anomalous cases that were an exception to
these findings.
Participation with the PWC collaborative and participation in the community-level
network involve different kinds of focus and activities. Collaborative participation involves
actively identifying needs and making decisions for the broader community-level change
initiative while network participation involves actively setting up mechanisms across the
network to achieve solutions, such as developing relationships, structures, or resources necessary
to achieve change initiative goals. Among this youth-focused network, collaborative and network
participation is facilitated and constrained by different cultural artifacts.
Artifacts that facilitate collaborative participation include: having an organization
mission that dovetails with the goals of the PWC, having funding incentives that encourage
collaborative participation, and having human resources (job roles) dedicated to collaborative
endeavors. Constraints to collaborative participation include: organizations having too much
focus on a specific social issue, having too much focus on individual-level consumer satisfaction,

134

and experiencing resource constraints for doing anything not directly tied to obtaining
organizational goals.
Cultural artifacts that facilitate network participation include: having an overlapping
organizational mission focus, having a specific common issue focus (particularly for larger
agencies/organizations that have a broad mission and purpose), and human resources (job roles)
dedicated to partnerships that function to develop and maintain network relationships through
local engagement in the community and attend meetings. Constraints to network participation
include: an unclear or distorted view of the organization by the community, lack of resources to
work with others, and conflicts of interest that are seemingly more political at the individuallevel.

135

CHAPTER 5
Discussion
Despite the vast amount of literature describing the difficulty of developing effective
collaboratives, the PWC collaborative provides a example of one with a unique set of
relationships in relation a to efforts to promote systems change. By the description provided by
the PWC regarding its work, the PWC provides an example of a collaborative that promotes
empowering capacity-building resources for organizational members, promotes
interorganizational and inter-sectoral dialogue towards bridging relationships; and utilizes
various community-wide resources to promote synergistic activity to address broad communitylevel issues at the tri-county level. This description of activity by the PWC is consistent with the
literature on multi-disciplinary collaboratives (Lasker & Weiss, 2006). The current exploratory
study identified factors particular to both collaborative and network participation, found that
organization culture type is less of a barrier in collaboratives when the organization values
collaboration across organization culture type, and identified various cultural factors that play a
role in this collaborative endeavor in ways that identify its overall culture and character.
The purpose of this exploratory study was to conduct a system analysis with a local
systems change collaborative to identify the context-specific deep structural challenges
associated with its work. More specifically to understand the relationship between organizational
culture and the member participation in this systems change endeavor through qualitative
methods. This case study provides an example of a collaborative engaged in a continuous model
of change where ongoing relationship building and strategy development is necessary. Findings
discuss the dense network of the PWC’s youth-focused coalition members and find that cultural
differences are less prevalent due to widespread value for collaboration, belief in the value of
136

having a team mentality, and concern for consumer satisfaction. Interestingly, the history of this
collaborative being grounded within the multipurpose collaboratives of Michigan may have
implications for its exemplary status in promoting collaboration. Given the case study nature of
this locally situated study, limitations are discussed, as well as implications for further research,
policymakers, funders, and educating future generations of practice-based scholars for furthering
systems change.

Description of PWC and Youth-Focused Coalition Participation
A sociogram depicting the full network of the PWC demonstrates the connections and
relationships among agencies. According to the network analysis results, it could be argued the
PWC is beginning to reach an ideal level of collaborative participation. Collaboration involves
cross-sector alliances concerned about a particular problem domain working together to create
systems change (Backer, 2003; Gray, 2000) and this accurately applies to the PWC collaborative.
The network sociogram shows that every member connected with no nodes left hanging, which
implies a minimally connected network across varied levels of working relationships. The extent
to which these organizations pool their resources and ideas for innovation and problem-solving
would need to be explored in further detail. However, provided the general measures observed in
this network, it could be argued a certain level of participation exists for the benefits of
collaboration to occur among this network. Structurally this network may be ready to begin
communicating more strategically for community-level/population-level outcomes, if they are
not already.
Results of the youth-focused coalition’s membership sociogram reveal a less dense but
connected network of diverse organizations. The organizations mapped on the perimeter of the
137

sociogram demonstrate weaker ties yet the communication lines exist and there is no
fragmentation within the network. This network is indicative of a collaborative that has good
relationships built and has the potential to do some really interesting work together. Network
measures indicate that there are no particular nodes in the network that dominate the work.
Therefore, provided these network measures are accurate in reality, the network structure of the
PWC collaborative is likely in the position to facilitate planning processes that allow all
organizations within the network to contribute to strategy implementation. Interestingly,
qualitative findings highlight how members have come to realize their interdependence and seek
to work together to achieve shared goals in their community. This value of collaboration has
been built among these organizational actors over time and it seems they have reached the ideal
stage in their relationships needed in order to enact change.

Participation Differences across Organization Culture Type
Mixed-methods exploring the relationship between organization culture and member
participation identified mixed results. Overall, results indicate that organization culture type is
less a factor related to member participation when the organization has some facet of its work
that values collaboration. There were clear differences in the role of organization culture type
identified in the sociogram depicting network participation yet there were no significant
differences in collaborative participation according to culture type. In contrast, however,
qualitative results indicate that organization culture type was not much of a factor in that all
organizational cultures were surprisingly very similar, particularly regarding values and
assumptions about how to get the work done. Additionally, it was surprising to find hierarchical-

138

type organization representatives speak of such similar characteristics as other types in guiding
their organizational practices.
Network Participation
Clan and hierarchical-type organizations are more central in the network indicating those
types of organizations are perceived as more important and that they have more potential
influence due to a larger number of direct relationships in the network. It is not surprising to find
clan-type organizations dominating the network because the nature of their work dovetails well
with the values, beliefs and practices of the PWC. It is surprising that hierarchical organizations
occupy more central roles within the network sociogram because one would not anticipate that
they were more collaborative in their daily practices. Interestingly, among the hierarchical
organizational representatives interviewed, the values and assumptions of their organizational
context overlapped significantly with all other organizations of different cultural types, except
the market-type organization.
This finding is not surprising given the PWC is based on a multipurpose collaborative
body that was developed to engage state and county-level human service agencies that are likely
to be characterized as hierarchical. Based on this history, hierarchical organizations are likely
more central to the network because they are of the founding partners of the PWC and are
federal, state or county-level agencies where other organizations are mandated to work with them
for various reasons. Moreover, this could also be the case because they provide a service that no
other entity provides (e.g., pre-school education, mental health services, child protective
services). The market-type organization was an obvious outlier within the network analysis and
qualitatively.
139

Collaborative Participation
There were no significant differences in collaborative participation according to culture
type. This finding is interesting because according to the literature one might have expected to
see higher levels of participation with the collaborative among adhocracy organizations and clan
organizations. Qualitatively the market-type organization interviewed focuses on consumer
satisfaction which makes any kind of collaboration activity minimal unless the work is directly
addressing the social issue they address that overlaps with the PWC. Given the nature of the
services that the market-type organization provides to the community, it makes sense that they
must focus on consumer satisfaction as opposed to more collaborative activity that is not related
to the quality of their outputs. However, this was a unique case where a sub-unit representative
of the broader organization is working on a specific social issue through a coalition of the PWC,
and without that it is possible this type of organization would not be involved in the
collaborative.
General Cultural Differences and Participation
The fact that responses from market-type organizational representatives were few in the
survey response overall may imply something about the types of organizations that are likely to
participate in collaborative activity in general. These kinds of organizations are more focused on
environmental forces and wherever the money pulls them so they may be less inclined to
participate in collaborative initiatives focused on concern for people (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
Alternatively, as was in the case of the market-type organization that was interviewed, there can
be cases where these types of organizations are enticed to care about people when the mission of

140

the organization is to care about people and when their financial resources provide incentives for
them to do so.
These mixed findings make the PWC collaborative unique in its relationship to the
literature on interorganizational participation. According to the literature, one would have
expected more participation from clan and adhocracy organizations because they have a natural
alignment with the values and methodological preferences of the PWC overall. Clan-type
organizations were definitely more numerous within the study sample, however adhocracy
organizations were not. According to homophily theory which suggests relationships are likely to
be built between organizations with similar characteristics, we should have expected that
organizations that are more like each other will be more likely to work together (take the path of
least resistance) (Bruynooghe, Verhaeghe & Bracke, 2008). The reason the PWC members
within this study may not fit with the literature, in terms of organization culture type similarity,
is because they are part of a multi-purpose collaborative body historically which has forced them
to work together over time. It is possible they may have developed an appreciation for
collaboration regardless of the history of their organizations being more traditionally constructed
within certain organization culture types (e.g., hierarchical-type, market-type). It is also possible
that because they have been forced to work with more non-traditional partners, they are not
averse to continuing to engage in such challenging interorganizational work because they value
innovation and believe it occurs within interorganizational partnerships. Another possible
explanation is that comparing organizations on the basis of organization culture is not the type of
organizational characteristics that encourage organizations to work together because if we
compare them on the characteristics of what they value and how they conduct their work they

141

would be viewed as similar. The organizations in this study appear to challenge more traditional
notions of how organization culture is defined in practice.
Qualitative results reveal that organizations in the youth-focused network likely have
some aspect of their organization matching the collaborative approach of the PWC under similar
assumptions. In some cases this could be due to the fact that some of the representatives were
funded by special program grants within a broader more hierarchical organizational setting and
were speaking to the particular organization setting that they work within, providing a window
into the world of their work as an interorganizational coordinator with a specific focus rather
than the perspective of leadership and a broader approach to community work more common
within their organization. In such cases, what was interesting to uncover were the conditions
under which they function as an interorganizational coordinator and how they navigate their role.
PWC Culture: Important Cultural Factors in Member Participation
Cross-case inductive and deductive qualitative findings with a diverse organizational
sample identified the culture of the youth-focused coalition member network. From this sample,
it was found that this network assumes using innovative collaborative approaches to solving
social problems is important, that they need to be intentional in addressing issues of racial
inequities in this community, and that it is important to stay focused on ensuring that people of
this community get what they need. Overall, these organizations value a collaborative approach
to conducting their work and believe team mentality is important for reaching their goals.
Several participants also specify valuing individual-level consumer satisfaction. Interestingly,
this cultural description matches the PWC theory of change articulated in their handouts which is
further indication that the collaborative is articulating aligned actual values, not just the espoused
values and beliefs on their advertising materials.
142

Important Cultural Factors in Member Participation
Results indicate that each aspect of the two domains of member participation in a change
initiative involves different levels of focus and the enactment of different resources. Participation
with the PWC collaborative and participation in the community-level network involve different
kinds of focus and activities. Collaborative participation involves actively identifying needs and
making decisions for the broader community-level change initiative while network participation
involves actively setting up mechanisms across the network to achieve solutions, such as
developing relationships, structures, or resources necessary to achieve change initiative goals.
Among this youth-focused network, collaborative and network participation is facilitated and
constrained by different cultural artifacts.
Artifacts that facilitate collaborative participation include: having an organization
mission that dovetails with the goals of the PWC, having funding incentives that encourage
collaborative participation, and having human resources (job roles) dedicated to collaborative
endeavors. Constraints to collaborative participation include: organizations having too much
focus on a specific social issue, having too much focus on individual-level consumer satisfaction,
and experiencing resource constraints for doing anything not directly tied to obtaining
organizational goals.
Understandably, organizations committed to providing services to individuals will
allocate resources to meet those goals and may have a more difficult time allocating resources to
broader community-level initiatives. However, if these particular kinds of organizations develop
a clearer understating of how their services relate to others within the broader network related to
their population of concern within their community, it might be easier to argue for an investment
of human resources to participate in such work.
143

Conflicts of Interest Regardless of Valuing Collaboration
Regardless of the PWC being an interorganizational collaborative that values
collaboration; many constraints are easily adjustable through collaborative coordination.
However qualitative results reveal that more complex conflicts of interests continue to impede
change processes within the network participation domain. These conflicts of interest appear to
be more due to individual-level politics associated with individual commitments to
organizational professionalism and sector-based standards. Ultimately, it is these types of
constraints to network participation that impede systems change and identify the aspects of these
broader systems that need to be restructured for the flow of resources to ensue.
Based on the accounts of conflicts of interest provided in the interviews, conflicts of
interest within interorganizational network participation do not appear to be completely
grounded in organization cultural differences as described in this study. Conflicts of interest
mentioned by participants included turf wars over clientele that utilize services, confusion and
misrepresentation within collaborative contexts, and the problems associated with interfacing
with whole systems that differ philosophically (e.g., mental health system, justice system). This
finding is consistent with the local contextual level influences mentioned in the literature as
challenges associated with enacting change within a network (Foster-Fishman, Perkins, &
Davidson, 2007; Nowell, 2010). It also speaks to the sector level differences that create the
criteria by which professional standards are created and maintained. This study has contributed
to this literature by separating out where conflicts of interest are likely to take place within a
systems change initiative (within network-level participation) and has developed
recommendations for how this information can be used by practitioners to encourage partners to
work through the struggles to promote systems change at multiple levels.
144

We know from the literature that it is the enactment of an organization or agency’s role as
a change agent within their settings, and with relevant community groups that are the impetus for
deep structural change across a community system (network participation) (Lasker & Weiss,
2003). We also know that network participation success depends on the collaborative’s ability to
transcend barriers to enact change. Ideal members would provide access to resources, take time
to act for the change initiative, and feel some pressure to act with others in the collaborative, and
enact changes within their own organizations. The reality is that we must take into consideration
several lenses coloring organizational landscapes simultaneously, such as the political, cultural,
organizational, and the personal interests of individuals within those organizations if we are to
truly promote systems change (Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1991). One important point for change
would be to identify the exact mechanisms that deter collaboration as they occur in attempts to
do so, and restructure these broader systems to align incentives across organizations and sectors.
Limitations
The findings of this study are exploratory within a unique case study embedded within a
plethora of contextual idiosyncrasies and therefore cannot be generalized to large populations in
their entirety (Denzin, 1983). In this case study, population level generalizability was not the
purpose and there was no effort to meet criteria for such extensive external validity from a
statistical standpoint. However, generalizability involves forming general notions by abstraction
from particular instances (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989), and therefore generalizability is
possible to some extent in terms of the ways in which the observations and descriptions drawn
from this study can add to theory (Lee & Baskerville, 2003); particularly regarding literature on
the topic of interorganizational collaboration for purposes of community systems change. For
example, within this case study, lessons learned about the challenges associated with bridging
145

ties in efforts to address community-based issues can be used to further refine the Model of
Community Health Governance (Lasker & Weiss, 2003) or add to theory describing the factors
that contribute to achieving a collaborative advantage (Lasker, Weiss & Miller, 2001). These
findings could also add to the propositions put forth by Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone
(2006) regarding the design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations. The PWC is a
multi-purpose collaborative body unique to counties within the state of Michigan and if this
study were replicated with other multipurpose bodies, it is possible findings would replicate and
further generalizations could be made across contexts and for populations. Additionally, this
study could be replicated with a systems change collaborative in another state that functions
within different environmental conditions, and if the findings were consistent in that context, it is
more likely that generalizations could be made at a different level.
Although several findings from this study are interesting, there are limitations that need
to be discussed regarding sample, methods, and data. First, we do not have data from
organizations that did not respond to the survey (which is a large proportion of the overall
identified network). Unfortunately, very little is known about the perspectives of those who
chose not to respond. It would have been useful to sample intentionally those who did not
respond to the survey, particularly for interviews, so one could learn more about why they didn’t
fill out the survey and find out if that says anything about their level of participation with the
PWC collaborative. Future data collection efforts in a similar type of study might consider
identifying aspects of organizations entered into the global roster in order to make some
observations about those organizations that do not respond to the survey (e.g., private/public,
focus area, etc.).

146

Second, among those interviewed there was a convergence across values and assumptions
one might have expected to be different given the sample of organization cultures included.
However, I was not able to talk to organizations that did not respond so the findings are unique
to those organizations/individuals who responded. This sample limits what we can learn about
how organizational culture relates to member participation in a change initiative. Maybe a
similar study with a collaborative that is less developed would yield greater differences across
organization types and in that case maybe types would be more prevalent.
Third, the criteria used to develop the PWC global roster yielded a high number of
organizations that may not have been the most accurate list of participating PWC organizations.
Thus, although response rate was below 70% (the minimum ideal percentage rate of return for
conducting a thorough social network analysis), it was based on the total number of
organizations decided on based off the global roster. The criteria for the global roster asked
coalition coordinators to provide a contact list for their participating organizations, however, they
were told to think broadly about “participating organizations” in the sense that they should
include the list of organizations they would have participating in their coalition in an ideal world.
These criteria may have resulted in a contact list that was much larger than it should have been.
Fourth, we had nowhere near a complete global roster survey return rate, or even a
substantial representative percentage to say anything conclusive about the network using
statistical tools of social network analysis. The return rate was 34% which may say something
about the level of participation within the PWC overall. Given that an entire coalition within the
PWC chose not to participate in the survey at all may say something about the level of actual
participation in the PWC at the present time. It’s possible that more time to prepare individual
organizational representative PWC members would likely have produced a better return rate
147

from organizations. The coalition coordinators were contacted about the survey in advance and
were asked to encourage their organizational members to participate, however, more time
meeting with individual organizations could have increased the response rate. Additionally,
frequent follow-up calls and meetings with organization leaders would have likely increased the
return rate as well.
Fifth, the choice for who was interviewed for the organization differed depending on who
was randomly chosen to represent the organization which means I was only able to learn the
culture of the organization from their perspective. While this was the purpose for this sampling
strategy (to understand their personal struggles within organizational constraints given the
position they hold within the organization), this did not provide an accurate portrayal of the
culture of the whole organization, which means we may not have a completely accurate
categorical cultural type represented in the network analysis. However, this methodological
choice did provide the opportunity to identify and speak with those representatives of the
organization that are likely to have the most accurate and relevant understanding of the
organization’s participation with the PWC and be able to speak most clearly about aspects of
their organizational context and job role that facilitate and constrain PWC and network
participation.
Sixth, the interviews could have been structured differently. There was too much time
spent on cultural assessment of the organizational context and not enough time spent asking
organizational representatives to tell their stories of partnerships that failed or succeeded. The
interview data collected triangulated the culture type as assessed within the survey with the
organizational culture actually experienced by the representative, and while that was confirming
of organizational culture, I missed the opportunity to learn more about the local contextual
148

challenges within this collaborative and community network that might have more clearly
identified levers for specific systems change. Nonetheless, there were a few interviews where I
was able to take more time to inquire more in-depth about challenges associated with this work
and much of these data can be found in the qualitative findings about conflicts of interest.
Seventh, even though a large number of people began the survey, not all of them
completed the survey because it took too long. The online survey was too long and should have
been shorter. It’s possible a shorter survey might have yielded a larger sample, so by being more
reasonable in my data request, this may have benefited everyone in the long run. An interesting
observation to note about the PWC sample that could also be viewed as a limitation is that the
demographics of the sample included a mostly white sample and lacked involvement of anyone
under the age of 25. These demographics speak to the comments made by one interview
participant about how important it is for the PWC to be more intentional in addressing racial
disparities within this community. Additionally, this survey targeted organizational
representatives so it is unclear if youth were not involved in this study because they are not
representing organizations or if they are not participating in the PWC collaborative. If the latter,
in the spirit of promoting innovation among youth-focused systems change planning, the PWC
might be limited in their level of innovative/creative thinking by not involving youth in their
systems change planning. Overall, if I were to conduct this study again, I would figure out a way
to sample those organizations and populations not involved and figure out how to learn from
them why they are not participating because they are the ones we really need to hear from to
identify what change is needed and the barriers are to collaborative and network participation for
change.

149

Implications for Research, Policy, Funders, and Practice
Implications for Research
This study builds on the idea that we should evaluate internal or proximal outcomes
separately from other distal outcomes because I find that there is a different level of focus and
resources necessary for participating in these 2 domains of a continuous change endeavor
(collaborative participation and network participation). This study’s findings are consistent with
the management literature on managing collaboratives suggesting that managing
interorganizational collaboratives must attend to the inward and outward aspects of collaborative
work (Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010). Further research examining the tensions and paradoxes
involved in developing and enacting effective collaborative and network participation in local
contexts would identify patterns or tensions across contexts. Furthermore, research that identifies
sectors that create more tensions than others could identify implications for higher levels of
systems change and strategies for practitioners of collaboratives to enact within their local
contexts.
A couple of different research tracks could be conducted to learn more about dynamics
involved in collaborative systems change endeavors regarding who participates more naturally in
different ways. First, a deeper cultural analysis of the incentives or rewards within each
organization compared across organizations and sectors could be conducted to identify the deep
structural mechanisms giving rise to inter-sectoral and individual-level disconnects that impede
facilitating systems change. This could include viewing organizational contexts through several
frameworks in an effort to identify the various possible constraints in all their possible forms
(Bolman & Deal, 1984, 1991). Second, upon reconsideration of the research questions after data
150

were collected for this study, it seems possible that organizations with more of a communitylevel focus (e.g., statewide capacity-building organizations) would be more likely to participate
in the collaborative than other organizations that are more focused on individual-level outcomes
(e.g., service providing organizations).
Although organization culture was not confirmed to play a role in collaborative or
network participation within the PWC, it would be interesting to do follow-up studies with other
collaboratives and test particular questions. To examine further whether organizational culture
plays a role in systems change collaboratives, hypotheses could be tested regarding the theory of
homophily. For example, are clan and adhocracy-type organizations more likely to engage in
collaborative initiatives? Without the presence of a mandate like those of the multipurpose
collaborative bodies in Michigan, to what extent do hierarchical-type and market-type
organizations willingly engage in collaborative systems change initiatives? These collaboratives
could be tested longitudinally to see if the internal cultures of the organizations change as a result
of participating in collaborative initiatives as well, which could be one way of learning to what
extent collaboratives are effective in influencing cultural systems change.
Implications for Policymakers
The literature finds that it is important to have the most relevant mix of stakeholders
actively involved (Lawson, 2004); however, we know from this study’s findings, among others,
that this type of work will inevitably bring tensions (Lasker & Weiss, 2006). Mandating that
human service agencies and organizations work together, as do the multipurpose collaborative
bodies of Michigan, would provide the incentives necessary for various stakeholders of multiple
related sectors to continue to work through tensions toward the creation of more efficient and
151

effective human service systems. Additionally, regardless of the negative perceptions
organizational representatives may have of each other (Nowell, 2010), these broader sectors must
continue to work together to develop innovative and combined solutions to achieving costefficient outcomes that benefit the community. It is important that public input is not forgotten in
this process because they are the voters and tax payers that need to also provide input into how
the current human service system should function for their own benefit.
Implications for Funders
According to the literature, network failure is thought to be a function of poor
management (Butterfoss, 2007; Meyer, 1999); however, managers of such collaborative activity
are severely limited. For example, collaborative coordinators do not have control over the
resources of any organization, so how can organizations be enticed to participate? This study
confirms the literature in that a lack of resources, such as human and financial capital, is a
constraint to collaborative and network participation for systems change. Funders seeking to
facilitate collaborative behaviors should encourage certain types of organizational behaviors and
activities in order to receive their funding and evaluate changes made as a result of collaborative
efforts. In this case, the funder could play a role as a facilitator of change through holding
organizations accountable to action happening throughout the life of a grant (e.g., quarterly
reports and dialogue with funders regarding processes, outputs, and outcomes).
One particular recommendation to funders of such change initiatives could be to allot
portions of funds to organizations that become members. These funds could be put toward the
creation of a job role within organizations where a job may not already exist in order to develop
relationships, identify facets of the organization where overlap with the change initiative exists,
152

and work to coordinate where relevant. This study also identified how job roles explicitly linked
such positions where funding incentives can and does act as a conduit for interorganizational
collaboration between non-traditional partners. Existing grant programs are already engaged in
this so this study only further justifies how this approach enacts the network participation
necessary to promote collaborative and interorganizational activity.
Implications for Practice-based Scholars and Furthering Systems Change
The PWC is a network of organizations that seek community-level changes on several
identified domains. Practitioners within these kinds of networks, practitioners coordinating these
kinds of networks, and practitioners evaluating these kinds of networks are in a position to
examine these relationships and tell whether the relationships are providing the outputs necessary
for meeting their goals. In this way, social network analysis can act as a tool for facilitating
strategy development across organizations in efforts to better achieve their collective goals.
Additionally, conceptualizing a systems change collaborative in terms of achieving goals related
to collaborative and network participation as separate agendas can help practitioners clarify for
members what is expected of them as a member of a change initiative, recommendations for how
to enact change within the existing network they are embedded in, and provide ideas about what
can be anticipated in terms of challenges they may experience in these two different domains of
creating systems change.
The literature discusses how local contexts create specific challenges depending on the
characteristics of the community settings and people and this study confirms this to be the case
with regard to conflicts of interests being a constraint to network participation. Therefore,
practitioners should anticipate such issues and identify potential conflicts of interests in advance
153

of promoting network-level participation. Through discussions with relevant organizations
involved in the initiative, practitioners can assist in identifying ways of preventing conflicts of
interest from impeding collaborative projects/initiatives early on. In this sense, it is possible the
collaborative entity could act as a sounding board for developing ideas for how to address
problems as they arise so that progress does not become stunted and fizzle out.
A seemingly important leverage point for creating far-reaching systems change includes
assessing the influence of broader systems within local contexts through troubleshooting. One
possible agenda could be to first, identify ways to observe the larger state and county-level
systems (e.g., justice system, health service system) and identify the facets of these organizations
that are related. Second, identify the mechanisms or factors that impede progress, and third,
figure out how to change these structures into something that facilitates progress instead. Maybe
through this exploration we can identify at what level the individual systems need to change in
order to create true inter-sectoral systems change that will allow for more creative solutions
through a systems collaborative processes. Practitioners should be encouraged to conduct such
work through mixed methods or qualitative community-based research and publish such work
that provides detailed information about their local contexts so we can learn more about how
these issues are both similar and unique across contexts. An accumulation of such studies could
result in a body of literature suggesting nation-wide systemic changes at the federal level.

154

APPENDICES

155

APPENDIX A
Phase 1 Participant Consent Form
Cultural Systems & Collaborative Network Participation Research Study
Purpose
You are invited to participate in a research project intended to provide a formative
systems analysis of the Power of We Consortium’s network and organizational characteristics
related to participation. The purpose of the survey is to learn about your organization and its
connections with other organizations/agencies/groups in the community. The survey will cover a
variety of topics related to your role with your organization, your participation with the Power of
We Consortium, and your organization’s relationships within the community.
Procedure
Participating in the survey will involve the following:
1. Contacting You – Upon support from the Power of We Consortium, the coalitions of the
Power of We Consortium have been contacted and asked to provide contact information for their
organizational representatives. You will receive an email link to an online survey with this
consent form. After you agree to participate in this study by electronically signing this form, you
will then be directed to a link to the online survey link. Please answer those questions as
completely as possible and submit your responses.

2. Survey - The survey will have six sections of questions asking about your role with the Power
of We Consortium, your role with your organization, and its relationships within the community.
156

The survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. You may withdraw from
completing the survey at any time. Your answers will be held strictly confidential through an
encrypted computer server. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law.

3. Benefits to You - In the past, many people have found participating in this type of study an
interesting and educational experience. We will use the information we gain from participants in
this study to provide feedback to the Power of We Consortium staff and members to assist them
identify ways to make the collaborative better.

4. Risks - There are no physical, legal, or economic risks to participating in the study. It is
possible you might feel somewhat uncomfortable tracking your experiences for the survey. If this
happens, you may stop the survey at any time. It should be pointed out that, although we will not
provide your name in any of the reports or publications we write, your identity might be
recognized by others if you discuss a position for which you are publicly known. The project
staff will do our best to ensure as much confidentiality as possible.

5. Voluntary Participation - Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. You are
free to withdraw from participating at any time. You do not have to respond to any question you
do not want to answer.

6. Confidentiality - All information will be kept strictly confidential. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. We will not use your name on the surveys.
Instead a number will be used to code your answers. The only people who will have access to
your answers will be the primary investigators for this project at Michigan State University.
157

When we share information from these surveys, we will not report what any one person said.
Instead, we will share key ideas that we heard and will never identify who reported what
information.

Questions or Concerns

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please call the person who is in
charge of this project, Dr. Hiram Fitzgerald at 517/353-8977. If you have questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact (anonymously, if you wish) Harry McGee, MPH, Chairperson of Social
Science, Behavioral, Educational Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at 355-2180, Fax: 517-4324503e-mail: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 205A Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

158

Consent Statement
You are being asked to participate in a study that involves one online survey. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate in the survey under the conditions listed above by signing this
consent form.
I have read and been explained the procedures and nature of the survey questions. I had an
opportunity to raise questions and have them answered. I voluntarily agree to participate.

Participant Name (Please Print)

Participant Signature

Date

159

APPENDIX B
Collaborative and Network Participation Online Survey
Consent PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM: Please read the following. If you decide you would
like to participate in the survey, please click "ACCEPT" below.
Purpose: You are invited to participate in a research project intended to provide a formative
systems analysis of the Power of We Consortium’s network and organizational characteristics
related to participation. The purpose of the survey is to learn about your organization and its
connections with other organizations/agencies/groups in the community. The survey will cover a
variety of topics related to your role with your organization, your participation with the Power of
We Consortium, and your organization’s relationships within the community.
Procedure
Participating in the survey will involve the following:
1. Contacting You – Upon support from the Power of We Consortium, the coalitions of the
Power of We Consortium have been contacted and asked to provide contact information for their
organizational representatives. You will receive an email link to an online survey with this
consent form. If you agree to participate in this study by electronically signing this form, you
will then be directed to the online survey link. Please answer those questions as completely as
possible and submit your responses.
2. Survey - The survey will have six sections of questions asking about your role with the Power
of We Consortium, your role with your organization (if applicable), and relationships within the
community. The survey will take approximately 30-50 minutes to complete. Your answers will
be held strictly confidential through an encrypted computer server. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
3. Benefits to You - In the past, many people have found participating in this type of study an
interesting and educational experience. We will use the information we gain from participants in
this study to provide feedback to the Power of We Consortium staff and members to assist them
identify ways to make the collaborative better. Within the information provided to the Power of
We Consortium, they will only receive aggregate summaries, not individual responses.
4. Risks - There are no physical, legal, or economic risks to participating in the study. It is
possible you might feel somewhat uncomfortable tracking your experiences for the survey. If this
happens, you may stop the survey at any time. It should be pointed out that, although we will not
provide your name in any of the reports or publications we write, your identity might be
recognized by others if you discuss a position for which you are publicly known. The project
staff will do our best to ensure as much confidentiality as possible.

160

5. Voluntary Participation - Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. You are
free to withdraw from participating at any time. You do not have to respond to any question you
do not want to answer.
6. Confidentiality - All information will be kept strictly confidential. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. We will not use your name on the surveys.
Instead a number will be used to code your answers. The only people who will have access to
your answers will be the primary investigators for this project at Michigan State University
(MSU) and the people at MSU who are responsible for the protection of human subjects in
research in the case of an audit. When we share information from these surveys, we will not
report what any one person said. Instead, we will share key ideas that we heard and will never
identify who reported what information.
Questions or Concerns - If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific
issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the primary researcher Dr.
Hiram Fitzgerald, Associate Provost of University Outreach and Engagement, Michigan State
University, Kellogg Center, Garden Level; East Lansing, MI, 48824-1022; fitzger9@msu.edu,
517/353-8977. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research
participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint
about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s
Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail
irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Consent Statement You are being asked to participate in a study that involves one online
survey. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in the survey under the conditions
listed above by clicking the ACCEPT button below. By clicking the ACCEPT button below you
voluntary agree to participate in this research project.
 ACCEPT (1)
 DO NOT ACCEPT - Note: Clicking this option will force you to exit the survey
immediately. (2)
Intro Welcome to the Power of We Consortium Network Survey! The Power of We Consortium
has partnered with Michigan State University to gain a clearer understanding of its network, the
communities that are reached by its membership, and to more clearly articulate the function and
work of the Consortium to others. The results of this survey will provide information back to you
and the rest of the members of the Consortium that can inform strategies used to create better
outcomes for communities. You have been identified as an important component of the
Consortium and we need your input to gain an accurate picture of this network. This survey will
cover a variety of topics related to your role with your organization or coalition (if applicable),
your participation with the Power of We Consortium, and relationships within the community.
161

Please answer all questions completely.We thank you in advance for taking the time to complete
this survey. If you cannot complete it in one sitting, it is possible to save it to complete it at a
later time. If you start but do not complete it within the next week, you will be prompted to
complete this at a later date.
FLOW This survey is designed to capture the unique perspectives of organization
representatives, main coalition staff, and individuals representing themselves within the Power of
We Consortium. The questions you will be prompted to answer throughout the survey will
depend on the response you click for this question so it is important that you consider which
perspectives you need to provide as part of the Power of We Consortium. Answering this first
question may be a difficult choice to make since some of you will participate in various kinds of
meetings or groups for various reasons. To clarify how you should choose, here are a few
examples: EXAMPLES 1. If you do not represent an organization or coalition but participate in
one or more of the 12 Power of We Consortium coalitions or meetings, you should click
"individual" only. 2. If you are employed by an organization or agency and participate in Power
of We Consortium coalitions and/or meetings to represent the organization or agency you work
for, you should click "organization" only. 3. If you are the main coordinator, staff, or leader of
one of the 12 Power of We Consortium's coalitions that has the most accurate or up to date
knowledge of the coalition's network, you should click "coalition" only. 4. If you are the main
coordinator, staff, or leader of one of the 12 Power of We Consortium's coalitions that has the
most accurate or up to date knowledge of the coalition's network AND you are employed by an
organization/agency that you represent, you should click "organization" AND "coalition".
Which perspective(s) are you taking as you begin to complete this survey? (click all that apply)
 Individual (I am associated with the Power of We Consortium to represent myself or my
family) (1)
 Organization (I am associated with the Power of We Consortium to represent a specific
organization's interests) (2)
 Coalition (I am one of the main leaders or main staff person coordinating one of the 12
coalitions of the Power of We Consortium) (3)

162

SecA Section A: Personal Descriptives For this section, we would like to learn a little about you.
Please answer these 4 questions as completely as possible.

Q1 1. What is your sex?
 Female (1)
 Male (2)

Q2 2. What is your age?

Q3 3. What is your Racial/Ethnic background? (click all that apply)








White (1)
Black or African American (2)
American Indian or Alaska Native (3)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (4)
Asian (5)
Hispanic or Latino (6)
Other (7) ____________________

Q4 4. What roles have you had with the Power of We Consortium (e.g., coalition member,
committee member, chair, organizer, workshop attendee, etc.)? Please describe.

163

SecB SECTION B: Identification with the Power of We Consortium For the next 6 questions
we would like to know about your identification with the Power of We Consortium.

164

Q5 Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements by clicking the option
that best matches your response.
NOT AT ALL
(1)

A LITTLE (2)

TO SOME
EXTENT (3)

ENTIRELY (4)

1. I belong in the
Power of We
Consortium. (1)









2. I matter to
other members in
the Power of We
Consortium. (2)









3. Other
members in the
Power of We
Consortium
matter to me. (3)









4. I am accepted
by the members
of the Power of
We Consortium.
(4)









5. I identify with
other members
of the Power of
We Consortium.
(5)









6. I feel
connected to
other members
of the Power of
We Consortium.
(6)









165

SecCO SECTION C: Organizational Attributes for Organization Representatives For this
section we would like to know some things about the organization you work for or represent.
This section has 7 questions. Please click the answers that best match your response. Please note
that some questions allow for more than one response.

Q6 1. What organization are you associated with?

Q7 2. What is your job role/title within your organization?

Q8 3. What is the length of time you have been with your current organization?

Q9 4. Which of the following six Power of We Consortium areas of focus does your organization
address? (click all that apply)







Intellectual and Social Development (1)
Promoting Physical and Mental Health (2)
Steward Environmental Resources (3)
Build a Dynamic, Diverse, Vibrant Economy (4)
Keep Homes and Community Safe (5)
Strengthen Sense of Community Cohesion (6)

166

Q10 5. What type of organization listed below best describes your organization? (click all that
apply)












Federal Government (1)
State Government (2)
County Government (3)
Township Government (4)
City Government (5)
Local Economic Development (6)
Community Organizing Entity (e.g., coalition, network) (7)
Educational/Informational Entity (8)
Service Provider (9)
Non-Profit Entity (10)
Other (11)

Q11 6. What county does your organization serve? (click all that apply)





Ingham County (1)
Eaton County (2)
Clinton County (3)
Other (4) ____________________

Q12 7. How long has your organization existed?







0-9 years (1)
10-19 years (2)
20-29 years (3)
30-39 years (4)
40-49 years (5)
50+ years (6)

Q183 Click to write the question text
 Click to write Choice 1 (1)
 Click to write Choice 2 (2)
 Click to write Choice 3 (3)
167

SecDO SECTION D: Organizational Culture for Organizational Representatives This section
consists of 6 questions pertaining to the organization you work for or represent within the Power
of We Consortium. Each question has four alternative scenarios. Divide 100 points among these
four alternative scenarios depending on the extent to which each alternative scenario is similar to
your own organization. Give a higher number of points to the alternative scenario that is most
similar to your own organization. For example, if A scenario is very similar to your
organization, alternatives B and C are somewhat similar, and alternative D is hardly similar at
all, you might give 55 points to A, 20 points each to B and C, and 5 points to D. NOTE: The
overall total for each section question below must equal 100.

Q13 QUESTION 1: Dominant Characteristics NOTE: Overall total must equal 100
______ 1A: The organization is a very personal place. People seem to share a lot of themselves.
(1)
______ 1B: The organization is very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to
stick their necks out and take risks. (2)
______ 1C: The organization is very results oriented. A major concern is getting the job done.
People are very competitive and achievement oriented. (3)
______ 1D: The organization is very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures
generally govern what people do. (4)

Q14 QUESTION 2: Organizational Leadership NOTE: Overall total must equal 100
______ 2A: The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify mentoring,
facilitating, or nurturing. (1)
______ 2B: The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify
entrepreneurship. (2)
______ 2C: The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify a nononsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus. (3)
______ 2D: The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify
coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency. (4)

168

Q15 QUESTION 3: Management of Employees NOTE: Overall total must equal 100
______ 3A: The management style in the organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus,
and participation. (1)
______ 3B: The management style in the organization is characterized by individual risk-taking,
innovation, freedom, and uniqueness. (2)
______ 3C: The management style in the organization is characterized by hard-driving
competitiveness, high demands, and achievement. (3)
______ 3D: The management style in the organization is characterized by security of
employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships. (4)

Q16 QUESTION 4: Organization Glue NOTE: Overall total must equal 100
______ 4A: The glue that holds the organization together is loyalty and mutual trust.
Commitment to this organization runs high. (1)
______ 4B: The glue that holds the organization together is commitment to innovation and
development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge. (2)
______ 4C: The glue that holds the organization together is the emphasis on achievement and
goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are common themes. (3)
______ 4D: The glue that holds the organization together is formal rules and policies.
Maintaning a smooth-running organization is important. (4)

Q17 QUESTION 5: Strategic Emphasis NOTE: Overall total must equal 100
______ 5A: The organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness, and
participation persist. (1)
______ 5B: The organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges.
Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued. (2)
______ 5C: The organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch
targets and obtaining resources are dominant. (3)
______ 5D: The organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and
smooth operations are important. (4)

169

Q18 QUESTION 6: Criteria of Success NOTE: Overall total must equal 100
______ 6A: The organization defines success on the basis of the development of human
resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people. (1)
______ 6B: The organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique engagement
practices and delivery systems. It is a product leader and innovator. (2)
______ 6C: The organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and
outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key. (3)
______ 6D: The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery,
smooth scheduling, and low-cost efficiency (production) are critical. (4)

SecEO SECTION E: Participation with the Power of We Consortium as Organizational Rep.
For the next 11 questions, we would like to know about your activity with the Power of We
Consortium as a representative of your organization.

170

Q19 The work of the Power of We Consortium involves consortium meetings, consortium
committee meetings, and the activities involved within the associated 12 coalitions and
initiatives. Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements regarding the
work of the Power of We Consortium by clicking on the number that best matches your
response.
NOT AT
ALL (1)

A
LITTLE
(2)

TO SOME
EXTENT
(3)

A
GREAT
DEAL (4)

ENTIRELY
(5)

I DON'T
KNOW
(6)

1. Overall, my
organization
provides input into
the work of the
Power of We
consortium. (1)













2. My
organization/group
spends a
significant amount
of time on
activities related to
the work of the
Power of We
Consortium. (2)













3. My
organization/group
spends a
significant amount
of time on
activities related to
the coalition(s) I
work most closely
with. (3)













4. My
organization/group
is regularly
represented at













171

monthly Power of
We Consortium
Meetings. (4)
5. My
organization/group
is regularly
represented at the
Investor Steering
Committee
meetings. (5)













6. My
organization is
regularly
represented at
Community Data
Committee
meetings. (6)













7. My
organization is
regularly
represented at
Leadership and
Practice
Committee
meetings. (7)













8. My
organization is
regularly
represented at
Transportation
Committee
meetings. (8)













9. My
organization has
lead activities for













172

the Power of We
Consortium. (9)
10. My
organization
contributes funds
or in-kind
resources to the
Power of We
Consortium. (10)













11. My
organization
continues to
participate in the
Power of We
Consortium
because it gets
what it needs from
it overall. (11)













Q20 12. If it is your role to attend Power of We Consortium meetings on behalf of your
organization, and you do not usually go, why do you choose not to go? (please describe in as
much detail as necessary)

Q21 13. If you have attended Power of We Consortium meetings in the past, what would
encourage you to attend more often? (please describe in as much as necessary)

SecF1O SECTION F1: Community Network Participation for Organizational Representatives
This is the last section related to your organization. This section is designed to help us assess the
current situation regarding the kinds of relationships you have with other organizations, agencies,
coalitions, or groups in the local area network.

173

Q22 Every part of the Power of We Consortium network is listed in the two following sections.
Please click the box next to all the organizations, agencies, coalitions, or groups listed below that
your organization has worked within the last year related to the community issues your
organization addresses. Everything is listed in alphabetical order. Be sure to click the box of the
organization/agency/group you are connected to.



































Action of Greater Lansing (1)
Advent House (2)
Allen Neighborhood Center (3)
American Heart Association (4)
American Red Cross Mid-Michigan (5)
Americorps State (6)
Ameritech (7)
Asset Independence Coalition (8)
Association for Children's Mental Health (9)
Baker Donora Focus Center (10)
Barry-Eaton District Health Department (11)
Bircham Hills Retirement Community (12)
Birth to Five Ingham Great Start Collaborative (13)
Black Child & Family Institute (14)
Boy Scouts (15)
Boys & Girls Club (16)
Capital Area Michigan Works! (17)
Capital Area Health Alliance (18)
Capital Area Center for Independent Living (19)
Capital Area Community Services Inc. (20)
Capital Area Community Services Inc - Head Start (21)
Capital Area District Library (22)
Capital Area Literacy Coalition (23)
Capital Area United Way (24)
Capital Commons Apartments & Townhomes (25)
Capital Region Community Foundation (26)
CASE Credit Union (27)
CATA (28)
Central Michigan 2-1-1 (29)
Center for Financial Health (30)
Chalgian & Tripp Law Offices (31)
Child Abuse Prevention Services (32)
Child & Family Service (33)
Christian Services/Love INC. (34)
174










































Citizens for Better Care (35)
City of East Lansing (36)
City of Lansing - City Hall (37)
City of Lansing - Treasury & Income Tax (38)
City of Lansing - Planning & Neighborhood Development (39)
Clergy Forum of Greater Lansing (40)
Clinton Eaton Ingham Community Mental Health (41)
Clinton Transit (42)
Comerica Bank (43)
Community Coalition for Youth (44)
Clinton County Department of Health Services (45)
Community Economic Development Network (46)
Community Economic Development Association of Michigan (CEDAM) (47)
Cristo Rey Community Center (48)
Dean Transportation (49)
Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth of Michigan Rehabilitation Services (50)
Delhi Township (51)
Department of Community Health (52)
Downtown Development Authority (53)
E-Tran (54)
Eastside Historian (55)
Eaton County Parks (56)
Eaton County United Way (57)
Eaton Intermediate School District (58)
East Lansing Police Department (59)
Ele's Place (60)
Elder Law of Michigan (61)
Entrepreneur Institute of Mid-Michigan (62)
Eve Inc. (63)
Expectant Parents Organization (64)
Eyde Co. (65)
Family & Community Development Services (66)
Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis (67)
Fenner Conservancy (68)
Flagstar Bank (69)
Foster Community Center (70)
Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation (71)
Gateway Community Services (72)
Gier Community Center (73)
Girl Scouts (74)
175








































Great Lakes Capital Fund (75)
Great Start Parent Coalition (76)
Greater Lansing African American Health Institute (GLAAHI) (77)
Greater Lansing Food Bank (78)
Greater Lansing Health Ministry Consortium (79)
Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (80)
Greater Lansing Housing Coalition (81)
Habitat for Humanity (82)
Hannah Community Center (83)
Haven House (84)
Hayes Green Beach Hospital (85)
Helping Hands Child Care Center (86)
Highfields Inc. (87)
Hill Center for Academics & Technology (88)
Holt School District (89)
Hospice of Lansing (90)
Hossana House (91)
Housing Services for Eaton County (92)
Immigrant Refugee Resource Collaborative (93)
IMPACT System of Care Coalition (94)
Infant Mortality Initiative (95)
Information Technology Empowerment Center (96)
Ingham Change Initiative (97)
Ingham Counseling Center (98)
Ingham County 30th Judicial Circuit Court Family Division (99)
Ingham County 4-H Programming (100)
Ingham County Board of Commissioners (101)
Ingham County Controller's Office (102)
Ingham County Health Department (103)
Ingham County Department of Human Services (104)
Ingham County Land Bank Trust (105)
Ingham County MSU Extension (106)
Ingham County Parks Department (107)
Ingham County Prosecuting Attorney's Office (108)
Ingham County Sherrif's Office (109)
Ingham County Youth Center (110)
March of Dimes (111)
Expectant Parents Organization (112)

176

Q23 (Network list continued) Everything is listed in alphabetical order. Be sure to click the box
of the organization/agency/group you are connected to.

177










































Ingham County Office for Young Children (1)
Ingham County Youth Commission (2)
Ingham County Central Region Child Care Resource Center (3)
Ingham Health Plan Corporation (4)
Ingham Intermediate School District (5)
Ingham Regional Medical Center (6)
Ingham Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition (7)
Internal Revenue Service (8)
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Restorative Justice Diversion Program (9)
Land Use and Health Resource Team (10)
Lansing Area AIDS Network (11)
Lansing Art Gallery (12)
Lansing City Pulse (13)
Lansing Community College (14)
Lansing Housing Commission (15)
Lansing Latino Health Alliance (16)
Lansing Lugnuts (17)
Lansing Neighborhood Council (18)
Lansing Parks & Recreation (19)
Lansing Police Department (20)
Lansing City Rescue Mission (21)
Lansing School District (22)
Lansing Teen Court (23)
Lansing Township (24)
Legal Services of South Central Michigan (25)
Loaves & Fishes Ministries (26)
Long term Care Collaborative (27)
Lutheran Social Services of Michigan (28)
Mareck Family & Geriatric Services (29)
Martinez Consulting (30)
Meridian Township (31)
Message Makers (32)
MiConnections (33)
Michigan 68th District State Representative Bauer Office (34)
Michigan Department of Education (35)
Michigan Literacy (36)
Michigan Peer Review Organization (37)
Michigan Primary Care Association (38)
Michigan Public Health Institute (39)
Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) (40)
178










































Michigan State University Police (41)
Michigan State University Health Center (42)
Michigan State University Student Affairs & Services (43)
Michigan State University Department of Human Medicine (44)
Michigan State University Department of Psychology (45)
Michigan State University Adolescent Diversion Program (46)
Michigan State University Center for Service Learning (47)
Michigan State University WIDE Center (48)
Michigan State University King Chavez Parks Sports Mentoring Program (49)
Michigan State University University Outreach & Engagement (50)
Michigan State University Center for Community & Economic Development (51)
Michigan State University Residential College (52)
Michigan State University Tax Law Clinic (53)
Michigan Trails & Greenways Alliance (54)
Michigan's Children (55)
Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council (MMEAC) (56)
Mid-Michigan District Health Department (57)
Mid-South Substance Abuse Commission (58)
National Council on Alcoholism Lansing Regional Area (59)
Nokomis Learning Center (60)
NorthWest Initiative (61)
Office of Community & Faith-Based initiatives (62)
Old Town Commercial Association (63)
One Love Global (64)
Parent Partners (65)
Peckham, Inc. (66)
PHI Policy Works - Michigan (67)
PHI Policy Works - National (68)
Pine Lodge Center (69)
Pinnacle Senior Care (70)
PNC Bank (71)
Portland Federal Credit Union (72)
Prevention Network (73)
Prima Civitas Foundation (74)
Private Consultant Mike Thomas (75)
Public Policy Associates (76)
Public Sector Consultants (77)
R.E. Olds Foundation (78)
Reach Art Studio (79)
Refugee Development Center (80)
179




































Resolution Services Center (81)
Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) (82)
Salvation Army (83)
Samuel D. Ingham Academy (84)
South Lansing Community Development Association (85)
South Side Community Coalition (86)
Sparrow Health Systems - Community Relations (87)
Sparrow Hospital (88)
Sparrow Specialty Hospital (89)
St. Stephen's Community Church (90)
St. Vincent Catholic Charities (91)
St. Vincent de Paul (92)
Stockbridge Community Schools (93)
Synchro Consulting (94)
Thomas M. Cooley School of Law (95)
Trans4America (96)
Tri-County Office on Aging (97)
Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (98)
Upward Bound (99)
Village Summit (100)
Vittoz Computer Consulting (101)
VISTA (102)
Volunteers of America (103)
Waverly East Intermediate School (104)
WKAR (105)
WLNS TV-6 (106)
Women's Center of Greater Lansing (107)
Worship International Church (108)
Xicano Development Center (109)
Other not listed: (110) ____________________
Other not listed: (111) ____________________
Other not listed: (112) ____________________
Tomorrow's Child (113)
League of Women Voters (114)

180

SecF2O SECTION F2: Community Network Participation for Organizational Representatives
For this section, we want to know more about your relationships with the
organizations/coalitions/groups you clicked in the previous pages. From the perspective of your
organization, answer all the following set of questions for this organization/coalition/group:
${lm://Field/1} Each question will prompt you with the organization/agency/coalition you are
responding for below.

181

Q24 Click the response that best matches your answer.
YES (1)

NO (2)

1. Did your organization have
this relationship prior to your
involvement with the Power
of We Consortium?
${lm://Field/1} (1)





2. Does your organization
EXCHANGE
INFORMATION with this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(2)





3. Does your organization
EXCHANGE DIRECT
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
with this organization? (e.g.,
grants, paid
contracts)${lm://Field/1} (3)





4. Does your organization
EXCHANGE IN-KIND
RESOURCES with this
organization (e.g., other
commodities such as personal
time, administrative
assistance, expertise,
etc.)${lm://Field/1} (4)





5. Does your organization
EXCHANGE SERVICES
with this
organization?${lm://Field/1}
(5)





6. Does your organization
REFER other organizations,
agencies, groups or people to





182

them?${lm://Field/1} (6)
7. Does your organization
have a LEGAL OR
OFFICIAL document that
connects you to this
organization?${lm://Field/1}
(7)





8. Do you socialize with
anyone from this organization
outside of
work?${lm://Field/1} (8)





183

Q25 We want to learn about the quality of the relationships built within the Power of We
Consortium network. For the next 3 questions, please provide your perspective on the quality of
your relationship with: ${lm://Field/1} Please rate the extent to which you agree with the
following statements by clicking the option that best matches your response.
NO
T
AT
ALL
(1)

A
LITTL
E (2)

TO
SOME
EXTEN
T (3)

A
GREA
T
DEAL
(4)

ENTIREL
Y (5)

1. Overall, to what extent is it easy to
accomplish tasks when you work with this
organization/agency/coalition? Task ease
refers to feeling comfortable and feeling
free from difficulty or hardship when
working with this
organization/agency/coalition.${lm://Field/
1} (1)











2. Overall, to what extent is your
organization satisfied with what it gets
from this relationship?${lm://Field/1} (2)











3. How important is this
organization/agency/coalition to the
community issues your organization
addresses?${lm://Field/1} (3)











Q26 How long has your organization had this relationship with them?${lm://Field/1}







Less than 1 month (1)
1-6 months (2)
6 months to 1 year (3)
1 to 5 years (4)
I don't know (5)
Other (6) ____________________

184

SecF2 P2O SECTION F2-P2: Community Network Participation for Organizational
Representatives For this section, we want to know more about your relationships with the
organizations/coalitions/groups you clicked in the previous pages. From the perspective of your
organization, answer all the following set of questions for this organization/coalition/group:
${lm://Field/1} Each question will prompt you with the organization/agency/coalition you are
responding for below.

185

Q27 Click the response that best matches your answer.
YES (1)

NO (2)

1. Did your organization have
this relationship prior to your
involvement with the Power
of We Consortium?
${lm://Field/1} (1)





2. Does your organization
EXCHANGE
INFORMATION with this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(2)





3. Does your organization
EXCHANGE DIRECT
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
with this organization? (e.g.,
grants, paid
contracts)${lm://Field/1} (3)





4. Does your organization
EXCHANGE IN-KIND
RESOURCES with this
organization (e.g., other
commodities such as personal
time, administrative
assistance, expertise,
etc.)${lm://Field/1} (4)





5. Does your organization
EXCHANGE SERVICES
with this
organization?${lm://Field/1}
(5)





6. Does your organization
REFER other organizations,
agencies, groups or people to





186

them?${lm://Field/1} (6)
7. Does your organization
have a LEGAL OR
OFFICIAL document that
connects you to this
organization?${lm://Field/1}
(7)





8. Do you socialize with
anyone from this organization
outside of
work?${lm://Field/1} (8)





187

Q28 We want to learn about the quality of the relationships built within the Power of We
Consortium network. For the next 3 questions, please provide your perspective on the quality of
your relationship with: ${lm://Field/1} Please rate the extent to which you agree with the
following statements by clicking the option that best matches your response.
NO
T
AT
ALL
(1)

A
LITTL
E (2)

TO
SOME
EXTEN
T (3)

A
GREA
T
DEAL
(4)

ENTIREL
Y (5)

1. Overall, to what extent is it easy to
accomplish tasks when you work with this
organization/agency/coalition? Task ease
refers to feeling comfortable and feeling
free from difficulty or hardship when
working with this
organization/agency/coalition.${lm://Field/
1} (1)











2. Overall, to what extent is your
organization satisfied with what it gets
from this relationship?${lm://Field/1} (2)











3. How important is this
organization/agency/coalition to the
community issues your organization
addresses?${lm://Field/1} (3)











Q29 How long has your organization had this relationship with them?${lm://Field/1}







Less than one month (1)
1 to 6 months (2)
6 months to 1 year (3)
1 to 5 years (4)
Don't know (5)
Other (6) ____________________

188

SecCC SECTION C: Organizational Attributes for Coalition Representative For this section we
would like to know some things about the coalition you work for or represent within the Power
of We Consortium. This section has 7 questions. Please note that some questions allow for more
than one response.

Q30 What Power of We Consortium coalition are you staff or leadership of?

Q31 What is your job role/title within your coalition?

Q32 What is the length of time you have been with your current coalition?

Q33 Which of the following six Power of We Consortium areas of focus does your coalition
address? (click all that apply)







Intellectual and Social Development (1)
Promoting Physical and Mental Health (2)
Steward Environmental Resources (3)
Build a Dynamic, Diverse, Vibrant Economy (4)
Keep Homes and Community Safe (5)
Strengthen Sense of Community Cohesion (6)

Q34 What county does your coalition serve? (click all that apply)





Ingham County (1)
Eaton County (2)
Clinton County (3)
Other (4) ____________________

189

Q35 How long has your coalition existed?





Less than 1 year (1)
1-5 years (2)
More than 5 years (3)
Off and on over time (please explain) (4) ____________________

SecEC SECTION E: Participation with the Power of We Consortium for Coalition
Representative For the next 11 questions, we would like to know about your activity with the
Power of We Consortium as a representative of your coalition.

190

Q36 The work of the Power of We Consortium involves consortium meetings, consortium
committee meetings, and the activities involved within associated coalitions and initiatives.
Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements regarding the work of the
Power of We Consortium by clicking on the number that best matches your response.
NOT AT
ALL (1)

A LITTLE
(2)

TO SOME
EXTENT
(3)

A GREAT
DEAL (4)

ENTIRELY
(5)

I DON'T
KNOW
(6)

1. Overall, my
coalition
provides input
into the work
of the Power
of We
Consortium.
(1)













2. My
coalition
spends a
significant
amount of
time on
activities
related to the
work of the
Power of We
Consortium.
(2)













3. My
coalition
spends a
significant
amount of
time on
activities
related to the
other
coalition(s) I













191

work most
closely with.
(3)
4. My
coalition is
regularly
represented at
monthly
Power of We
Consortium
Meetings. (4)













5. My
coalition is
regularly
represented at
the Investor
Steering
Committee
meetings. (5)













6. My
coalition is
regularly
represented at
Community
Data
Committee
meetings. (6)













7. My
coalition is
regularly
represented at
Leadership
and Practice
Committee
meetings. (7)













192

8. My
coalition is
regularly
represented at
Transportation
Committee
meetings. (8)













9. My
coalition has
lead activities
for the Power
of We
Consortium.
(9)













10. My
coalition
contributes
funds or inkind resources
to the Power
of We
Consortium.
(10)













11. My
coalition
continues to
participate in
the Power of
We
Consortium
because it gets
what it needs
from it
overall. (11)













193

Q37 12. If it is your role to attend Power of We Consortium meetings on behalf of your coalition,
and you do not usually go, why do you choose not to go? (please describe in as much detail as
necessary)

Q38 13. If you have attended Power of We Consortium meetings in the past, what would
encourage you to attend more often? (please describe in as much detail as necessary)

Sec F1c SECTION F1: Community Network Participation for Coalition Representatives This is
the last section related to your coalition. This section is designed to help us assess the current
situation regarding the kinds of relationships you have with other organizations, agencies,
coalitions, or groups in the local area network.

194

Q39 Every part of the Power of We Consortium network is listed in the two following sections.
Please click the box next to all the organizations, agencies, coalitions, or groups listed below that
your coalition has worked within the last year related to the community issues your coalition
addresses. Everything is listed in alphabetical order. Be sure to click the box of the
organization/agency/group you are connected to.



































Action of Greater Lansing (1)
Advent House (2)
Allen Neighborhood Center (3)
American Heart Association (4)
American Red Cross Mid-Michigan (5)
Americorps State (6)
Ameritech (7)
Asset Independence Coalition (8)
Association for Children's Mental Health (9)
Baker Donora Focus Center (10)
Barry-Eaton District Health Department (11)
Bircham Hills Retirement Community (12)
Birth to Five Ingham Great Start Collaborative (13)
Black Child & Family Institute (14)
Boy Scouts (15)
Boys & Girls Club (16)
Capital Area Michigan Works! (17)
Capital Area Health Alliance (18)
Capital Area Center for Independent Living (19)
Capital Area Community Services Inc. (20)
Capital Area Community Services Inc - Head Start (21)
Capital Area District Library (22)
Capital Area Literacy Coalition (23)
Capital Area United Way (24)
Capital Commons Apartments & Townhomes (25)
Capital Region Community Foundation (26)
CASE Credit Union (27)
CATA (28)
Central Michigan 2-1-1 (29)
Center for Financial Health (30)
Chalgian & Tripp Law Offices (31)
Child Abuse Prevention Services (32)
Child & Family Service (33)
Christian Services/Love INC. (34)
195










































Citizens for Better Care (35)
City of East Lansing (36)
City of Lansing - City Hall (37)
City of Lansing - Treasury & Income Tax (38)
City of Lansing - Planning & Neighborhood Development (39)
Clergy Forum of Greater Lansing (40)
Clinton Eaton Ingham Community Mental Health (41)
Clinton Transit (42)
Comerica Bank (43)
Community Coalition for Youth (44)
Clinton County Department of Health Services (45)
Community Economic Development Network (46)
Community Economic Development Association of Michigan (CEDAM) (47)
Cristo Rey Community Center (48)
Dean Transportation (49)
Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth of Michigan Rehabilitation Services (50)
Delhi Township (51)
Department of Community Health (52)
Downtown Development Authority (53)
E-Tran (54)
Eastside Historian (55)
Eaton County Parks (56)
Eaton County United Way (57)
Eaton Intermediate School District (58)
East Lansing Police Department (59)
Ele's Place (60)
Elder Law of Michigan (61)
Entrepreneur Institute of Mid-Michigan (62)
Eve Inc. (63)
Expectant Parents Organization (64)
Eyde Co. (65)
Family & Community Development Services (66)
Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis (67)
Fenner Conservancy (68)
Flagstar Bank (69)
Foster Community Center (70)
Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation (71)
Gateway Community Services (72)
Gier Community Center (73)
Girl Scouts (74)
196








































Great Lakes Capital Fund (75)
Great Start Parent Coalition (76)
Greater Lansing African American Health Institute (GLAAHI) (77)
Greater Lansing Food Bank (78)
Greater Lansing Health Ministry Consortium (79)
Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (80)
Greater Lansing Housing Coalition (81)
Habitat for Humanity (82)
Hannah Community Center (83)
Haven House (84)
Hayes Green Beach Hospital (85)
Helping Hands Child Care Center (86)
Highfields Inc. (87)
Hill Center for Academics & Technology (88)
Holt School District (89)
Hospice of Lansing (90)
Hossana House (91)
Housing Services for Eaton County (92)
Immigrant Refugee Resource Collaborative (93)
IMPACT System of Care Coalition (94)
Infant Mortality Initiative (95)
Information Technology Empowerment Center (96)
Ingham Change Initiative (97)
Ingham Counseling Center (98)
Ingham County 30th Judicial Circuit Court Family Division (99)
Ingham County 4-H Programming (100)
Ingham County Board of Commissioners (101)
Ingham County Controller's Office (102)
Ingham County Health Department (103)
Ingham County Department of Human Services (104)
Ingham County Land Bank Trust (105)
Ingham County MSU Extension (106)
Ingham County Parks Department (107)
Ingham County Prosecuting Attorney's Office (108)
Ingham County Sherrif's Office (109)
Ingham County Youth Center (110)
March of Dimes (111)
Expectant Parents Organization (112)

197

Q40 (Network list continued) Everything is listed in alphabetical order. Be sure to click the box
of the organization/agency/group you are connected to.






































Ingham County Office for Young Children (1)
Ingham County Youth Commission (2)
Ingham County Central Region Child Care Resource Center (3)
Ingham Health Plan Corporation (4)
Ingham Intermediate School District (5)
Ingham Regional Medical Center (6)
Ingham Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition (7)
Internal Revenue Service (8)
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Restorative Justice Diversion Program (9)
Land Use and Health Resource Team (10)
Lansing Area AIDS Network (11)
Lansing Art Gallery (12)
Lansing City Pulse (13)
Lansing Community College (14)
Lansing Housing Commission (15)
Lansing Latino Health Alliance (16)
Lansing Lugnuts (17)
Lansing Neighborhood Council (18)
Lansing Parks & Recreation (19)
Lansing Police Department (20)
Lansing City Rescue Mission (21)
Lansing School District (22)
Lansing Teen Court (23)
Lansing Township (24)
Legal Services of South Central Michigan (25)
Loaves & Fishes Ministries (26)
Long term Care Collaborative (27)
Lutheran Social Services of Michigan (28)
Mareck Family & Geriatric Services (29)
Martinez Consulting (30)
Meridian Township (31)
Message Makers (32)
MiConnections (33)
Michigan 68th District State Representative Bauer Office (34)
Michigan Department of Education (35)
Michigan Literacy (36)
Michigan Peer Review Organization (37)
198










































Michigan Primary Care Association (38)
Michigan Public Health Institute (39)
Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) (40)
Michigan State University Police (41)
Michigan State University Health Center (42)
Michigan State University Student Affairs & Services (43)
Michigan State University Department of Human Medicine (44)
Michigan State University Department of Psychology (45)
Michigan State University Adolescent Diversion Program (46)
Michigan State University Center for Service Learning (47)
Michigan State University WIDE Center (48)
Michigan State University King Chavez Parks Sports Mentoring Program (49)
Michigan State University University Outreach & Engagement (50)
Michigan State University Center for Community & Economic Development (51)
Michigan State University Residential College (52)
Michigan State University Tax Law Clinic (53)
Michigan Trails & Greenways Alliance (54)
Michigan's Children (55)
Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council (MMEAC) (56)
Mid-Michigan District Health Department (57)
Mid-South Substance Abuse Commission (58)
National Council on Alcoholism Lansing Regional Area (59)
Nokomis Learning Center (60)
NorthWest Initiative (61)
Office of Community & Faith-Based initiatives (62)
Old Town Commercial Association (63)
One Love Global (64)
Parent Partners (65)
Peckham, Inc. (66)
PHI Policy Works - Michigan (67)
PHI Policy Works - National (68)
Pine Lodge Center (69)
Pinnacle Senior Care (70)
PNC Bank (71)
Portland Federal Credit Union (72)
Prevention Network (73)
Prima Civitas Foundation (74)
Private Consultant Mike Thomas (75)
Public Policy Associates (76)
Public Sector Consultants (77)
199







































R.E. Olds Foundation (78)
Reach Art Studio (79)
Refugee Development Center (80)
Resolution Services Center (81)
Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) (82)
Salvation Army (83)
Samuel D. Ingham Academy (84)
South Lansing Community Development Association (85)
South Side Community Coalition (86)
Sparrow Health Systems - Community Relations (87)
Sparrow Hospital (88)
Sparrow Specialty Hospital (89)
St. Stephen's Community Church (90)
St. Vincent Catholic Charities (91)
St. Vincent de Paul (92)
Stockbridge Community Schools (93)
Synchro Consulting (94)
Thomas M. Cooley School of Law (95)
Trans4America (96)
Tri-County Office on Aging (97)
Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (98)
Upward Bound (99)
Village Summit (100)
Vittoz Computer Consulting (101)
VISTA (102)
Volunteers of America (103)
Waverly East Intermediate School (104)
WKAR (105)
WLNS TV-6 (106)
Women's Center of Greater Lansing (107)
Worship International Church (108)
Xicano Development Center (109)
Other not listed: (110) ____________________
Other not listed: (111) ____________________
Other not listed: (112) ____________________
Tomorrow's Child (113)
League of Women Voters (114)

200

SecF2C SECTION F2: Community Network Participation for Coalition Representatives For this
section, we want to know more about your relationships with the organizations/coalitions/groups
you clicked in the previous pages. From the perspective of your coalition. answer all the
following set of questions for this organization/coalition/group: ${lm://Field/1} Each question
will prompt you with the organization/agency/coalition/group you are responding for below.

201

Q41 Click the response that best matches your answer.
YES (1)

NO (2)

1. Did your coalition have this
relationship prior to your
involvement with the Power
of We Consortium?
${lm://Field/1} (1)





2. Does your coalition
EXCHANGE
INFORMATION with this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(2)





3. Does your coalition
EXCHANGE DIRECT
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
with this organization? (e.g.,
grants, paid
contracts)${lm://Field/1} (3)





4. Does your coalition
EXCHANGE IN-KIND
RESOURCES with this
organization (e.g., other
commodities such as personal
time, administrative
assistance, expertise,
etc.)${lm://Field/1} (4)





5. Does your coalition
EXCHANGE SERVICES
with this
organization?${lm://Field/1}
(5)





6. Does your coalition REFER
other organizations, agencies,
groups or people to





202

them?${lm://Field/1} (6)
7. Does your coalition have a
LEGAL OR OFFICIAL
document that connects you to
this
organization?${lm://Field/1}
(7)





8. Do you socialize with
anyone from this organization
outside of
work?${lm://Field/1} (8)





203

Q42 We want to learn about the quality of the relationships built within the Power of We
Consortium network. For the next 3 questions, please provide your perspective on the quality of
your relationship with: ${lm://Field/1} Please rate the extent to which you agree with the
following statements by clicking the option that best matches your response.
NO
T
AT
ALL
(1)

A
LITTL
E (2)

TO
SOME
EXTEN
T (3)

A
GREA
T
DEAL
(4)

ENTIREL
Y (5)

1. Overall, to what extent is it easy to
accomplish tasks when you work with this
organization/agency/coalition? Task ease
refers to feeling comfortable and feeling
free from difficulty or hardship when
working with this
organization/agency/coalition.${lm://Field/
1} (1)











2. Overall, to what extent is your coalition
satisfied with what it gets from this
relationship?${lm://Field/1} (2)











3. How important is this
organization/agency/coalition to the
community issues your coalition
addresses?${lm://Field/1} (3)











Q43 How long has your coalition had this relationship with them?${lm://Field/1}







Less than one month (1)
1 to 6 months (2)
6 months to 1 year (3)
1 to 5 years (4)
Don't know (5)
Other (6) ____________________

204

SecF2 P2C SECTION F2: Community Network Participation for Coalition Representatives For
this section, we want to know more about your relationships with the
organizations/coalitions/groups you clicked in the previous pages. From the perspective of your
coalition, answer all the following set of questions for this organization/coalition/group:
${lm://Field/1} Each question will prompt you with the organization/agency/coalition/group
you are responding for below.

205

Q44 Click the response that best matches your answer.
YES (1)

NO (2)

1. Did your coalition have this
relationship prior to your
involvement with the Power
of We Consortium?
${lm://Field/1} (1)





2. Does your coalition
EXCHANGE
INFORMATION with this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(2)





3. Does your coalition
EXCHANGE DIRECT
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
with this organization? (e.g.,
grants, paid
contracts)${lm://Field/1} (3)





4. Does your coalition
EXCHANGE IN-KIND
RESOURCES with this
organization (e.g., other
commodities such as personal
time, administrative
assistance, expertise,
etc.)${lm://Field/1} (4)





5. Does your coalition
EXCHANGE SERVICES
with this
organization?${lm://Field/1}
(5)





6. Does your coalition REFER
other organizations, agencies,
groups or people to





206

them?${lm://Field/1} (6)
7. Does your coalition have a
LEGAL OR OFFICIAL
document that connects you to
this
organization?${lm://Field/1}
(7)





8. Do you socialize with
anyone from this organization
outside of
work?${lm://Field/1} (8)





207

Q45 We want to learn about the quality of the relationships built within the Power of We
Consortium network. For the next 3 questions, please provide your perspective on the quality of
your relationship with: ${lm://Field/1} Please rate the extent to which you agree with the
following statements by clicking the option that best matches your response.
NO
T
AT
ALL
(1)

A
LITTL
E (2)

TO
SOME
EXTEN
T (3)

A
GREA
T
DEAL
(4)

ENTIREL
Y (5)

1. Overall, to what extent is it easy to
accomplish tasks when you work with this
organization/agency/coalition? Task ease
refers to feeling comfortable and feeling
free from difficulty or hardship when
working with this
organization/agency/coalition.${lm://Field/
1} (1)











2. Overall, to what extent is your coalition
satisfied with what it gets from this
relationship?${lm://Field/1} (2)











3. How important is this
organization/agency/coalition to the
community issues your coalition
addresses?${lm://Field/1} (3)











Q46 How long has your coalition had this relationship with them?${lm://Field/1}







Less than one month (1)
1 to 6 months (2)
6 months to 1 year (3)
1 to 5 years (4)
Don't know (5)
Other (6) ____________________

208

SecEI SECTION E: Participation with the Power of We Consortium for Individual
Representatives For the next 11 questions, we would like to know about your activity with the
Power of We Consortium as an individual representative of your community.

209

Q47 The work of the Power of We Consortium involves consortium meetings, consortium
committee meetings, and the activities involved within associated coalitions and initiatives.
Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements regarding the work of the
Power of We Consortium by clicking on the number that best matches your response.
NOT AT
ALL (1)

A LITTLE
(2)

TO SOME
EXTENT
(3)

A GREAT
DEAL (4)

ENTIRELY
(5)

I DON'T
KNOW
(6)

1. Overall, I
provide input
into the work
of the Power
of We
Consortium.
(1)













2. I spend a
significant
amount of
time on
activities
related to the
work of the
Power of We
Consortium.
(2)













3. I spend a
significant
amount of
time on
activities
related to the
coalition(s) I
work most
closely with.
(3)













4. I am
regularly













210

represented at
monthly
Power of We
Consortium
Meetings. (4)
5. I am
regularly
represented at
the Investor
Steering
Committee
meetings. (5)













6. I am
regularly
represented at
Community
Data
Committee
meetings. (6)













7. I am
regularly
represented at
Leadership
and Practice
Committee
meetings. (7)













8. I am
regularly
represented at
Transportation
Committee
meetings. (8)













9. I have lead
activities for
the Power of













211

We
Consortium.
(9)
10. I
contribute
funds or inkind resources
to the Power
of We
Consortium.
(10)













11. I continue
to participate
in the Power
of We
Consortium
because I get
what I need
from it
overall. (11)













Q48 If you know about Power of We Consortium meetings and you do not usually go, why do
you choose not to go? (please describe in as much detail as necessary)

Q49 If you have attended Power of We Consortium meetings in the past, what would encourage
you to attend more often? (please describe in as much detail as necessary)

212

Sec F1I SECTION F1: Community Network Participation for Individual Representatives This is
the last section. This section is designed to help us assess the current situation regarding the
kinds of relationships you have with other organizations, agencies, coalitions, or groups in the
local area network.

213

Q50 Every part of the Power of We Consortium network is listed in the two following sections.
Please click the box next to all the organizations, agencies, coalitions, or groups listed below that
you have worked within the last year related to the community issues you address. Everything is
listed in alphabetical order. Be sure to click the box of the organization/agency/group you are
connected to.



































Action of Greater Lansing (1)
Advent House (2)
Allen Neighborhood Center (3)
American Heart Association (4)
American Red Cross Mid-Michigan (5)
Americorps State (6)
Ameritech (7)
Asset Independence Coalition (8)
Association for Children's Mental Health (9)
Baker Donora Focus Center (10)
Barry-Eaton District Health Department (11)
Bircham Hills Retirement Community (12)
Birth to Five Ingham Great Start Collaborative (13)
Black Child & Family Institute (14)
Boy Scouts (15)
Boys & Girls Club (16)
Capital Area Michigan Works! (17)
Capital Area Health Alliance (18)
Capital Area Center for Independent Living (19)
Capital Area Community Services Inc. (20)
Capital Area Community Services Inc - Head Start (21)
Capital Area District Library (22)
Capital Area Literacy Coalition (23)
Capital Area United Way (24)
Capital Commons Apartments & Townhomes (25)
Capital Region Community Foundation (26)
CASE Credit Union (27)
CATA (28)
Central Michigan 2-1-1 (29)
Center for Financial Health (30)
Chalgian & Tripp Law Offices (31)
Child Abuse Prevention Services (32)
Child & Family Service (33)
Christian Services/Love INC. (34)
214










































Citizens for Better Care (35)
City of East Lansing (36)
City of Lansing - City Hall (37)
City of Lansing - Treasury & Income Tax (38)
City of Lansing - Planning & Neighborhood Development (39)
Clergy Forum of Greater Lansing (40)
Clinton Eaton Ingham Community Mental Health (41)
Clinton Transit (42)
Comerica Bank (43)
Community Coalition for Youth (44)
Clinton County Department of Health Services (45)
Community Economic Development Network (46)
Community Economic Development Association of Michigan (CEDAM) (47)
Cristo Rey Community Center (48)
Dean Transportation (49)
Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth of Michigan Rehabilitation Services (50)
Delhi Township (51)
Department of Community Health (52)
Downtown Development Authority (53)
E-Tran (54)
Eastside Historian (55)
Eaton County Parks (56)
Eaton County United Way (57)
Eaton Intermediate School District (58)
East Lansing Police Department (59)
Ele's Place (60)
Elder Law of Michigan (61)
Entrepreneur Institute of Mid-Michigan (62)
Eve Inc. (63)
Expectant Parents Organization (64)
Eyde Co. (65)
Family & Community Development Services (66)
Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis (67)
Fenner Conservancy (68)
Flagstar Bank (69)
Foster Community Center (70)
Franklin Street Community Housing Corporation (71)
Gateway Community Services (72)
Gier Community Center (73)
Girl Scouts (74)
215








































Great Lakes Capital Fund (75)
Great Start Parent Coalition (76)
Greater Lansing African American Health Institute (GLAAHI) (77)
Greater Lansing Food Bank (78)
Greater Lansing Health Ministry Consortium (79)
Greater Lansing Homeless Resolution Network (80)
Greater Lansing Housing Coalition (81)
Habitat for Humanity (82)
Hannah Community Center (83)
Haven House (84)
Hayes Green Beach Hospital (85)
Helping Hands Child Care Center (86)
Highfields Inc. (87)
Hill Center for Academics & Technology (88)
Holt School District (89)
Hospice of Lansing (90)
Hossana House (91)
Housing Services for Eaton County (92)
Immigrant Refugee Resource Collaborative (93)
IMPACT System of Care Coalition (94)
Infant Mortality Initiative (95)
Information Technology Empowerment Center (96)
Ingham Change Initiative (97)
Ingham Counseling Center (98)
Ingham County 30th Judicial Circuit Court Family Division (99)
Ingham County 4-H Programming (100)
Ingham County Board of Commissioners (101)
Ingham County Controller's Office (102)
Ingham County Health Department (103)
Ingham County Department of Human Services (104)
Ingham County Land Bank Trust (105)
Ingham County MSU Extension (106)
Ingham County Parks Department (107)
Ingham County Prosecuting Attorney's Office (108)
Ingham County Sherrif's Office (109)
Ingham County Youth Center (110)
March of Dimes (111)
Expectant Parents Organization (112)

216

Q51 (Network list continued) Everything is listed in alphabetical order. Be sure to click the box
of the organization/agency/group you are connected to.






































Ingham County Office for Young Children (1)
Ingham County Youth Commission (2)
Ingham County Central Region Child Care Resource Center (3)
Ingham Health Plan Corporation (4)
Ingham Intermediate School District (5)
Ingham Regional Medical Center (6)
Ingham Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition (7)
Internal Revenue Service (8)
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Restorative Justice Diversion Program (9)
Land Use and Health Resource Team (10)
Lansing Area AIDS Network (11)
Lansing Art Gallery (12)
Lansing City Pulse (13)
Lansing Community College (14)
Lansing Housing Commission (15)
Lansing Latino Health Alliance (16)
Lansing Lugnuts (17)
Lansing Neighborhood Council (18)
Lansing Parks & Recreation (19)
Lansing Police Department (20)
Lansing City Rescue Mission (21)
Lansing School District (22)
Lansing Teen Court (23)
Lansing Township (24)
Legal Services of South Central Michigan (25)
Loaves & Fishes Ministries (26)
Long term Care Collaborative (27)
Lutheran Social Services of Michigan (28)
Mareck Family & Geriatric Services (29)
Martinez Consulting (30)
Meridian Township (31)
Message Makers (32)
MiConnections (33)
Michigan 68th District State Representative Bauer Office (34)
Michigan Department of Education (35)
Michigan Literacy (36)
Michigan Peer Review Organization (37)
217










































Michigan Primary Care Association (38)
Michigan Public Health Institute (39)
Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) (40)
Michigan State University Police (41)
Michigan State University Health Center (42)
Michigan State University Student Affairs & Services (43)
Michigan State University Department of Human Medicine (44)
Michigan State University Department of Psychology (45)
Michigan State University Adolescent Diversion Program (46)
Michigan State University Center for Service Learning (47)
Michigan State University WIDE Center (48)
Michigan State University King Chavez Parks Sports Mentoring Program (49)
Michigan State University University Outreach & Engagement (50)
Michigan State University Center for Community & Economic Development (51)
Michigan State University Residential College (52)
Michigan State University Tax Law Clinic (53)
Michigan Trails & Greenways Alliance (54)
Michigan's Children (55)
Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council (MMEAC) (56)
Mid-Michigan District Health Department (57)
Mid-South Substance Abuse Commission (58)
National Council on Alcoholism Lansing Regional Area (59)
Nokomis Learning Center (60)
NorthWest Initiative (61)
Office of Community & Faith-Based initiatives (62)
Old Town Commercial Association (63)
One Love Global (64)
Parent Partners (65)
Peckham, Inc. (66)
PHI Policy Works - Michigan (67)
PHI Policy Works - National (68)
Pine Lodge Center (69)
Pinnacle Senior Care (70)
PNC Bank (71)
Portland Federal Credit Union (72)
Prevention Network (73)
Prima Civitas Foundation (74)
Private Consultant Mike Thomas (75)
Public Policy Associates (76)
Public Sector Consultants (77)
218







































R.E. Olds Foundation (78)
Reach Art Studio (79)
Refugee Development Center (80)
Resolution Services Center (81)
Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) (82)
Salvation Army (83)
Samuel D. Ingham Academy (84)
South Lansing Community Development Association (85)
South Side Community Coalition (86)
Sparrow Health Systems - Community Relations (87)
Sparrow Hospital (88)
Sparrow Specialty Hospital (89)
St. Stephen's Community Church (90)
St. Vincent Catholic Charities (91)
St. Vincent de Paul (92)
Stockbridge Community Schools (93)
Synchro Consulting (94)
Thomas M. Cooley School of Law (95)
Trans4America (96)
Tri-County Office on Aging (97)
Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (98)
Upward Bound (99)
Village Summit (100)
Vittoz Computer Consulting (101)
VISTA (102)
Volunteers of America (103)
Waverly East Intermediate School (104)
WKAR (105)
WLNS TV-6 (106)
Women's Center of Greater Lansing (107)
Worship International Church (108)
Xicano Development Center (109)
Other not listed: (110) ____________________
Other not listed: (111) ____________________
Other not listed: (112) ____________________
Tomorrow's Child (113)
League of Women Voters (114)

219

SecF2I SECTION F2: Community Network Participation for Individual Representatives For this
section, we want to know more about your relationships with the organizations/coalitions/groups
you clicked in the previous pages. Answer all the following set of questions for this
organization/coalition/group: ${lm://Field/1} Each question will prompt you with the
organization/agency/coalition you are responding for below.

220

Q52 Click the response that best matches your answer.
YES (1)

NO (2)

1. Did you have this
relationship prior to your
involvement with the Power
of We Consortium?
${lm://Field/1} (1)





2. Do you EXCHANGE
INFORMATION with this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(2)





3. Do you EXCHANGE
DIRECT FINANCIAL
RESOURCES with this
organization? (e.g., grants,
paid contracts)
${lm://Field/1} (3)





4. Do you EXCHANGE INKIND RESOURCES with this
organization (e.g., other
commodities such as personal
time, administrative
assistance, expertise, etc.)
${lm://Field/1} (4)





5. Do you EXCHANGE
SERVICES with this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(5)





6. Do you REFER other
organizations, agencies,
groups or people to them?
${lm://Field/1} (6)





7. Do you have a LEGAL OR





221

OFFICIAL document that
connects you to this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(7)
8. Do you socialize with
anyone from this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(8)



222



Q53 We want to learn about the quality of the relationships built within the Power of We
Consortium network. For the next 3 questions, please provide your perspective on the quality of
your relationship with: ${lm://Field/1} Please rate the extent to which you agree with the
following statements by clicking the option that best matches your response.
NO
T
AT
ALL
(1)

A
LITTL
E (2)

TO
SOME
EXTEN
T (3)

A
GREA
T
DEAL
(4)

ENTIREL
Y (5)

1. Overall, to what extent is it easy to
accomplish tasks when you work with this
organization/group/coalition? Task ease
refers to feeling comfortable and feeling
free from difficulty or hardship when
working with this
organization/group/coalition.${lm://Field/
1} (1)











2. Overall, to what extent are you satisfied
with what you get from this
relationship?${lm://Field/1} (2)











3. How important is this
organization/agency/group to the
community issues you
address?${lm://Field/1} (3)











Q54 How long have you had this relationship with them?${lm://Field/1}







Less than one month (1)
1 to 6 months (2)
6 months to 1 year (3)
1 to 5 years (4)
Don't know (5)
Other (6) ____________________

223

SecF2 P2I SECTION F2: Community Network Participation for Individual Representatives For
this section, we want to know more about your relationships with the
organizations/coalitions/groups you clicked in previous pages. Answer all the following set of
questions for this organization/coalition/group: ${lm://Field/1} Each question will prompt you
with the organization/agency/coalition you are responding for below.

224

Q55 Click the response that best matches your answer.
YES (1)

NO (2)

1. Did you have this
relationship prior to your
involvement with the Power
of We Consortium?
${lm://Field/1} (1)





2. Do you EXCHANGE
INFORMATION with this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(2)





3. Do you EXCHANGE
DIRECT FINANCIAL
RESOURCES with this
organization? (e.g., grants,
paid contracts)
${lm://Field/1} (3)





4. Do you EXCHANGE INKIND RESOURCES with this
organization (e.g., other
commodities such as personal
time, administrative
assistance, expertise, etc.)
${lm://Field/1} (4)





5. Do you EXCHANGE
SERVICES with this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(5)





6. Do you REFER other
organizations, agencies,
groups or people to them?
${lm://Field/1} (6)





7. Do you have a LEGAL OR





225

OFFICIAL document that
connects you to this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(7)
8. Do you socialize with
anyone from this
organization? ${lm://Field/1}
(8)



226



Q56 We want to learn about the quality of the relationships built within the Power of We
Consortium network. For the next 3 questions, please provide your perspective on the quality of
your relationship with: ${lm://Field/1} Please rate the extent to which you agree with the
following statements by clicking the option that best matches your response.
NO
T
AT
ALL
(1)

A
LITTL
E (2)

TO
SOME
EXTEN
T (3)

A
GREA
T
DEAL
(4)

ENTIREL
Y (5)

1. Overall, to what extent is it easy to
accomplish tasks when you work with this
organization/group/coalition? Task ease
refers to feeling comfortable and feeling
free from difficulty or hardship when
working with this
organization/group/coalition.${lm://Field/
1} (1)











2. Overall, to what extent are you satisfied
with what you get from this
relationship?${lm://Field/1} (2)











3. How important is this
organization/agency/group to the
community issues you
address?${lm://Field/1} (3)











Q57 How long have you had this relationship with them?${lm://Field/1}







Less than one month (1)
1 to 6 months (2)
6 months to 1 year (3)
1 to 5 years (4)
Don't know (5)
Other (6) ____________________

227

APPENDIX C
Phase 2 Participant Consent Form
Cultural Systems & Collaborative Network Participation Research Study
Purpose
You are invited to participate in a research project intended to formatively evaluate the
work of the Power of We Consortium (PWC) and understand tensions involved in collaborative
participation. The purpose of the interview(s) is to learn about your experiences as a participant
in the PWC and your experiences as a member of both your organization and the PWC. The
interview(s) will cover a variety of topics that are related to your organization and participation
in the PWC. We will ask you about your experience and involvement as a member of the PWC,
and the relationship of your agency/organization to the goals and work of the PWC. These areas
are things like the types of projects you’ve been involved with related to the PWC, your position
and role within your workplace organization, and the relationships your organization has with
other entities in the community.
Procedure
Participating in the interviews will involve the following:
1. Contacting You - We will be interviewing you once within the next few months. After you
agree to participate in this study by signing and returning this form to the researcher, you will
then be contacted to set up an interview time that works best for you.

2. Interviews - The interview(s) will have several sections and questions. The interview(s) will
be approximately 60-90 minutes long. If we have your permission, we would like to audio-tape
these interviews. You can withdraw from the interview(s) at any time. Your answers will be
228

strictly confidential during and after the interview(s). Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

3. Benefits to You - In the past, many people have found participating in this type of study an
interesting and educational experience. We will use the information we hear from the
participants in this study to provide feedback to the PWC membership and staff to help them
identify ways to make the collaborative better.

4. Risks - There are no physical, legal, or economic risks to participating in the study. It is
possible you might feel somewhat uncomfortable discussing your experiences. If this happens,
you may stop the interview at any time. It should be pointed out that, although we will not
provide your name in any of the reports or publications we write, your identity might be
recognized by others if you discuss a position for which you are publicly known. The project
staff will do our best to ensure as much confidentiality as possible.

5. Voluntary Participation - Your participation in these interview(s) is completely voluntary.
You are free to withdraw from participating at any time. You do not have to respond to any
question you do not want to answer.

6. Confidentiality - All information during the interview(s) will be kept strictly confidential.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. We will not use your
name on the interview(s). Instead a number will be used to code your answers. The only people
who will have access to your answers will be the research staff for this project at Michigan State
University. When we share information from these interviews, we will not report what any one

229

person said. Instead, we will share key ideas that we heard and will never identify who said what
information.

Questions or Concerns

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please call the person who is in
charge of this project, Dr. Hiram Fitzgerald at 517/353-8977. If you have questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact (anonymously, if you wish) Harry McGee, MPH, Chairperson of Social
Science, Behavioral, Educational Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at 355-2180, Fax: 517-4324503e-mail: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 205A Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

230

Consent Statement
You are being asked to participate in a study that will involve one interview. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate in the interview(s) under the conditions listed above by
signing this consent form.
I have read and been explained the procedures & nature of the interview(s). I had an opportunity
to raise questions and have them answered. I voluntarily agree to participate.

Participant Name (Please Print)

Participant Signature

Date
To maintain an accurate record of your responses, we also request your permission to audiotape
your interviews. Please indicate your willingness for the researchers to audiotape interview(s) by
checking the appropriate box and initialing the statement below.
I agree to allow audio taping of the interview(s).

Yes

No

Initials____________
231

APPENDIX D
Cultural Systems and Collaborative Network Participation Final Interview Protocol
OPENING SCRIPT: Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. I’d like to learn from you more detailed
information about your organization and follow-up on some of the data you submitted in the online survey. More specifically, I want
to understand the aspects of your organization’s culture that may facilitate or impede participation with community change initiatives.
What I mean by organizational culture is the set of underlying assumptions and values of your organization, as well as how those
manifest in everyday policies and practices of your workplace. Please note that I am not interested in your personal values and
beliefs, although those may overlap significantly with those of the organizations. Try to stay particularly focused on the view of your
organization as we chat, however, if you find it appropriate to discuss, please do specify differences or clashes in personal vs.
organizational perspectives and how that might impede participation with PWC. Later in the interview I will be particularly
interested in how this relates to your participation with the PWC.
The overall outline of this interview includes the following: first, I will ask you questions about your role and perspective of the
organization you work for, second, I will ask you questions to gain an in-depth understanding of the organizational culture of your
workplace more generally, third, I will ask you about the work you do with the PWC, and fourth, I will ask you questions about your
organization’s broader role in the community as well as the work your organization is involved in within the broader
interorganizational network. Do you have any questions before we begin?
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
First, of all, I’d like to know about your role at the [organization name] to understand your
perspective there.
- What is your position in the organization? Tell me a little bit about that position.
- Would anyone in this position also be required to work with the PWC?
- If yes/no, please explain.
- How does the chain of command work for you (i.e., who do you report to?)?
232

AREA OF INQUIRY
Perspective of Participant and
their place within the structure
of the organization – gain some
understanding of the social
structure of the organization

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
- How much freedom do you have to do what you are interested in?
- Why do you say that?

AREA OF INQUIRY

Ok, now I’d like to gain a better understanding of the workplace of your organization and what
it’s like to work there. I’m going to ask you to describe several types of things that are common
in your workplace so please describe as best as you can.

Organizational culture in
General – assess artifacts
specifically and then DIG for the
deeper values in use in the daily
work vs. stated values. To acquire
an understanding of the values,
ask them why as much as
possible.

1) PHYSICAL SYMBOLS:
- If I were to walk into your organization, what would I see?
- What are some of the defining characteristics of that place? (e.g., colors, smells, pictures,
seating, office space, dress codes, etc.)
- Why is this the way it’s set up there?
- You’ve been there for ____amount of years/months [see survey data], what does it feel like to
work there on a daily basis [CLIMATE]?
2) STORIES (MYTHS, SAGAS, ETC.)
- What kinds of people are likely to make a fast career here? Can you tell me a story about an
example person [STORY OF IDEAL PERSON/SITUATION]?
AND/OR
- What makes someone an excellent employee [IDEAL EMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTICS OF
VALUE]? Why? Can you tell me about an exemplary employee?
- Who do you consider as particularly meaningful persons for this organization [HEROES]?
- Why are they particularly meaningful here [WHAT IS VIEWED AS VALUABLE]?
3) LANGUAGE SYSTEMS (SYMBOLS, JARGON, METAPHORES, ETC.)
- What are special terms used here that only insiders understand, if any [JARGON, SYMBOLS]?
- Are there any logos, slogans, or signs of any kind that are used by your organization for any
reason? Maybe something that promotes a certain type of worker mentality or commitment to
the work?
- What is some common language used in websites, mission statements, work plans, etc.?
- Are there any metaphors you would use to describe your workplace?
233

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

AREA OF INQUIRY

4) TRADITIONS (SLOGANS, CEREMONIES, RITUALS, ETC.)
- In what meetings do you regularly participate?
- What other regular activities, meetings, sessions must you participate in?
- Why are these meetings, etc. important? If not, then why are you involved in these things?
- Are there any special ceremonies such as awards, honors, or regular gatherings?
5) BEHAVIOR NORMS
- What things do people very much like to see happen here?
- What is the biggest mistake one can make here?
- Which work problems can keep you awake at night?
- Are there written rules of behavior here? If yes, what are they? Why are those important?
- Are there any unwritten rules that guide employee behavior? If yes, can you say more about
that? Why does your organization engage in those behaviors?
Ok, now I’d like to learn a bit about your organization’s role in the community.

Organization’s Role in
Community

- What does your organization provide for the community? What is it known for?
- How is your organization perceived by others in the community?
- Does this differ depending on who relates to your organization?
- If yes, how so? Can you provide some examples?
Ok, this is really interesting. Now that I have a better sense of your organization, I’d like to
know a bit about your organization’s views on its relationship with the PWC. I’m especially
interested in understanding the relationship between your organizations’ common beliefs and
practices and how this may relate to your participation with the PWC.
I am trying to link the information you provided earlier to interorganizational behaviors so it’s
possible some questions will seem similar to things we’ve already discussed but I will try to
avoid this.
234

Organization’s participation
with PWC – assess policies,
practices, and values of the
organization that impede or
facilitate participation with the
collaborative members OR
facilitate/make it easier.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

AREA OF INQUIRY

- In general, how does your organization think about the PWC? How does it view PWC?
- I have noted here that you are involved with XX coalitions of the PWC. Is this correct? What
coalitions are you involved in as a representative of your organization?
- What does your organization generally think about its outcomes in relation to the work of the
PWC?
- According to your survey data, it looks like your org. has [high/low and Type] participation
within the PWC collaborative. [follow-up on survey data specifically in this question]
- Does this participation reflect accurately the way your org. actually thinks about how it should
relate to the work of the PWC? (Does it seem consistent?)
- If yes, why do you say that? [assess values, beliefs, policies, practices]
- If no, why not? [assess polices/practices] What gets in the way of your organization
working with the PWC in the ways they would like to?
- [assess values] Why do those things get in the way of participating with the PWC?
- What would the people of your organization say about this level of participation?
- [assess values] Why would they say that?
Great. This is really valuable information. Now I’d like to learn a bit about your organization’s
relationship with the network of organizations related through the PWC…

Organization’s Participation
with the Network – assess
policies, practices, and values of
- According to your survey data, it looks like your org. has [high/low connection with other orgs] the organization that impede or
participation within the PWC network. [follow-up on survey data specifically in this question] facilitate participation within the
PWC network OR facilitate/make
- Does this seem to reflect accurately the way your org. thinks and feels about working with
it easier.
others in the community?
- If yes, why do you say that? [assess values, beliefs, policies, practices]
- If no, why not? [assess polices/practices] What gets in the way of your organization
235

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
working with the PWC in the ways they would like to?
- [assess values] Why do those things get in the way of participating with the PWC?

AREA OF INQUIRY

- What would the people of your organization say about this level of participation?
- [assess values] Why would they say that?

Thank you for taking this time to talk with me. Do you have any questions or would you like to add any other information?

236

APPENDIX E
Cultural Systems & Collaborative Network Participation
RESEARCH STUDY CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

I _______________________________________________________ (Full name – Print)
Agree to keep confidential all data and information concerning the research project “Cultural
Systems & Collaborative Network Participation”. I will not retain or copy any information
involving the project. I will not remove any data from the office. I will not disclose comments
made by study participants and their names to those outside of this research project. When
handling data I will follow all guidelines as outlined by the Michigan State University
Institutional Review Board (IRB) regarding ethical research practices and participant
confidentiality.

Signature: _________________________________________
Date: _______________________

237

REFERENCES

238

REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21
century. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

st

Ackoff, R. L., & Rovin, S. (2003). Redesigning Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Aguirre-Molina, M., & Gorman, D. (1996). Community-Based Approaches for the Prevention of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use. Annual Review of Public Health, 17, p. 357-358.
Allen, N. E., Lehrner, A., Mattison, E., Miles, T. & Russell, A. (2007). Promoting systems
change in the health care response to domestic violence. Journal of Community
Psychology, 35 (1), 103 - 120.
Allen, N., Watt, K. & Hess, J. (2008). A Qualitative Study of the Activities and Outcomes of
Domestic Vilence Coordination Councils. American Journal of Community Psychology,
41: 63-73.
Alter, C., and Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational Culture. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Alvesson & Karreman (2001). Odd Couple: Making Sense of the Curious Concept of Knowledge
Management. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1018.
Alexander, R. & O’Leary, R. (2009). Collaborative approaches to public organization start-ups.
In Eds. O’Leary, R. and Bingham, L. The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for
the Twenty-first Century. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Amado, A. N., & McBride, M. W. (2002). Realizing Individual, organizational, and systems
change: Lessons learned in 15 years of training about person-centered planning and
principles. In S. Holburn & P. Vietze (Eds.), Person-centered planning: Research,
practice, and future directions (pp. 361-377). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science,
10(3), 216-232.
Anderson-Butcher, D. & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative Models of Collaboration to Serve
Children, Youths, Families, and Communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39-53.
Arieli, D., Friedman, V.J. & Agbaria, K. (2009). The paradox of participation in action research.
Action Research, 7(3), 263-290.
Backer, T. (2003). Evaluating Community Collaborations. Spring Publishing Company: New
York, NY.

239

Bartunek, J.M. & Moch, M.K. (1987). Third-Order Change and Organization Development
Interventions: A Cognitive Approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4),
483-500.
Berkowitz, B. (2001). Studying the Outcomes of Community-Based Coalitions. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 213-227.
Brindis, C. D., & Wunsch, B. (1996). Finding common ground: Developing linkages between
school-linked/school-based health programs and managed care health plans.
Sacramento, CA: The Foundation Consortium for School-Linked Services.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T, E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, L. D., Feinberg, M. E. & Greenberg, M. T. (2010). Determinants of Community
Coalition Ability to Support Evidence-Based Programs, Prevention Science, 3, 287-297.
Bruynooghe, K. Verhaeghe, M. & Bracke, P. (2008). Similarity or Dissimilarity in the Relations
Between Human Service Organizations, Social Work in Public Health, 23(5), 13-39.
Bryson, J., & Crosby, B. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in
nd
a shared power world, 2 ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Butterfoss, F. D. (2004). The Coalition Technical Assistance and Training Framework: Helping
Community Coalitions Help Themselves. Health Promotion Practice, 5(2), 118-126.
Butterfoss, F. (2006). Process Evaluation for Community Participation. Annual Review of Public
Health, 27, 323-340.
Butterfoss, F. (2007). Coalitions and Partnerships in Community Health, Jossey-Bass, AWiley
Imprint, San Francisco, CA.
Butterfoss, F. & Kegler, M. (2002). Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Community
Coalitions: Moving from Practice to Theory. In (Eds.) DiClemente, Crosby, R. & Kegler,
M. Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research: Strategies for
Improving Public Health. Jossey-Bass A Wiley Company: San Francisco, CA.
Butterfoss, F., Goodman, R. & Wandersman, A (1996). Community Coalitions for prevention
and health promotion: Factors predicting satisfaction, participation and planning. Health
Education Quarterly, 23, 65-79.
Cameron, K.S. & Quinn, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based
on the Competing Values Framework. Third Edition. Jossey-Bass, Wiley & Sons: San
Francisco, CA.
240

Cheadle, A., Beery, W., Greenwald, H., Nelson, G. Pearson, D. & Senter, S. (2003). Evaluating
the California Wellness Foundation’s Health Improvement initiative: A Logic Model
Approach. Health Promotion Practice, 4, 146-156.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking: Systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Chung, K. & Lounsbury, D.W. (2006). The role of power, process, and relationships in
participatory research for statewide HIV/AIDS programming. Social Science &
Medicine, 63(8), 2129-2140.
Clark, P. & Wilson, J. (1961). Incentive Systems: A Theory of organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 6(2), 129-166.
Clark-McMullen, D. (2010). Evaluation of a Successful Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Coalition in Ontario, Canada. Public Health Nursing, 27(3). 240-247.
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA):
http://www.cadca.org/about/institute/detail
Cooper, L. Cartwright, S., & Earley, P. (2001). The international Handbook of Organizational
Culture and Climate. New York: Wiley.
Corrigan, P. W., & Boyle, M. G. (2003). What works for mental health system change:
Evolution or revolution? Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 30(5), 379–395.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J. W. & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the
role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, 321-333.
Cross, J. E., Dickman, E., Newman-Gonchar, R., & Fagan, J. M. (2009). Using mixed-method
design and network analysis to measure development of interagency collaboration.
American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 310-329.
Dalton, J., Elias, M., & Wandersman, A., (2006). Community Psychology: Linking Individuals
and Communities.
Davidz, H. (2006). Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the Development of Senior
Systems Engineers, Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Driskill, G. & Brenton, A. (2005). Organizational Culture in Action: A Cultural Analysis
Workbook. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
241

Emirbayer, M. & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. The
American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1411-54.
Emshoff, J., Darnell, A. Darnell, D., Erickson, S., Schneider, S. & Hudgins, R. (2007). Systems
change as an outcome and a process in the work of community collaborative for health.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 255-267.
Finkelsetin, A., Kramer, J., Nuseibeh, B., Kinkelstein, L. & Goedicke, M. (1992). Viewpoints: A
framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development. International
Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 2(1), 31-58.
Fitzgerald, H. (2010). Birth-to-Work: A Systems Framework for Individual, Family, and
Community Development. Powerpoint presentation at University of Iowa, October.
Fitzgerald, H. Allen, A. & Roberts, P. (2010). Campus-Community Partnerships: Perspectives on
Engaged Research. In Fitzgerald, H., Burack, C. & Seifer, S. (Eds.), Handbook of
Engaged Scholarship: Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions. Michigan State
University Press, East Lansing, MI., 5-28.
Fitzgerald, H., Burack, C. & Seifer, S. (2010). Handbook of Engaged Scholarship:
Contemporary Landscapes, Future Directions. Michigan State University Press, East
Lansing, MI.
Florin, P., Mitchell, R. & Stevenson, J. (1993). Identifying training and technical assistance
needs in community coalitions: a developmental approach. Health Education Research,
8(3), 417-432.
st

Forrester, J. (2009). Learning through System Dynamics as Preparation for the 21 Century.
Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Foster-Fishman, P. G. & Droege, E. (2010). Locating a System in a System of Care. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 33(1), 11-13.
Foster-Fishman, P. G. Perkins, D. F. & Davidson, W. S. (1997). Developing effective evaluation
partnerships: Paradigmatic and contextual barriers. Anilise Psicologica, 3, 389-403.
Foster-Fishman, P., Nowell, B, & Yang, H. (2007). Putting the system back into systems change:
a framework for understanding and changing organizational and community systems.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 197-215.
Foster-Fishman, P., Berkowitz, S., Lounsbury, D., Jacobson, S. & Allen, N. (2001). Building
collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 29: 241-261.
Friedman, S. R., Reynolds, J., Quan, M. A., Call, S., Crusto, C. A., & Kaufman, J. S. (2007).
Measuring changes in interagency collaboration: An examination of the Bridgeport Safe
Start Initiative [Electronic version]. Evaluation and Programming Planning, 30(3), 294306.
242

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1996). Interactions: Collaborative skills for school professionals (2nd
ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gerhart, B. (2008). How much does national culture constrain organizational culture?
Management and Organization Review, 5(2), 241-259.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social
Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public
Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
GoodmanR. M., & Wandersman, A. (1994). FORECAST: A formative approach to evaluating
community coalitions and community-based initiatives. In S. Kaftarian & W. Hansen
(Eds.), Improving methodologies for evaluating community-based coalitions for
preventing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Journal of Community Psychology
(CSAP Special Issue), 6-25.
Goodman, R.M., Wandersman, A., Chinman, M., Imm, P. and Morrissey, E. (1996) An
ecological assessment of community-based interventions for prevention and health
promotion: approaches to measuring community coalitions. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 33–61.
Granner, M. & Sharpe, P. (2004). Evaluating Community Coalition Characteristics and
Functioning: A summary of measurement tools. Health Education Research, 19(5), 514532. Hollfors, D., Cho, H., Livert, D., & Kadushin, C. (2002). Fighting back against
substance abuse: Are community coalitions winning? American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 23(4), 237–245.
Graddy, E. & Chen, B. (2009). Partner Selection and the Effectiveness of Interorganizational
Collaborations. In The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for the Twenty-first
Century. Eds. O’Leary, R. and Bingham, L. Washington DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Gray, B. (1985). Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration. Human Relations, 38,
911-936.
Gray, B. (2000). Assessing Inter-organizational Collaboration: Multiple Conceptions and
Multiple Methods. In Cooperative Strategy: Economic, Business and Organizational
Issues, (Eds.) Faulkner, D. and De Rond, M.,Oxford University Press: NY.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. 91989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hallfors, D., Cho, H., Livert, D., & Kadushin, C. (2002). Fighting back against substance abuse:
Are community coalitions winning? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4),
237–245.

243

Hawe, P. Shiell, A. & Riley, T. (2009). Theorising Interventions as Events in Systems. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 267-276.
Hawkins, J., Catalano, R., & Miller, J. (1992). Risk and Protective Factors for alcohol and other
drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance-abuse
prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.
Hays, C. E., Hays, S. P., DeVille, J. O. & Mulhall, P. F. (2000). Capacity for Effectiveness: the
relationship between coalition structure and community impact. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 23(3), 373-379.
Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex Adaptive Systems. Daedalus: A New Era in Computation,
121(1).
Holliday, C. S. (2009). Understanding member engagement through participation and
commitment in a community-based health coalition, 1994-2008: A mixedmethodological study. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering Vol 69(8-B), 2009, pp. 5101.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of
collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 1159-1176.
Institute of Medicine. (2002). Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in
health care. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Israel, B., Schultz, A. J., Parker, E. A., Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of Community-Based
Research: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health. Annual Review of
Public Health, 19, 173-202.
Jackson, M. O. (2003). A Survey of Models of Network Formation: Stability and Efficiency. In
(Eds.) Demange, G. & Wooders, M. , Group Formation in Economics: Networks, Clubs,
and Coalitions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Janzen, R. Nelson, G. Hausfather, N. & Ochocka,J. (2007). Capturing system level activities and
impacts of mental health consumer-run organizations. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 39, 287-299.
Jenkins, R. (2010). Applied Roles and the Future of Community Psychology. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 45, 68-72.
Jennings, E. T. & Krane, D. (1994). Coordination and Welfare reform: The Quest for the
Philosopher’s Stone. Public Administration Review, 54.
Johnson, L. J., Zorn, D., Kei Yung Tam, B., Lamontagne, M. & Johnson, S. A. (2003).
Stakeholders’ Views of Factors that Impact Successful Interagency Collaboration.
Exceptional Children, 69.
244

Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and Industrial/organizational psychology. In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kelly, J. G., Ryan, A. M., Altman, B. E., & Stelzner, S. P. (2000). Understanding and changing
social systems. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community
psychology (pp. 133–159). New York: Plenum.
Kelly, K.J., Schann, J.L., & Jonacas, H. (2002). Managing alliance relationships: Key challenges
in the early stages of collaboration. R&D Management, 32, 11-37.
Kliebert, T., Osofsky, Osofsky, J., Costa, R., Drennan, P., Morese, P. & Morse. E. (2006).
Trauma Interventions and Systems Change in Rural Areas: The Role of the Juvenile
Court Judge in Collaboration with Mental Health Professionals. Juvenile and Family
Court Journal, 14, 71-77.
Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive Social Structures. Social Networks, 9, 109-134.
Kreger M., Brindis, C. Manuel, D. & Sassoubre, L. (2007). Lessons Learned in Systems Change
Initiatives: Benchmarks and Indicators. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39,
301-320.
Kreuter, M., Lezin, N., & Young, L. (2000). Evaluating Community-Based Collaborative
Mechanisms: Implications for Practitioners. Health Promotion Practice, 1, 49-63.
Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in High-Tech Corporation.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lafferty, C. K., & Mahoney, C. A. (2003). A framework for evaluating comprehensive
community initiatives. Health Promotion Practice, 4(1), 31–44.
Lasker, R. & Weiss, E. (2003). Broadening Participation in Community Problem Solving:
Multidisciplinary Model to Support Collaborative Practice and Research. Journal of
Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 90(1), 14-60.
Lasker, R, Weiss, E. & Miller, R. (2001). Partnership Synergy: A Practical Framework for
Studying and Strengthening the Collaborative Advantage. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(2),
179-205.
Lawson, H. (2004). The Logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 18(3), 225-237.
Levine, R. L. & Fitzgerald, H. E. (1992). Analysis of Dynamic Psychological Systems: Methods
and Applications. Plenum Press, New York.

245

Levison-Johnson, J. & Wenz-Gross, M. (2010). From Complexity to Reality: Providing Useful
Frameworks for Defining Systems of Care. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(1), 5658.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.
Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 760-775.
Lindholm, M., Ryan, D., Kadushin, C., Saxe, L. & Brodsky, A. (2004). “Fighting Back” Against
Substance Abuse: The Structure and Function of Community Coalitions. Human
Organization, 63(3), p. 265.
Ludtke, M. Community Collaboratives, Their History and Current Status. Michigan Department
of Community Health, September 2007.
Luke, D. A. (2005). Getting the big picture in community science: Methods that capture context.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 185-200.
Mandell, M. (2001). Collaboration Through Network Structures for Community Building
Efforts. National Civic Review, 90(3), 279-288.
Marchand, L., Fowler, K., & Kokanovic, O. (2006). Building Successful Coalition for Promoting
Advance Care Planning. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 23, 119.
Maton, K. (2000). Making a Difference: The Social Ecology of Social Transformation. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 25-57.
Mayer, J., Soweid, R., Dabney, S., Brownson, C. Goodman, R. & Brownson, R. (1998).
Practices of Successful community Coalitions: A Multiple Case Study. American Journal
of Health Behavior, 22(5), 368-77.
Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Ed. Wright, D. Sustainability Institute.
Metzger, M., Alexander, J. & Weiner, B. (2005). The Effects of Leadership and Governance
Processes on Member Participation in Community Health Coalitions. Health Education
& Behavior, 32(4), p. 455-473.
Meyer, A.D. (1999). Using strategic partnerships to create a sustainable competitive position for
hi-tech start-up firms. R&D Management, 29, 323-329.
Miles, M. B., Huberman M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods.
2. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Mitchell, S.M., & Shortell, S.M. (2000). The Governance and Management of Effective
Community Health Partnerships: A Typology for Research, Policy and Practice. Milbank
Quarterly, 78(2): 241-89.
Neff, A. (2009). Family and Children First Council Roles and Responsibilities in Family and
Civic Engagement. The Ohio Department of Education, 1(2), 1-2.
246

Nowell, B. (2010). Out of Sync and Unaware? Exploring the Effects of Problem Frame
Alignment and Discordance in Community Collaboratives. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 20, 91-116
Oliwier, D. & Jimenez, T. (2009). Infusing Community Practice into Graduate Training:
Broadening the Conversation. The Community Psychologist, Fall special section across
columns in the Education Connection and the Community Practitioner.
O’Leary, R. & Bingham, L. (2007). A manager’s guide to resolving conflicts in collaborative
networks. Arlington, VA: IBM Center for Business Government.
O’Leary, R. & Bingham, L. (2009). The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for the
Twenty-First Century. Georgetown University Press: Washington, D.C.
Olson, E. E. & Eoyang, G. H. (2001). Facilitating organizational change: Lessons From
Complexity Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Osher, D. (2002). Creating Comprehensive and Collaborative Systems. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 11(1), 91-99.
Ospina, S.M. & Saz-Carranza A. (2010). Paradox and Collaboration in Network Management,
Administration and Society, 42(4), 404-440.
Page, S. (2003). Entrepreneurial Strategies for Managing Interagency Collaboration. Journal of
Public Administration Research and theory, 13(3), 311-340.
Parsons, M. D. (2007). Power and Politics: Federal Higher Education Policy Making in the
1990s. State University of new York, Albany.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance
Innovation and Use. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Pedersen, J. S. & Sorensen, J. S. (1989). Organisational Cultures in Theory and Practice. Gower
Publishing, Brookfield, VT.
Poole, M.S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization
theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562-578.
Pretsby, J. & Wandersman, A. (1985). An Empirical Exploration of a Framework of
Organizational Viability: Maintaining Block Organizations. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 21, 287-305.
Prochaska, J. O. & Redding, C. A. (2002). The Transtheoretical model and stages of change. In:
Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, (Eds.) Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory,
rd
Research, and Practice, 3 Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002:99-120.
247

Provan, K. & Milward, B. (2001). Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating
Public-Sector Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.
Provan, K., Veazie, M., Staten, L. & Teufel-Shone, N. (2005). The Use of network Analysis to
Strengthen Community Partnerships. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 603-613.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. & Feldstein, L. M. (2003). Better together. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Reynolds, M. (2008). Response to paper "Systems Thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.: systems
thinking from a critical systems perspective. Journal of Evaluation and Program
Planning, 31, 323-325. ISSN: 0149-7189
Roussos, S. T. and Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for
improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369-402.
Saz-Carranza, A. & Ospina, S.M. (2011). The Behavioral Dimensions of Governing
Interorganizational Goal-Directed Networks – Managing the Unity-Diversity Tension,
Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory, 21(2), 327-365.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Fourth Edition; Jossey-Bass; A
Wiley Imprint: San Francisco, CA.
Selsky, J., and Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges
to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849-873.
Senge, P, Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N, Laur, J. & Schley, S. (2008). The Necessary Revolution.
Doubleday, Random House, Inc.: New York.
Smith, K. K., and D. N. Berg. (1987). Paradoxes of group life understanding conflict, paralysis,
and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sofaer, S. and Kenney, E., (1989). The Effect of Changes in the Financing and Organization of
Health Services on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Medical Care Review,
46(3):313-342.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stegelin, D. A., &Jones, S. D. (1991). Components of early childhood interagency collaboration:
Results of a statewide study. Early Education and Development, 2(1), 54-67.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Stringfield, S.
Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. (2010). Leading Change: A Plan for
SAMHSA's Roles and Actions 2011 – 2014 (DHHS Publication, Strategic Initiatives)
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
248

Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B., Geran, J. (1998). Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the
Potential. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension.
Thomas, D.R. (2006). A general Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Data. American
Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237-246.
Tseng, V., Chesir-Teran, D., Becker-Klein, R., Chan, M. L., Duran,V., & Roberts, A., et al.
(2002). Promotion of social change: A conceptual framework. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 30(3), 401–427.
Tudor-Smith, C., Nutbeam, D., Moore, L., & Catford, J. (1998). Effect of the Heartbeat Wales
programme over five years in behavioural risks for cardiovascular disease: Quasi
experimental comparisons of Wales and a matched reference area. British Medical
Journal, 316, 818-822.
Waldrop, M. Mitchell. (1994). Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos.
Harmondsworth [Eng.]: Penguin.
Wandersman, A. (2003). Foreword: What’s the News About Community Collaborations? The
Good, the Not-So-Good, and a Cautiously Optimistic Forecast. In T. E. Backer (Eds.),
Evaluating Community Collaborations (pp. xiii-xviii).
Wandersman, A. Goodman, R. & Butterfoss, F. (1997). Understanding Coalitions and How They
Operate. In Community Organizing and Community Building for Health, ed. M. Minkler,
261-77. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Wasserman & Faust (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Structural
Analysis in the Social Sciences). Cambridge University Press; New York: NY.
Weick, K. & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational Change and Development. In J. T. Spence, J. M.
Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386. Palo Alto, CA:
Annual Reviews.
Connell, J.P., Kubisch, A.C., Schorr, L.B. & Weiss, C.H. (1995). New Approaches to Evaluating
Community initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington, DC: Aspen
Institute.
Wells, R., Ford, E. McClure, J. Holt, M. & Ward, A. (2007). Community-Based Coalitions’
Capacity for Sustainable Action: The Role of Relationships. Health Education &
Behavior, 34, 124-139.
Wolff, T. (2001). A Practitioner’s Guide to Successful Coalitions. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 29(2), 173-191.
Wood, D. J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162.

249

World Health Organisation Europe. (1999). Health promotion evaluation: recommendations for
policy makers. Copenhagen: WHO Working Group on Health Promotion
Evaluation.
Yin, R. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research, Second Edition. Sage: Thousand Oaks CA.
Zakocs, R. & Edwards, E. (2006). What Explains Community Coalition Effectiveness? A
Review of the Literature. American Journal of Prevention Medicine, 30(4), 351-361.
Zakocs, R. & Guckenburg, S. (2007). What Coalition Factors Foster Community Capacity?
Lessons Learned From the Fighting Back Initiative. Health Education & Behavior, 34, 354-375.

250