power and collaboration in interorganizational relationships

POWER AND COLLABORATION IN INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS: PARADOX
OR COMPROMISE?
LESSONS LEARNED FOR NORTH-SOUTH PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN NGOS.
Olga Navarro-Flores, M.A., Ph.D
[email protected]
Professor at Department of Management and Technology
School of Management
Université du Québec à Montréal
Abstract
Interorganizational relationships, such as partnerships, are very much part of today’s economic agenda.
Some authors have argued that they have become a new form of coordination of economic activity,
alternative to hierarchy and competition (Hollingsworth et Boyer, 1997). In fact, from the early nineties
we assist to the emergence of public-private partnerships which have reinforced national corporations’
performance in international markets (Petrella, 1989), have increased governments’ capacity to
implement social policy (Favreau et Fréchette, 2002; Vaillancourt; 1996), and have even supported
community economic development (Loizides, 1995; Peter et Sundblad; 1994).
Recent research about this interorganizational phenomenon has focused on public-private partnerships
(Hardy, 1994; Hardy and Phillips, 1998; Rodriguez, Langley, Béland and Denis, 2007), and on the role
of trust in building the relationship (Vlaar, Van den Bosch and Volberda, 2007; Ferrin, Bligh and
Kohles, 2007). Drawing from institutional analysis and collaboration theory (Phillips, Lawrence and
Hardy, 2000), we develop a theoretical model to understand power relationships within
interorganizational cooperation, in a sector that has often been neglected by management studies: nongovernment organisations (NGO), operating within North-South cooperation (Navarro-Flores, 2006).
Partnerships within international cooperation have been encouraged by funding agencies as an attempt
to reinforce local autonomy and ownership of development programmes. However, for the most critical
observers, this represents a paradox because it masks neoliberal attempts to assimilate developing
countries to global market and denies the inequality between North and South exacerbated by
globalization (Hately and Malhotra, 1997). We argue that, in spite of the growing gap between North
and South, international development actors within NGOs have managed to construct partnerships,
neither by denying nor masking power relationship, but by adopting mechanisms to negotiate power
within cooperation.
By contextualizing the organizations in their own socio-political environment (North and South), we are
able to examine power relationships across three different levels of analysis: macro or institutional level,
meso or interorganizational level, and micro or interpersonal level. By doing this, we provide greater
precision on how power is acquired and used by actors in the North and in the South, as well as a
comprehensive view of how power is negotiated within the relationship. We conclude with a new
definition of partnership as a compromise, embracing power differences and mechanisms to negotiate
inequality.
Bibliography:
Favreau, Louis et Lucie Fréchette. 2002. Mondialisation, économie sociale, développement local et
solidarité internationale. Ste.-Foy (Québec) : Presses de l’Université du Québec, Coll. Pratiques et
Politiques Sociales et Économiques, 286 p.
Ferrin, Donald L., Michelle C. Bligh and Jeffrey C. Kohles. 2007. « Can I trust you to trust me? A theory
of trust, monitoring and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships», Group and
Organization Management, vol. 32, no 4, pp. 465-499.
Hardy, Cynthia and Nelson Phillips (1998). « Strategies of Engagement: Lessons from the Critical
Examination of Collaboration and Conflict in an Interorganizational Domain », Organization Science,
vol. 9, no 2 (march-april), pp. 217-230.
Hardy, Cynthia. 1994. « Power and politics in organizations ». Chap. in Managing Strategic Action, p.
220-237. Nwebury Park (Calif.) : Sage.
Hately, Lynne et Kamal Malhotra. 1997. Between rhetoric and reality : Essays on partnership in
development. Ottawa: North-South Institute/Renouf Publishing, 68 p.
Hollingsworth, Roger et Robert Boyer. 1998. « Coordination of economic actors and social systems of
production ». Chap. In Contemporary Capitalism. The Embeddedness of Institutions, p. 1-47.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loizides, Stelios. 1995. Corporate Involvement in Community Economic Development: Options,
Benefits and Key Success Factors. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada, 19 p.
Navarro-Flores, Olga. 2006. Les relations de partenariat Nord-Sud: du paradoxe au compromise. Une
approche institutionnaliste des relations entre ONG dans le secteur de la cooperation international.
Thèse de doctorat, Université du Québec à Montréal, 459 p.
Peterson, George E et Dana R Sundblad. 1994. Conference Board. Corporations as partners in
strengthening urban communities: a research report. New York: Conference Board, 44 p.
Petrella, Ricardo. 1989. « La mondialisation de la technologie et e de l’économie », dans Futuribles, no.
135, (septembre), p. 3-25.
Phillips, Nelson, Thomas B. Lawrence et Cynthia Hardy. 2000. « Interorganizational Collaboration and
the Dynamics of Institutional Fields », Journal of Management Studies, vol. 37, no 1 (janvier), p. 23-43.
Rodriguez, Charo, Ann Langley, François Béland and Jean-Louis Denis. 2007. « Governance, power and
mandated collaboration in an interorganizational network», Administration and Society, vol. 39, no 2,
pp. 150-193.
Vaillancourt, Yves. 1996. « Sortir de l’alternative entre privatisation et étatisation dans la santé et les
services sociaux », dans Société civile, État et Économie plurielle, sous la dir. de Bernard Eme et al, p.
147-224. Québec : CRISES-UQAM et CRIDA-LSCI.
Vlaar, Paul W.L., Frans A. J. Van den Bosch and Henk W. Volberda. 2007. « On the evolution of trust,
distrust and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships. Toward an integrative
framework», Group and Organization Management, vol. 32, no 4, pp. 407-429.