Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negotiating the Moral Aspects of Purpose in Single and Cross-Sectoral Collaborations

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study focuses on how moral aspects of purpose shape collaborative processes. It does so by analyzing the unfolding of 21 relationships between four nonprofits and their funders using a framework based on French pragmatist sociology to help uncover the deeply held, ideological and moral beliefs that underscore assumptions about what the overarching purpose of a collaborative effort is or should be. This study contributes to the literature on single and cross-sectoral collaboration by showing that the way partners handle and reconcile differences about purpose is related to the forms of agreement likely to be achieved. It also suggests that certain forms of agreement are inherently more enduring than others. Taken as a whole, this study provides some plausible explanations as to why so many collaborations fail despite their seeming benefits for all the parties involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armistead, C., Pettigrew, P., & Aves, S. (2007). Exploring leadership in multi-sectoral partnerships. Leadership, 3(2), 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1, supplement), 69–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. (2008). When “sacred” issues are at stake. Negotiation Journal, 24(1), 113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L. (2012). Love and Justice as Competences. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification: les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Les Editions Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B., & Middleton Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(special issue), 44–55.

  • Chahine, S., & Tannir, L. (2010). On the social and financial effects of the transformation of microfinance NGOs. Voluntas, 21, 440–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, C., & Osborne, S. P. (2008). Strategic positioning in UK charities that provide public services: Implications of a new integrating model. Public Money and Management, 28(5), 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Adderio, L. (2003). Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: The influence of integrated systems in the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routine dynamics. Research Policy, 37, 769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Adderio, L. (2010). Artefacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routine theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 6, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dansou, K., & Langley, A. (2012). Institutional work and the notion of test. M@n@gement, 15(5), 503–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfin, F. G., & Tang, S.-Y. (2008). Foundation impact on environmental nongovernmental organizations: The grantees perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (2001). The negotiation of purpose in multi-organizational collaborative groups. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A., & Tetlock, P. (1997). Taboo trade offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress spheres of justice. Political Psychology, 18(2), 255–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government–nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 653–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Nag, R., & Corley, K. G. (2012). Visionary ambiguity and strategic change: The virtue of vagueness in launching major organizational change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(4), 364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Googins, B. K., & Rochlin, S. A. (2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (2004). Frame-based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronbjerg, K. A. (1991). How nonprofit human service agencies manage their funding sources: Key findings and policy implications. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 2(2), 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronbjerg, K. A. (1993). Understanding non-profit funding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbert, P., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. S. (2008). Managing collaborative inter-organizational relations. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 390–416). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (1996). Working together: Key themes in the management of relationships between public and nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, C., & Choi, S. O. (2008). Success factors: Public works and public-private partnerships. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(6), 637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances: Lessons learned from partnerships between businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 277–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (1999). Watching whale watching: Exploring the discursive foundations of collaborative relationships. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 35(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBer, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)forming strategic cross-sector partnerships: Relational processes of social innovation. Business and Society, 49(1), 140–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18, 159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, S., & Chrisp, T. (2005). Acknowledging the purpose of collaboration. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). The logic of appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 689–708). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowell, B. (2009). Profiling capacity for coordination and systems change: The relative contribution of stakeholder relationships in interorganizational collaboratives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44(3–4), 196–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowell, B. (2010). Out of sync and unaware? Exploring the effects of problem frame alignment and dissonance in community collaboratives. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, B., & Selsky, J. (2004). Interface dynamics in cause-based partnerships: An exploration of emergent culture. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20041(33), 458–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource-dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Rowe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., Beyer, J. M., & Kruytbosch, C. (1980). Environmental linkages and power in resource-dependent relations between organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 200–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. T., Bunn, M. D., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E. J., & Williams, E. S. (2010). Stakeholder collaboration: Implications for stakeholder theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalization of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2 (supplement)), 413-429.

  • Seitanidi, M. M., Koufopoulos, D. N., & Palmer, P. (2010). Partner formation for change: Indicators for transformative potential in cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 139–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J., & Parker, B. (2010). Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: Prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silber, I. F. (2003). Pragmatic sociology: A cultural sociology beyond repertoire theory? European Journal of Social Theory, 6(4), 427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes and social order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, F. (2005). Idealistic and pragmatic versions of the discourse of partnership. Organization Studies, 26(8), 1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Walker, G. (1984). The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 598–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vurro, C., Dacin, M. T., & Perrini, F. (2010). Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Davide Ravasi and Jean-Pascal Gond for helpful feedback on earlier versions of this paper. This paper also benefited from the constructive feedback of the audience at the Montreal Organizations Writing Workshop.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HEC Montreal, 3000 chemin de la Côte-Ste-Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 2A7, Canada

    Charlotte Cloutier & Ann Langley

Authors
  1. Charlotte Cloutier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann Langley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Cloutier.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Narrative descriptions of Boltanski and Thévenot’s Worlds

The Inspired World

The realm of creativity and “art.” In this world, what is most valued is that which is passionate, emergent, spontaneous, inspired. The creative journey, with its ups and downs, its moments of elation and subsequent feelings of doubt and suffering, is what life “is all about:” an adventure, an endless horizon of mystery and discovery. The journey is the end, not the means. Moments of “genius” are unpredictable and unexpected: they appear in flashes and sparks. Actors in this world are repulsed by habit and shun routines. They dream, imagine, take risks, and “live.”

Key words: Anxiety of creation, passion, dream, fantasy, vision, idea, spirit, religion, unconscious, emotional, feeling, irrational, reflex, invisible, un-measurable, magic, myth, ghost, anthroposophy, super-human beings, affective relationships, warmth, creativity, escapism, intuition, fantastic, dreams, memories, wacky, marginal, unique, flower, grow, desires, possibility

The Domestic World

The realm of the “family” in its symbolic sense. In this world, what is valued is that which is firm, loyal, selfless, trustworthy. Hierarchy and tradition play central roles. Superiors are informed and wise and must care and nurture those who are lower in the hierarchy. Great importance is attached to one’s upbringing, as upbringing and good manners reflect where one “comes from.” The priority of actors in this world is on preserving, protecting and nurturing the unit (family, guild, group, etc.) to which one belongs, as without this unit, one is nothing.

Key words: Engenderment, tradition, generation, hierarchy, leader, benevolent, trustworthy, honest, faithful, determination of a position in a hierarchy, inscription of signs of worth (titles, heraldry, clothing, marks), punctuality, loyalty, firmness, honest, trust, superior, informed, cordial behaviour, honest, trusting, good sense, leaders, family, rejection of selfishness, duties (even more than rights), loyal, harmony, respect, responsibility, authority, subordination, honour, shame, hierarchy, cooperation, celebrations, family ceremonies, responsibility, transparency, duty, task, home, safety, network, caring, belonging, values, well-being.

The World of Fame

The realm of fame and popularity. In this world, what is valued is that which is visible, famous, influential, fashionable, recognized. The worth of actors is determined by the opinion of others. To be banal, unknown or forgotten is shameful. An “undiscovered” genius is a contradiction, as a genius cannot be genial if not known. Any and all means for achieving fame and recognition are sought after and legitimate.

Key words: Public opinion, public, audience, public attention, reputation, desire to be recognized, opinion leader, journalist, PR-agent, sender, receiver, brand, message, public image, persuasion, influence, propaganda, promotion, mobilization, down playing, misleading, media, coverage, buzz, press, photogenic, showcase, credibility, cool.

The Civic World

The realm of duty and solidarity. In this world, what is valued is that which is united, representative, legal, official, free. Individuals in this world accede to worth by freely joining and being part of a collective, their individual will subordinated to the general will, that which seeks the common good, the good of all. Leaders are elected and valued because they represent the aspirations of the masses. To place individual interests ahead of collective interests is panacea in this world. One for all, and all for one.

Key words: Collectives, collective will, legal, rule, governed, official, representative, common objectives, unitary concept, participation, rights and obligations, solidarity, moral beings, democratically, legislation, formality, code, statement, organizational goals, membership, mobilization, unification, freeing people form selfish interest, escape from chaos (division) and isolation, aspiration to civil rights, renunciation of the particular, transform interests of each into a collective interest, gathering for collective action, exclude, join, assemble, association, recruiting, extending, active mobilization, liaising, constant contact with organization, the legal text, republic, state, democracy, assembly, movement, election process, consultation, corporatism, rules, law, legal and formal steps, actions, processes, decisions and orders, community, political activism, citizen action, debate, state-run, equality, consensus.

The Market World

The realm of money and the market. In this world, what is valued is rare, expensive, valuable, profitable. The law of the market prevails, and actors deemed worthy are those who know how to take advantage of it and reap its rewards (e.g. wealth). Wealth is an end, and individuals with dignity in this world are “detached from the chains of belonging and liberated from the weight of hierarchies.” This gives them the ability to judge market opportunities objectively, unemotionally and thus “win.”

Key words: Competition, rivalry, value, saleable, interest, love, desire, selfishness, market, wealth, luxury; opportunism, liberty, opening, attention to others, sympathy, detachment, distance, possess, contract, deal, price, money, benefit, result, competition, management, conversion, calculation, finance, payment, wages, oligopoly, monopoly, commerce, price, politics, saving, margin, asset, ownership, demand, supply, economy, production, millionaire, winner, competitors, client, buyer, salesman, independent worker, employee (worker), buy, get, sell, economically, business, costs.

The Industrial World

The realm of measures and efficiency. In this world, what is valued is precise, functional, professional, productive, efficient, useful. A world where technological objects and scientific methods take centre stage. Optimization and progress are noble pursuits. All forms of “waste” are frowned upon. Actors in this world are professional, hardworking, focused and thorough. Perfection is to be found in the optimally functioning system (whether mechanical, technological or human).

Key words: Efficiency, performance, future, functional, predictability, reliability, motivation, work energy, professionals, experts, specialists, operator, person in charge, means method, task, space, environment, axis, direction, definition, plan, goal, calendar, standard, cause, series, average, probability, variable, graph, time models, goals, calculation, hypothesis, solution, progress, dynamic control (security, opposite of risk), machinery, cogwheels, interact, need, condition, necessary, integrate, organize, stabilize, order, anticipate, implant, adapt, detect, analyse, determine, measure, formalize, standardize, optimize, solve, process, organize, system, trial, setting up, effectiveness, instrumental action, operational, methodology, indicators, robust, rigorous, reporting, objectives, productivity, impact, results, accountability.

  1. Derived from Boltanski and Thévenot (1991, pp. 159–211, 2006) and Patriotta et al. (2011), synonyms of keywords as found in the text appear in italics

Appendix 2

See Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Table 4 Supporting evidence for Vignette 1: Fallout
Full size table
Table 5 Supporting evidence for Vignette 2: submission
Full size table
Table 6 Supporting evidence for Vignette 3: concession
Full size table
Table 7 Supporting evidence for Vignette 4: contingency
Full size table
Table 8 Supporting evidence for Vignette 5: compromise
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cloutier, C., Langley, A. Negotiating the Moral Aspects of Purpose in Single and Cross-Sectoral Collaborations. J Bus Ethics 141, 103–131 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2680-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2680-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation