01 Whole

Practitioners’ perspectives on
cross-sector collaborations
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Research
Jarryd Daymond
Bachelor of Laws (Honours), Macquarie University
Bachelor of Commerce-Marketing (Honours), Macquarie University
Master of International Business with Master of International Relations, Macquarie University
Department of Marketing & Management

Faculty of Business and Economics
Macquarie University
October 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ iii
Statement of candidate ......................................................................................................iv
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2
1.1. Research background ............................................................................................ 2
1.2. Research problem and questions .......................................................................... 3
1.3. Design of the study ................................................................................................ 4
1.4. Organisation of the thesis ...................................................................................... 4
1.4.1. Chapter 2......................................................................................................... 4
1.4.2. Chapter 3..........................................................................................................5
1.4.3. Chapter 4..........................................................................................................5
1.4.4. Chapter 5 ..........................................................................................................5
2. Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Complex problems (requiring shared-power solutions) ........................................ 7
2.3. Collaboration ......................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1. Leading collaborations.................................................................................... 8
2.3.2. Cross-sector collaboration ............................................................................. 10
2.4. Practitioner perspectives on cross-sector collaboration....................................... 12
2.5. Chapter Summary................................................................................................. 14
3. Design of the Study ...................................................................................................... 16
3.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 16
3.2. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 16
3.3. Research design and methods .............................................................................. 17
3.3.1. Long interview method .................................................................................. 18
3.3.2. Interview structure ........................................................................................ 18
3.4. Data collection and analysis ................................................................................. 19
3.4.1. Participant recruitment ................................................................................. 19
3.4.2. Conduct of interviews ................................................................................... 20
3.4.3. Data analysis approach .................................................................................. 21
3.5. Chapter summary ................................................................................................ 22
4. Analysis and Discussion of Findings ........................................................................... 24
4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 24
4.2. Data and findings ................................................................................................ 24
i
4.2.1. People............................................................................................................ 26
4.2.2. Process .......................................................................................................... 30
4.2.3. Collaboration ................................................................................................ 33
4.2.4. Governance ................................................................................................... 34
4.3. Discussion of findings ......................................................................................... 36
4.3.1. Integrative Leadership .................................................................................. 36
4.3.2. Structures....................................................................................................... 37
4.3.3. Processes ....................................................................................................... 39
4.3.4. Participants ................................................................................................... 40
4.4. Chapter summary ................................................................................................ 42
5. Conclusions and Implications ..................................................................................... 45
5.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 45
5.2. Conclusions about the research problem and questions ..................................... 45
5.3. Implications for theory ......................................................................................... 51
5.4. Implications for practice ......................................................................................52
5.5. Limitations and implications for future research.................................................52
5.6. Chapter summary .................................................................................................53
6. References ................................................................................................................... 56
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix A: Ethics approval ........................................................................................... 64
Appendix B: Interview questionnaire.............................................................................. 66
ii
Abstract
The increasing need to collaborate across sectors to tackle complex problems has driven the
development of an industry of cross-sector collaboration practitioners. The purpose of this study
is to create new understanding about the work of practitioners in cross-sector collaborations.
While cross-sector collaboration research has drawn upon the views of such practitioners this
has typically been in the context of a single case analysis. The study collected data from 15
interviews to provide further understanding of the work of cross-sector collaboration
practitioners. An interpretive analysis of the practitioners’ perspectives was conducted and
presented people, processes, collaboration and governance as significant themes in the results.
Practitioners identified many elements already present in the existing literature as important to
the success of cross-sector collaborations. The results also produced new findings including the
need for the principal governance group working on the cross-sector collaboration to have
ultimate decision-making authority, the need for bespoke processes for each collaboration, and
the important of place and place attachment in cross-sector collaborations. The study concludes
by suggesting further research be conducted on practitioners’ perspectives on governance,
government-led collaborations, and the role of place and wisdom in cross-sector collaborations.
iii
Statement of candidate
This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of
Research in the Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University. I certify that the work
contained in this thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or
institution.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge all sources used and any help received in the
preparation of this thesis have been acknowledged.
The Faculty of Business & Economics Human Research Ethics Sub Committee has deemed
that this research meets the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research 2007 (Reference Number 5201500483).
Signed:
Jarryd Daymond
23 October 2015
iv
Chapter 1 Introduction
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research background
The purpose of this study is to create new understanding about the work of practitioners in
cross-sector collaborations. It takes as its starting point the view that society faces complex
problems and that cross-sector collaborations will increasingly be the vehicles for addressing
those problems (Sun & Anderson 2012). Despite many stakeholders having an interest in seeing
these problems remedied, none of these stakeholders alone has enough time, money, knowledge
or authority to address them (Crosby 2010). Crosby and Bryson describe these as “public
problems in a no-one-in-charge, shared-power world” (Crosby & Bryson 2005, p. 1).
The premise of a shared-power world and the need for collaboration has helped contribute
to a growing literature on collaboration. “Collaborative interactions occur when multiple
organizations share responsibility for interconnected tasks and work together to pursue
collectively complex goals that cannot be accomplished by a single organization” (McNamara
2011, p.2). Collaboration has been proposed as a means to enhance complex problem-solving
(Ansell, Chris & Gash 2008; Imperial 2005; Rethemeyer & Hatmaker 2008; Weber &
Khademian 2008) since these problems are rarely the responsibility of a single entity and require
a range of expertise and knowledge to address them (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Burns et al.
2006; Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh 2012; Kettl 2006; McGuire 2006; Moore & Hartley 2008;
Quick & Feldman 2011; Wood & Gray 1991). The challenge of doing collaborative projects to
achieve complex goals has helped drive scholarly research on the topic.
Research increasingly focuses on cross-sector collaborations as government and

organisations from different sectors need to partner to address problems that they otherwise
would not be able to tackle independently (Kettl 2015). While much research has broadly
addressed collaboration, there is less known about the management of collaborations across
sectors (Babiak & Thibault 2009; McNamara 2011). Bryson, Crosby and Stone define cross-
sector collaboration as “the linking or sharing of information, resources, activities, and
capabilities by organizations in two or more sectors to achieve jointly an outcome that could not
be achieved by organizations in one sector separately” (2006, p. 44). The challenge of addressing
complex problems for the public good has stimulated researchers to develop several theoretical
frameworks to explain and understand the phenomenon (Agranoff 2007, 2012; Ansell & Gash
2008; Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh 2011; Koschmann, Kuhn &
Pfarrer 2012; Provan & Kenis 2008; Thomson & Perry 2006).
Integrative leadership refers to a stream of theory that relates to leadership specifically in

the context of cross-sector collaborations (Morse 2010). Crosby and Bryson (2014) define
integrative leadership as "integrating people, resources and organisations across various
boundaries to tackle complex public problems and achieve the common good" (Crosby & Bryson,
2014, p. 57). Since most cross-sector collaborations have an element of public interest in the
outcome it is also referred to as integrative public leadership. A synthesis of the integrative public
leadership literature shows that integrative public leaders catalyse cross-sector collaborations
through four dimensions: integrative thinking, integrative behaviour, integrative leadership
resources, and integrative structures and processes (Sun & Anderson 2012).
Much cross-sector collaboration theory has been developed by analysing the practices of
these collaborations in single case studies. This focus on practice aligns with assertions that a
2
“turn to practice” (Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina & Von Savigny 2001) has taken place in the social
sciences (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Reckwitz, 2002). In parallel to the turn to practice in
contemporary social theory, a “pragmatic turn” has taken place in philosophy wherein the
practical wisdom of actors is acknowledged (Bernstein 2010; Egginton & Sandbothe 2004; Innes
& Booher 2010; Menand 2001). Cross-sector collaboration research focuses on practice and the
significant theoretical frameworks explaining cross-sector collaboration are derived from
literature that analyses case studies (see Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Thomson & Perry 2006;
Ansell & Gash 2008; Agranoff 2007, 2012; Provan & Kenis 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh
2011; Koschmann, Kuhn & Pfarrer 2012). Collectively these articles “advocate for a variety of
research designs and the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods” (Bryson, Crosby &
Stone 2015, p. 650). Cross-sector collaborations comprise multi-layered and interconnected
webs of elements. Such complexity supports arguments that cross-sector collaborations as
practice are “richly constituted when done well and not easily reduced to the scaled variables of
variance studies” (Crosby & Bryson 2014, p. 61). One may plausibly contend that they do not lend
themselves to precise theoretical models and measurement of relevant variables (O'Leary & Vij
2012).
development of an industry of cross-sector collaboration practitioners. These practitioners
include people working as consultants and partnership brokers; they are experienced at
designing and facilitating such collaborations. While cross-sector collaboration research has
drawn upon the views of such “practitioners” this has typically been in the context of a single
case analysis (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Bryson et al. 2008; Lai 2012; McNamara 2011;
Provan & Kenis 2008; Simo & Bies 2007). There exists, therefore, an opportunity to explore
existing theoretical understandings of cross-sector collaborations through the lens of a sample
of cross-sector collaboration practitioners.
1.2. Research problem and questions

The aim of this research is to address the following research problem through an
interpretivist interview-based study:
Research problem: How do practitioners work on cross-sector collaborations?

In addressing this problem, the study will examine three research questions. The first
question explores the practitioners’ perspectives on what the most important aspects doing of
cross-sector collaborations are.
Question 1: What do collaborative practitioners identify as important to the success of

cross-sector collaborations?
The second question will compare practitioner perspectives to established theoretical
frameworks on cross-sector collaborations.
Question 2: Which elements of existing cross-sector collaboration frameworks do

collaborative practitioners emphasise?
Given the literature’s emphasis on the connection between integrative leadership and
effective cross-sector collaborations, the third sub-question will examine practitioners’
perspectives on the role of leadership in such collaborations.
3
Question 3: What role do practitioners see leadership playing in cross-sector
collaborations?
1.3. Design of the study

Cross-sector collaborations are “social” phenomenon because they are comprised of
interconnected elements such as pre-existing networks of relationships, sponsors and
champions, leaders, members, rules and norms, power dynamics and conflict (Agranoff 2007,
2012; Ansell & Gash 2008; Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh 2011;
Provan & Kenis 2008; Koschmann, Kuhn & Pfarrer 2012; Thomson & Perry 2006). Social
phenomena of this complexity cannot be easily reduced to scaled variables and explanatory
studies (Crosby & Bryson 2014, p. 61). They better align with approaches that seek to understand
the elements and their interactions within an interpretivist paradigm. For these reasons, this
study has embraced a constructionist epistemology and interpretivist research paradigm.
Since this study requires methods that account for the constructed nature of knowledge, the
complexity of cross-sector collaborations, and the understanding-oriented inquiry demanded by
explorations of social phenomena, I chose qualitative research methods to achieve the aims of
the study. The qualitative approach in the study uses elements of the “long interview” method
advocated by McCracken (1988). Similar to a semi-structured interview, this approach allows
the researcher to define the area of enquiry while still allowing interviewees to express
themselves in a natural manner not permitted by the confines of a structured interview. The
method uses a questionnaire comprising of a “set of grand-tour questions with floating prompts
at the ready” (p. 37). This enables each interview to cover the relevant material in a similar order
for each interviewee, while allowing for open-ended responses and maintaining a conversational
approach that accords with the co-constructed research process of the study. The content of the
interview questionnaire was designed around key elements of the Bryson, Crosby and Stone
(2006) framework relating to the conditions precipitating successful collaborative initiatives and
their processes, practices, structures and governance. The overview questions were designed to
draw out open-ended responses that addressed these phenomena, with floating prompts
identified to further explore specific elements related to each of these areas.
1.4. Organisation of the thesis

This chapter has described the research background, the research problems and questions,
and summarised the design of the study. The following section provides a brief outline for each
chapter.
1.4.1. Chapter 2
Chapter 2 provides an overview of extant literature relevant to this research. The literature
review addresses three areas. First, it explains the nature of complex problems requiring shared-
power solutions and the role of collaborations in solving such problems. Second, it focuses on
theory dealing with cross-sector collaborations and presents an overview of the elements of
important theoretical frameworks. Third, it presents literature addressing the role of leadership
in making effective cross-sector collaborations happen. It identifies an opportunity to extend the
theory from the perspective of collaborative practitioners and justifies this in relation to a turn
to practice in social science research. The chapter concludes by presenting research questions to
extend the cross-sector collaboration theory.
4
1.4.2. Chapter 3
Chapter 3 outlines the design of the study. The constructionist epistemology and
interpretivist paradigm of the study will be described here. The chapter will justify the qualitative
approach adopted for this study, describe the long-interview method for collecting data, and
explain the approach to interview transcript analysis.
1.4.3. Chapter 4
Chapter 4 presents my interpretive analysis of the practitioners’ perspectives. The analysis
focuses on the most significant themes presented in the results, namely “people”, “process”,
“collaboration” and “governance”. Excerpts from the transcripts relating to the themes are
analysed and findings presented in relation to each. The chapter concludes by discussing the key
findings in relation to existing theory.
1.4.4. Chapter 5
Chapter 5 will present the conclusions of the study in relation to the research problem and
questions, providing practitioner perspectives on how they work on cross-sector collaborations.
Unique findings will be identified and used to draw implications for theory and practice. The
chapter will conclude by noting limitations of the current study and offering possibilities for
future research on cross-sector collaborations.
5
Chapter 2 Literature Review
6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature and develops the theoretical foundation upon which this
research is based. The chapter therefore synthesises relevant literature and identifies key themes
relating to the research problem. First, I discuss the nature of complex problems that require
shared-power solutions. Second, I summarise the literature on collaboration. In particular, the
literature review discusses the role of leadership within collaborations before focusing on the
sub-segment of the literature dealing specifically with cross-sector collaborations. I take account
of the turn to practice in the study of social sciences as I identify an opportunity to extend cross-
sector collaboration theory from the perspective of practitioners. The chapter concludes by
presenting my research questions.
2.2. Complex problems (requiring shared-power solutions)

The significant problems facing humanity in the 21st century can appear increasingly
complex. These problems include poverty, food security, and epidemic disease in a world
undergoing climate change. Indeed, many significant problems originate at national, regional or
global systems-levels and are multifaceted in nature. Since system-level problems by their nature
involve complexity, they can also be referred to as complex problems. As system-level problems
are complex they usually cannot be overcome by simple solutions. Efforts to address one element
of a multifaceted problem alone would unlikely address the entirety of the problem.
It has been almost half a century since academic scholars first recognised that public
problems are complex and dynamic (Churchman 1967; Rittel & Webber 1973), making it difficult
to apply traditional frameworks comprising of isolated notions of problem definition,
administration, and resolution (Roberts 1997, 2000, 2002; Weber & Khademian 2008). Public
problems are often complex problems as they have an effect on multiple constituents from
multiple spheres of life (Bryson & Crosby 1992; Bryson & Einsweiler 1991; Cleveland 2002). For
example, public health problems have the potential to affect healthcare providers, businesses,
education systems, citizens and the economy in general. Complex public problems affect many
individuals, groups and organisations; in turn, many individuals, groups and organisations
contribute to the problems and do not solely retain resources that address the problems in
(Crosby 2010). No single party “owns” these problems per se, but all have an interest in their
resolution. Furthermore, even though various stakeholders have an interest and possibly a
partial responsibility in seeing these problems remedied, none of these stakeholders alone have
enough time, money or authority to address them (Crosby 2010). Crosby and Bryson describe
these as “public problems in a no-one-in-charge, shared-power world” (Crosby & Bryson 2005).
Given the premised of no-one-in-charge shared-power world, power-sharing arrangements

are required to effectively address complex public problems (Crosby 2010). To achieve these
arrangements, the challenge of leadership is to, first, assemble a coalition of diverse stakeholders
and, second, to develop a shared understanding of the problem and a shared intent for the
intended solution (Crosby & Bryson 2005; Roberts & King 1996). Given the complexity of public
problems, attempting to assemble a diverse group of stakeholders should go beyond merely
ensuring representation from all interested stakeholder groups—representation should seek to
also ensure a diversity of roles, opinions, experiences and modi operandi to collaboratively
engage with the complexity of the problem.
7
2.3. Collaboration
The premise of a shared power world and the resultant need for collaboration has helped
contribute to a growing literature on collaboration. Drawing together several studies, McNamara
(2011) posits that “[c]ollaborative interactions occur when multiple organizations share
responsibility for interconnected tasks and work together to pursue collectively complex goals
that cannot be accomplished by a single organization” (2011, p.2 citing (Keast, Brown & Mandell
2007; Mattessich & Monsey 1992; Thomson & Perry 2006). Collaboration has been proposed as
a means through which to enhance complex problem-solving (Ansell, Chris & Gash 2008;
Imperial 2005; Rethemeyer & Hatmaker 2008; Weber & Khademian 2008), since these
problems are rarely the responsibility of a single entity and require a range of expertise and
knowledge to address them (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Burns et al. 2006; Emerson, Nabatchi
& Balogh 2012; Kettl 2006; McGuire 2006; Moore & Hartley 2008; Quick & Feldman 2011;
Wood & Gray 1991). The role collaborative interactions can play in achieving complex goals has
led some to view effective collaboration as an elusive concoction of composite activities that,
when brewed under the right conditions, can provide the secret ingredient to solve multifaceted
problems. As a result, there is an increasing need to “look inside the black box of collaboration
processes” (Thomson & Perry 2006) to determine how to effectively collaborate.
2.3.1. Leading collaborations

Some investigators have identified leadership as a component within the “black box” and
collaborative leadership has emerged as another strand in the raft leadership theories. Interest
in collaborative leadership is also due to the increased need to collaborate in a range of different
situations, and is spurred on by criticisms that mainstream leadership theories do not adequately
apply to collaborative contexts (see for example Huxham and Vangen, 2005). The result is
evolving theorisation of the desired behaviours and competencies of collaborative leaders
(Crosby & Bryson 2005; Getha-Taylor 2008; Linden 2003; Luke 1998; Morse 2008; Williams
2002). Within the context of collaboration some commentators have emphasised action and
public outcomes. Crosby and Bryson define leadership in collaborative contexts as “the
inspiration and mobilization of others to pursue collective action in pursuit of the common good”
(Crosby & Bryson 2005, p. xix). Similarly, Huxham and Vangen (2005) have attempted to
overcome the shortcomings of leadership theories as applied to collaborative contexts by
focusing on collaborative leadership as “what makes things happen in a collaboration” (p. 202).
Their grounded theory study of collaborations found that collaborative leadership is enacted
through the interconnected media of structures, processes and participants.
2.3.1.1. Structures
Structural arrangements play an integral role within interorganisational collaborations
(Alter & Hage 1993). Both formal and informal structural connections between organisations are
significant factors in shaping agendas and their implementation (Huxham & Vangen 2005). For
example, Huxham and Vangen (2005, p. 204) suggest that structural interconnections
“determine such key factors as who may have an influence on shaping a partnership agenda, who
may have power to act and what resources may be tapped”. Further, structural arrangements can
affect interorganisational collaborations at multiple stages. For example, existing networks or
prior relationships can serve as “linking mechanisms” (Waddock 1986) and are often
antecedental to the formation of partnerships (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006). Morse (2010) has
extended the discussion of antecedent conditions by using the concept of “boundary
8
organisations”, originally used to represent formal relational structures linking science and non-
science domains (Guston 2001). Morse (2010) describe boundary organisations as “structures
that exist prior to the formation of new partnerships and give rise to boundary work that often
results in the formation of new partnerships” (Morse 2010, p. 234). To this end, boundary
organisations can be viewed as structural catalysts driving the development of
interorganisational collaborations (Morse 2010) and may include collectives such as cross-
boundary taskforces, teams, networks, working groups, and steering and coordinating
committees.
2.3.1.2. Processes
Processes are another media through which collaborative leadership is enacted (Huxham &
Vangen 2005). These include the “formal and informal instruments—such as committees,
workshops, seminars, telephone, fax and e-mail—through which the collaboration’s
communications take place” (Huxham & Vangen 2005, p. 205). Morse (2010) draws special
attention to the role of boundary experiences in catalysing “integration and collaborative action”
(p. 234), where boundary experiences are “shared or joint activities that create a sense of
community and an ability to transcend boundaries among participants” (Feldman et al. 2006, p.
94 cited in Morse, 2010, p. 234). This understanding aligns with actor-network theory (Latour
1987, 2005) which asserts that all associations in a network must be accounted for in terms of
the manner in which they ‘act’ to influence networks. In actor-network theory “anything that …
modif[ies] a state of affairs by making a difference is an actor” (Latour 2005, p. 71). Therefore, it
is suggested that both boundary experiences such as strategic planning activities and boundary
objects, which include artefacts such as strategic plans, play a role in catalysing collaborative
action (Bryson, Crosby & Bryson 2009; Morse 2010). Boundary objects can form a “facilitative
device” (De Geus 1988) that help transform “here-and-now real possibilities to the there-and-
then actualities” (Crosby, Bryson & Stone 2010, p. 205). Strategy maps and the process of
creating them can help develop shared understandings of the direction and objectives of
collaborations (Bryson, Crosby & Bryson 2009). Further, they can surface concerns and then
provide dialoguing and decision processes that help collaborators “make sense of their world and
… connect people, ideas, and other kinds of actors into a way forward” (Bryson, Crosby & Bryson
2009, p. 202-203). Processes thus play a significant role in collaborations.
2.3.1.3. Participants
The collaborative leadership role is acknowledged in interorganisational contexts (Williams
2002) where individuals who “engage in networking tasks and employ methods of coordination
and task integration across organizational boundaries” (Alter & Hage 1993, p. 46) are referred to
as ‘boundary spanners’ (Williams 2002). These ‘boundary spanners’ are also referred to as
‘catalysts’ (Luke 1998) since they provide “a spark or catalyst that truly makes a difference” (Luke
1998, p. 4). However the mere presence of catalyst participants, or particular structures and
processes, are not sufficient to effectively enact collaborative leadership. To “make things
happen” in the context of complex cross-sector collaborations leadership is required to integrate
these elements such they result in an effective collaborative initiative (Crosby & Bryson 2010).
Examining the enactment of leadership through these media of structures, processes and
participants provides a useful framework through which to explore “what makes things happen
in a collaboration”.
9
2.3.2. Cross-sector collaboration
Many challenging collaborations occur across sectors. Public management research is
increasingly focused on cross-sector collaborations as government and organisations from
different sectors need to partner to address public problems which they otherwise would not be
able to tackle independently (Kettl 2015). While much research has addressed collaboration, less
is known about the management of collaborations across sectors that seek to achieve public goals
(Babiak & Thibault 2009; McNamara 2011). Definitions of cross-sector collaboration typically
emphasise the increasing depth of relationship between organisations from different sectors (see
for example Thomson and Perry 2006, Provan and Kenis 2008, Ansell and Gash 2008, Agranoff
2007). Bryson, Crosby and Stone define cross-sector collaboration as “the linking or sharing of
information, resources, activities, and capabilities by organizations in two or more sectors to
achieve jointly an outcome that could not be achieved by organizations in one sector separately”
(2006, p. 44). At times the term “collaborations” is used interchangeably with “partnerships” but
this should not be confused with public-private partnerships which refer to a particular type of
formal or contractually-based cross-sector collaboration between entities (Bryson, Crosby &
Stone 2015). Since overcoming the limitations of siloed-sector action is a rationale for cross-
sector collaboration it follows that cross-sector collaboration is a necessary process for
addressing complex problems. Simo and Bies (2007) have extended this logic by suggesting that
the term ‘cross-sector collaboration’ implies an orientation toward the public good.
The promise of addressing complex problems for the public good has stimulated research
into cross-sector collaborations, resulting in several frameworks for understanding the
phenomenon. Bryson, Crosby and Stone (2006) were early authors of a framework to understand
cross-sector collaborations. Ten years after their seminal article on designing and implementing
cross-sector collaborations they reviewed research on the field they helped to shape (Bryson,
Crosby & Stone 2015). They identified the most significant theoretical frameworks to be Bryson,
Crosby, and Stone (2006); Thomson and Perry (2006); Ansell and Gash (2008); Agranoff (2007,
2012); Provan and Kenis (2008); Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2011); and Koschmann, Kuhn,
and Pfarrer (2012).
The earlier of these frameworks (namely Agranoff 2007; Ansell, Chris & Gash 2008; Bryson,
Crosby & Stone 2006; Provan & Kenis 2008; Thomson & Perry 2006) exhibit similarities and
include general conditions antecedental to the collaboration, initial conditions more proximate
to the collaboration, internal processes, structural elements, and outcomes of the collaboration
(Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). Antecedent conditions include the availability of a range of
resources with which to support the collaboration, the institutional environment of the
collaboration including the political and policy climate, and the need for a cross-sector
collaboration to address a complex public issue (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). A synthesis of
the frameworks’ initial conditions for successful collaborations includes the availability of
leadership, pre-existing networks and relationships between collaborators, and some agreement
on the initial aims of the collaboration (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). The key collaborative
processes include establishing trust amongst collaborators, using inclusive participation,
reaching a shared understanding of the problem which is the centre of the collaboration,
developing a commitment to collective goals and actions, and engaging in planning which can be
a mix of formal and emergent planning (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). All the frameworks
highlight structural aspects such as norms and rules that arise to promote these processes and
10
build agreement on collective aspirations and targets (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). The
frameworks also emphasise the importance of governance in linking processes and structures
(Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). Some of the frameworks address inherent tensions within cross-
sector collaborations, such as power imbalances (Agranoff 2007; Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006),
differences resulting from various institutional logics (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006), collective
versus self-interest (Thomson & Perry 2006), efficiency versus inclusivity, flexibility versus
stability, and internal versus external legitimacy (all Kenis & Provan, 2008). While there are
differences amongst the frameworks—for example their emphases on leadership roles (Bryson,
Crosby & Stone 2006; Thomson & Perry 2006), leadership activities (Ansell, Chris & Gash 2008),
the embedded nature of structure (Agranoff 2007; Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh 2012; Thomson
& Perry 2006), and importance of sector failure (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006)—the above
elements represent the main features of the theoretical frameworks (Bryson, Crosby & Stone
2015).
2.3.2.1. Integrative leadership: leading cross-sector collaborations

Leadership within collaborations has already been discussed (see above 2.3.1. Leading
collaborations) however it is useful to discuss integrative leadership, which relates to leadership
in the context of cross-sector collaborations (Morse 2010). Crosby and Bryson (2014) define
integrative leadership as "integrating people, resources and organisations across various
2014, p. 57). Since most cross-sector collaborations have an element of public interest in the
outcome it is also referred to as integrative public leadership. A synthesis of integrative public
leadership literature reveals that integrative public leaders catalyse cross-sector collaborations
through four dimensions: integrative thinking, integrative behaviour, integrative leadership
resources, and integrative structures and processes (Sun & Anderson 2012).
First, integrative thinking shares similarities with “integrative complexity” (Stabell 1978;
Tetlock 1983; Wallace & Suedfeld 1988) and “systems thinking” (Alexander et al. 2001; Crosby
& Bryson 2010; Novelli Jr & Taylor 1993). This type of thinking involves the cognitive ability to
maintain a systems perspective on a collaboration while distinguishing between and
understanding the interrelations of the different dynamisms at play within the collaboration
(Alexander et al. 2001; Senge 2006; Sun & Anderson 2012). Integrative thinking includes the
ability to better understand the dominant logics of different organisations involved in a
collaboration (Hartman, Hofman & Stafford 1999). The ability to understand the dominant logics
of collaborating organisations provides integrative thinkers with the grounding from which to
lead others to question assumptions associated with those logics (Ospina & Foldy 2010). It also
enables them to lead others in creatively constructing approaches to solving problems (Ospina &
Foldy 2010). Integrative thinking also includes the ability to understand the valued identities
embraced by different collaborators and to communicate using language and symbols that
resonate with these identities (Hartman, Hofman & Stafford 1999; Ospina & Foldy 2010). Sun
and Anderson describe this process as “giv[ing] voice to the diverse identities in the multi-sector
collaboration” (2012, p. 314), and it enables collaborations to shape shared identities (Ospina &
Foldy 2010). Connecting with the identities of collaborators facilitates emotional engagement of
diverse groups in cross-sector collaborations (Redekop 2010). Integrative thinking thus
represents an aspect of leadership that helps enable cross-sector collaborations to be effective.
11
Second, integrative behaviour refers to actions taken to foster semi-permanent connections
to achieve public good (Alexander et al. 2001; Bazzoli, Harmata & Chan 1998; Crosby & Bryson
2010; Huxham & Vangen 2000; Ospina & Foldy 2010; Page 2010; Paul et al. 2001; Silvia &
McGuire 2010; Sun & Anderson 2012). Fostering these connections is done by developing
relationships with collaborating parties (Ospina & Saz-Carranza 2010) and there is some
evidence indicating that integrative leaders have a predisposition towards relational and people-
oriented behaviours (Silvia & McGuire 2010; Sun and Anderson 2012). This includes treating
collaborators as equals, considering their welfare and celebrating their successes, all of which
helps build trust in the relationship (Bazzoli, Harmata & Chan 1998; Silvia & McGuire 2010;
Vangen & Huxham 2003). The ability to rally collaborators toward a shared purpose also helps
develop their relationships (Vangen & Huxham 2003). These unifying actions, along with the
integrative thinking component of understanding and giving voice to diverse identities, help
overcome differences and resolve conflicts (Alexander et al. 2001; Morse 2010; Nielsen 1990;
Ospina & Saz-Carranza 2010; Page 2010; Redekop 2010; Umble et al. 2005).
Third, integrative leadership resources refer to the desire to serve the community by
bringing in necessary expertise and use of appropriate social connections (Sun and Anderson
2012). Within this, integrative leaders need to be social entrepreneurs capable of identifying
opportunities to create public value (Morse 2010) underpinned by a desire to serve the public
(Denhardt & Campbell 2006). In addition, integrative leaders need to contribute valuable
resources to the collaboration (Goodroe & Beres 1991) such as expertise (Sun & Anderson 2012)
and social capital developed through past interactions (Morse 2010; Nosella & Petroni 2007).
Finally, integrative structures and processes refer to the use and embedding of systems,
structures and processes so that they can be leveraged in collaborations (Sun & Anderson 2012).
Structures can limit or increase the influence of leadership in cross-sector collaborations
(Huxham & Vangen 2000). The impact of institutional forces within collaborations needs to be
recognised (Huxham & Vangen 2000). Further, integrative leaders need to appreciate the
limitations and affordances of collaboration processes and structures, and possess the skills to
engage collaborators in the process of co-evolving the collaboration (Crosby & Bryson, 2010;
Huxham & Vangen 2000; Sun & Anderson 2012). Finally, integrative leaders must create
boundary experiences that facilitate effective communication (Huxham & Vangen 2000) and
enable joint decision-making (Page 2010) to increase the involvement and commitment of
collaborators (Alexander et al. 2001; Bazzoli, Harmata & Chan 1998; Crosby & Bryson 2010;
Goodroe & Beres 1991; Harmaakorpi & Niukkanen 2007; Huxham & Vangen 2000; Umble et al.
2005; Vangen & Huxham 2003). These four areas identified in existing theory are the
dimensions through which leaders catalyse effective cross-sector collaborations.
2.4. Practitioner perspectives on cross-sector collaboration

Theory relating to cross-sector collaborations has principally been developed by analysing
the practice of collaborations in various settings. This focus on practice aligns with assertions
that a “turn to practice” (Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina & Von Savigny 2001) has taken place in the
social sciences (see also Corley & Gioia, 2011; Reckwitz, 2002). Similar to the turn to practice in
contemporary social theory, a “pragmatic turn” has taken place in philosophy wherein the
practical wisdom of actors is acknowledged (Bernstein 2010; Egginton & Sandbothe 2004; Innes
& Booher 2010; Menand 2001).
12
There has been a focus on practice in cross-sector collaboration research and the significant
theoretical frameworks used to research cross-sector collaboration are derived from analyses of
case studies (see for example Crosby & Bryson 2010; McNamara 2011; Morse 2010; Page 2010;
Silvia & McGuire 2010). Despite this many of these studies “advocate for a variety of research
designs and the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods” (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015,
p. 650). Some researchers have called for “more precise theoretical models of behavior, and
agreement on the measurement of relevant variables” (O'Leary & Vij 2012, p. 507). However,
cross-sector collaborations comprise multi-layered and interconnected webs of elements. Such
complexity supports arguments that cross-sector collaborations as practice are “richly
constituted when done well and not easily reduced to the scaled variables of variance studies”
(Crosby & Bryson 2014, p. 61). One may plausibly contend that they do not lend themselves to
precise theoretical models and measurement of relevant variables. Although case studies have
eclipsed the measurement of variables as the basis for developing cross-sector collaboration
theory there have been calls for other approaches to building the body of knowledge. For
example, action research has been suggested as a method for constructing and testing theory
given the importance of learning in successful collaborations (Eden & Huxham 1996). Research
that connects practitioners and researchers has been proposed because the practice of
collaboration is more advanced than the scholarship (Popp et al. 2014).
development of an industry of cross-sector collaboration practitioners. These practitioners
include people working as consultants and partnership brokers designing and facilitating such
collaborations. The category can also be extended to include government workers and policy
developers who over time work across a range of projects on which they design and facilitate
cross-sector collaborations. Because cross-sector collaboration research has drawn upon the
views of “practitioners” using case analyses (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Bryson et al. 2008;
Lai 2012; McNamara 2011; Provan & Kenis 2008; Simo & Bies 2007) there is an opportunity to
explore theoretical understandings of cross-sector collaborations through a broader sample of
cross-sector collaboration practitioners.
Examining cross-sector collaboration from the perspective of practitioners aligns with the
“turn to practice” in the social sciences and the “pragmatic turn” in philosophy. In addition to
these methodological justifications, some have advanced ethical justifications for considering
practitioners perspectives’. While describing praxis requires ascribing validity to the words of
practitioners (Czarniawska 2014), there are arguments that such an act is ethical because we
have a duty to listen to practitioners’ accounts, not because of their expertise, but because of our
shared humanity (Rorty 1982, p. 202). People need to listen to people because we are all people.
Further, this approach would help counter criticisms that the established frameworks “present a
normative, structural view of collaboration and do not allow for explicating any underlying values
or philosophies of the actors participating in intersectoral collaboration” (Chircop, Bassett &
Taylor 2015). Apart from Ospina and Foldy’s (2010) study of collaborative work amongst social
change leaders there has been little collaboration research conducted from a constructionist
epistemology. This study will therefore use a constructionist perspective to provide further
understanding of the work of practitioners in cross-sector collaborations. It seeks to extend
existing research by employing an interpretivist theoretical perspective to address the following
research problem and research questions.
13
In addressing this problem the study will examine three research questions. The first
question will explore what practitioners identify as the key aspects of cross-sector collaborations.

The second question will seek to relate these perspectives specifically to existing theoretical
frameworks on cross-sector collaborations.

Given the literature’s emphasis on the connection between integrative leadership and
effective cross-sector collaborations, the third sub-question will examine practitioners’
perspectives on the role of leadership in collaborations.

collaborations?
2.5. Chapter Summary

The literature review began by explaining the nature of complex problems requiring shared-
power solutions and the role of collaboration in such problems. It emphasised the role
collaborative interactions can play in achieving complex goals and described how this has
encouraged research in an attempt to “look inside the black box of collaboration processes”
(Thomson & Perry 2006). The literature review then narrowed in on theory addressing cross-
sector collaborations and presented an overview of the elements of key theoretical frameworks.
These included general conditions antecedental to the collaboration, initial conditions more
proximate to the collaboration, internal processes, structural elements, and outcomes of the
collaboration. Literature regarding the role of leadership in effective cross-sector collaborations
was then examined. It focused on leadership catalysing cross-sector collaborations through
integrative thinking, integrative behaviour, integrative leadership resources, and integrative
structures and processes. The emergence of an industry of cross-sector collaboration
practitioners was noted and an opportunity to extend the theory from the perspective of these
practitioners was identified. This opportunity was justified in relation to a focus on practice in
the social sciences. The chapter concluded by presenting research questions to extend the theory
relating to practitioner perspectives on cross-sector collaborations. The following chapter
outlines the design of an appropriate study to answer the research questions derived from the
literature.
14
Chapter 3 Design of the Study
15
3. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
3.1. Introduction
The literature review chapter identified a need for practitioners’ voices to be heard in
research on cross-sector collaborations. This chapter sets out the design of the study and begins
with a discussion of methodology. The chapter then discusses the specifics of the research design
and methods before describing my approach to collecting and analysing the data.
3.2. Methodology
The aim of the study is to provide new understandings regarding the work of practitioners
on cross-sector collaborations from a constructionist epistemology. Contemporary theorists
suggest that knowledge is socially produced and defined, and this aligns well with constructionist
epistemology (Thompson & Campling 2003). Crotty (1998, p. 42) describes constructionism as
the view that “all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon
human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their
world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context.” Constructionist
epistemology is most starkly contrasted with objectivism, which contends that meaning exists
apart from the operation of consciousness (Crotty 1998) and therefore the purpose of research is
to uncover these external truths. Proponents of constructionism consider it more suitable to the
investigation of social phenomena in the human sciences because it emphasises understanding
rather than explanation of phenomena (Costantino 2008). This thesis accepts that knowledge is
constructed and meaning is made through the interaction of human beings with their world.
Building upon this epistemology, I now consider the methodology on which this study is
grounded. Methodological paradigms can be considered as philosophical frameworks (Collis &
Hussey 2009, p. 55), basic systems or worldviews (Guba & Lincoln 1994, p. 105) that guide the
conduct of research. Positivism and interpretivism are the predominant research paradigms in
which the social sciences are examined (Carson et al. 2001; Neuman 2003; Veal & Ticehurst
2005), however some commentators further deconstruct interpretivism into symbolic
interactionism, phenomenology, hermeneutics and also distinguish critical inquiry from
interpretivism (Crotty 1998). Positivism “rests on the assumption that social reality is singular
and objective” (Collis & Hussey 2009, p. 56) and therefore aligns with an objectivist
epistemological view. It is therefore incompatible with a theory of knowledge contending that
meaning is made through the interaction of human beings and the world.
An interpretivist paradigm draws upon constructionism as it considers knowledge to be

shaped in social interaction, subjective, personal and, therefore, socially constructed (Eldabi et
al. 2002; Saunders et al. 2011). This emphasis on the subjective “social” suggests that
interpretative understanding is an appropriate perspective through which to explore social
phenomena (Collis & Hussey 2009). As presented earlier (see chapter 2), cross-sector
collaboration is an inherently social phenomenon comprising of the interconnected elements of,
for example, pre-existing networks of relationships, sponsors and champions, leadership,
memberships, rules and norms, power dynamics and conflict (Agranoff 2007, 2012; Ansell &
Gash 2008; Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh 2011; Provan & Kenis
2008; Koschmann, Kuhn & Pfarrer 2012; Reckwitz 2002; Schatzki 1996; Thomson & Perry
2006). As previously stated, social phenomena of this complexity are “not easily reduced to the
scaled variables” (Crosby & Bryson 2014, p. 61). Such phenomena better align with approaches
16
that seek to understand the elements and their interactions within an interpretivist paradigm.
For these reasons, this study has embraced a constructionist epistemology and interpretivist
research paradigm.
3.3. Research design and methods

This section will outline research methods that accord with the epistemological view and
research paradigm of the study, and are suitable to answering the research problem and
questions developed in the previous chapter, namely:

collaborations?
Ospina and Foldy (2010) warn that research conducted from a constructionist approach
requires “a careful match of lens, focus and method to ensure the integrity of the [research]
design” (Ospina & Foldy 2010, p. 294). Bearing this in mind, this study requires methods that
account for the constructed nature of knowledge, the complexity of cross-sector collaborations,
and the understanding-oriented inquiry demanded by explorations of social phenomena.
Qualitative research methods are useful to achieve the aims of the study.
First, qualitative research is appropriate for understanding complex interrelationships

(Denzin & Lincoln 2008), such as those under consideration in this study. As already discussed,
cross-sector collaborations are complex, comprise many moving parts and draw together people
with many and varied perspectives. Leavy (1994, p. 107) demonstrates the appropriateness of
qualitative research to these complex and dynamic environments:
“The focus for [qualitative] study tends to be on processes rather than structures, and
on dynamic rather than static phenomena. The emphasis tends to be on description
and explanation rather than on prescription and prediction.”
Second, Leavy specifically suggests that qualitative methods are suited to studies of
processes. The literature review presents cross-sector collaboration as a process (for example
Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006). While some researchers include analysis of structures within
cross-sector collaboration frameworks (Agranoff 2007, 2012; Ansell & Gash 2008; Bryson,
Crosby & Stone 2006; Provan & Kenis 2008; Thomson & Perry 2006), structure is merely one
component of the collaborative process.
Third, Leavy also draws attention to the suitability of qualitative approaches for researching
phenomena that require description and explanation. This argument has already been presented
as justification for adopting a constructionist epistemology and interpretivist theoretical
perspective in seeking to answer the “how” aspect of the research problem: How do practitioners
work on cross-sector collaborations? Qualitative methods are appropriate to this study because
they explore, describe, explain and understand phenomena (Coviello 2005). The qualitative
approach also allows the researcher to interact, empathise and interpret the perspectives of the
17
research participants (Bryman & Burgess 2002). As a result, the researcher and research
participant co-construct the research process. Given the role that the researcher plays in a
qualitative study, this approach will provide a constructed answer to the research question
(Charmaz & Belgrave 2002).
3.3.1. Long interview method

The above reasons are offered as justification for employing a qualitative research
methodology. Methods that are suitable to interpretivist research include questionnaires,
observation, interviews, focus group and case studies (Crotty 1998). The precise qualitative
approach used in the study was the long interview method advocated by McCracken (1988).
Similar to a semi-structured interview, this approach allows the researcher to define the area of
enquiry while still allowing interviewees to express themselves in a natural manner not permitted
by the confines of a structured interview. The balancing of these two aspects leads McCracken
(1988) to describe what he calls the long interview method. This method uses a questionnaire
comprising of a “set of grand-tour questions with floating prompts at the ready” (p. 37). This
enables each interview to cover the relevant material in a similar order for each interviewee but
allows for open-ended responses and maintaining a conversational approach that accords with
the co-constructed research process of the study. A range of possible follow up or extension
questions were developed prior to the interview and used as prompts during the interview.
Czarniawska’s quip that “an unaided memory always falters” (2014, p. 30) applies to all parties
involved in the interview and planning these prompts helps the interviewer remember important
discussion points and keep on track while also enabling the interviewer to remain engaged in the
conversation. The long interview approach of imposing some structure on the interview does not
undermine the qualitative aspirations of the approach but rather seeks to provide context to
interview responses which aids in the analysis of the data. McCracken explains his justification:
It is not the purpose of a fixed interview to abolish the characteristic abundance and
“messiness” of qualitative data. Qualitative analysis requires that the interviewer work
with substantial chunks of data. Without data of this character it is difficult to see
which ideas go together in the mental universe of the respondent, or the “cultural logic”
on which the ideas rest. For analytical purposes, it is necessary to capture not just the
ideas but also the context in which these ideas occur. The context is, in a manner of
speaking, the small amount of seawater that keeps the catch alive” (McCracken 1988,
p. 25).
The long interview method of combining pre-defined areas of enquiry with open-ended
discussion interspersed with prompting follow-up questions enabled the interviews to remain on
track, yet still provide the understanding demanded of an interpretivist approach.
3.3.2. Interview structure

The content of the interview questionnaire (see Appendix B for questionnaire) was designed
around key elements of the Bryson, Crosby and Stone (2006) framework relating to the
conditions precipitating successful collaborative initiatives and the processes, practices,
structures and governance of these initiatives. The overview questions were designed to draw out
open-ended responses which addressed these areas, with floating prompts identified to further
explore specific elements related to each of these areas. Not all propositions of the framework
were explicitly addressed because the complexity and variability within each cross-sector
collaboration made this approach impractical. Czarniawska suggests that an appropriately
designed fieldwork approach “can also be a way of limiting research material to manageable
18
proportions—by allowing the practitioners to select material that they find relevant for their
practice” (2014, p. 6). Intending this outcome, the following overview questions and prompts
were developed:
Question 1 asked about the type of conditions that generally lead to successful cross-sector
collaborations. Prompts asked about (1) prior connections between collaborators and (2)
agreement about the problem to be addressed.
Question 2 asked about the types of processes and practices that successful cross-sector
collaborations follow. Prompts aided clarifying (1) whether these practices and processes
were formal or informal and (2) asked if issues of trust, leadership, conflict management
and power imbalances mattered.
Question 3 asked how the structure and governance of successful cross-sector
collaborations emerge. Prompts related to strengths or weaknesses of these structures and
their legitimacy.
3.4. Data collection and analysis

3.4.1. Participant recruitment
The sample size for qualitative research must be sufficient to “assure that most or all of the
perceptions that might be important are uncovered, but at the same time if the sample is too
large data becomes repetitive and, eventually, superfluous” (Mason 2010, [2]). Consistent with
this statement is the concept of theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss 1967). Theoretical
saturation is reached when the collection of new data does not shed any further light on the issue
under investigation (Mason 2010). The concept of saturation is also faithful to the principles of
qualitative research which seeks to uncover meaning rather than make generalised hypothesis
statements (Crouch & McKenzie 2006). Saturation was reached in the study when the themes
presented in the Leximancer results began to stabilise (see section 3.4.3. Data analysis approach
for more detail on the analysis), which occurred following 21 interviews. This saturation sample
is consistent with Green and Thorogood’s (2009, p.120) statement that “the experience of most
qualitative researchers is that in interview studies little that is 'new' comes out of transcripts after
you have interviewed 20 or so people” (Green & Thorogood 2009).
The participant selection criteria required active participants to have had involvement in the
design, delivery or facilitation of at least two cross-sector collaborations, previously defined as
“the linking or sharing of information, resources, activities, and capabilities by organizations in
two or more sectors to achieve jointly an outcome that could not be achieved by organizations in
one sector separately” (Bryson, Crosby & Stone, 2006, p. 44). A passive snowball recruitment
approach was employed to recruit interviewees, with participants asked to discuss the study with
colleagues and contacts who they thought might be suitable or interested in participating.
Snowball sampling is suitable for hard to reach sample populations (Faugier & Sargeant 1997),
such as persons who work in the niche field of facilitating cross-sector collaborations. The first
two participants interviewed were known to the researcher through contract work conducted
with their team at a large multinational information technology and consulting business where
they worked for a business unit that designed collaborative processes to solve business problems.
These two participants directly initiated contact with seven other participants known to them to
have had involvement in cross-sector collaborations. These seven participants “snow-balled” a
further six research participants. These 13 participants had varied involvement in cross-sector
19
collaborative work in roles which covered corporate collaborations, independent consulting, not-
for-profit organisations and in the higher education sector. Another person known to the
researcher through work done on a leadership workshop initiated contact with two of his
managers at a different but similar multinational consulting organisation. The person known to
the researcher was not included as a participant due to lack of experience in cross-sector work
but the two managers “snow-balled” a further four participants, two of which worked in not-for-
profit organisations involved in cross-sector collaborative work, one worked for a similar
consulting organisation and the final person worked in government. Twenty-one participants
were recruited and interviewed but 5 of these were excluded because the interviewees did not
meet the participant selection criteria of involvement in at least two collaborations. These
persons had extensive experience in a single cross-sector collaboration which was deemed
insufficient to generalise answers about these types of initiatives.
The study initially intended to include within the sample any government workers and
policy developers who had worked across a range of projects on which they had to design and
facilitate cross-sector collaborations. However, during the course of interviews it became
apparent that the context of government-led cross-sector collaborations differed from those not
led by government due to the macro-level of much policy development. There was only one
interview conducted with this type of respondent and it was therefore excluded because there
was no sub-sample with which to make reliable comparisons. Reference to the potential
differences between this category and the sample category are discussed briefly in chapter 5.
The final sample thus included 15 interviews. Although this decreased the final sample size
it has been suggested that expertise in a chosen topic can reduce the number of participants
required in a study (Jette, Grover & Keck 2003). Table 1 provides an overview of the interviews
conducted with participants and includes their pseudonym and employment description, as well
as the date, duration and location of the interview.
3.4.2. Conduct of interviews

The duration of interviews ranged from 30 minutes up to 71 minutes which was sometimes
dependent on the time interviewees were available for but was largely driven by the succinctness
of responses. Charmaz (2006) suggests that an interview of more than 20 minutes can be
classified as an “intensive interview” (p. 25) and all the interviews within the sample can be
classified thus. Interviews were conducted face-to-face where possible but on occasion were
conducted via video or voice call where participants were in another city or where there were
scheduling challenges.
At the commencement of interviews, following the formalities of reading and signing

consent forms, the researcher explained his personal interest in the study of cross-sector
collaborations and was thereby inserted into the research processes. Given the epistemological
view of the research I did not shy away from involvement in the construction of knowledge in the
study. Within an interpretivist paradigm social reality is considered to be shaped by the
perceptions of people. Since researchers minds cannot be separated from the social world they
will be affected by the act of researching it (Creswell 2013; Smith 1983). Researchers thus play
an active role in the creation of research within this ‘constructionist’ approach (Charmaz &
Belgrave 2002). I acknowledged that as researchers “we participate in the research process with
our subjects to ensure we are producing knowledge that is reflective of their reality” (Lincoln,
20
Lynham & Guba 2011, p. 103). After I explained my personal interest in the study the interviews
followed the interview guide outlined above.
Table 1: Overview of interviews

Employment Duration
No. Pseudonym Date Location
description (mins)
1 Bill Academic 28-06-15 71 Face-to-face
2 Louis Transformation facilitator 29-06-15 57 Face-to-face
3 Colin Management consultant 07 -06-15 47 Phone

4 Sophie Leadership Consultant 17-07-15 33 Face-to-face
5 Trudy Leadership Consultant 30-07-15 54 Face-to-face

6 Melanie Collaboration consultant 31-07-15 43 Phone
7 Trina Academic 10-08-15 40 Video conference

8 Kyle Transformation facilitator 12-08-15 57 Phone
9 Jill Project Manager 21-08-15 68 Face-to-face

10 Christine Collaboration consultant 27-08-15 68 Video conference
11 Jackson Transformation facilitator 03-09-15 33 Face-to-face
12 Taylor Collaboration consultant 03-09-15 48 Phone

13 Keith Collaboration consultant 05-09-15 30 Face-to-face
14 Mary Collaboration consultant 07-09-15 30 Phone
15 Josh Transformation facilitator 08-09-15 41 Phone
Audio recordings of all interviews were collected and transcribed by professional

transcriptionists. These transcripts were analysed by the researcher. The researcher reviewed
small anomalies of inaudible phrases in some recordings, largely due to background noise, but
the context of these indicated they did not adversely affect the comprehensibility of the
transcriptions. The approach undertaken to analyse the data is described below.
3.4.3. Data analysis approach

Developments in text analysis technologies have driven new methods of concept or semantic
mapping (Rooney 2005), allowing for alternative analytical approaches in understanding
qualitative data. The interviews in this study were analysed using Leximancer, an advanced
software tool that is increasingly used in social science research to assist analysis of texts
(Cretchley, Rooney & Gallois 2010; Smith & Humphreys 2006). It uses statistical processes and
machine learning to replicate the manual coding procedures often employed for the purposes of
qualitative analysis (Smith, Grech & Horberry 2002). Leximancer analysis provides a platform
for mapping and interpreting concepts arising within interview transcripts (Rooney et al. 2010).
Leximancer has been validated in comparison to traditional best-practice methods and expert
hand coding (Smith and Humphreys (2006). Leximancer’s ability to code and index concepts,
and then easily identify relevant text excerpts, provided a useful approach to the systematic
interpretive analysis of text.
21
Leximancer analysis determines the most frequently used concepts within a body of text and
then establishes the relationships between these concepts (Liesch et al. 2011). In doing so, the
first level of Leximancer analysis systematically examines the proximity of words arising within
the data set to develop a set of concepts. Concepts are semantically significant words that are
identified by analysing the occurrence and co-occurrence frequency of words. Words proximate
to these concepts are listed in a thesaurus for each analysis. Relationships between concepts are
initially established based on direct links between concepts. Leximancer analysis generates a
Concept Map that is a visual representation of the concepts as mapped to each other based on
the likelihood and proximity of co-occurrence. Within the Map themes are identified by the
clustering related concepts. Leximancer analysis also generates themes that are identified by the
clustering of related concepts. The second level of analysis involves Leximancer identifying
information about the words that are semantically related to the concepts developed and then
creating a thesaurus for each concept. Thesauri of the various concepts are them compared to
assess indirect links between the concepts. See Smith and Humphreys (2006) for further details
on the Leximancer process, its underlying method and statistical structure.
The interview transcripts underwent several adjustments in preparation for the Leximancer
analysis. First, the transcripts were de-identified and each interviewee assigned a pseudonym.
Second, the interviewer checked the transcripts for inconsistent and incorrect spelling as well as
any misunderstandings relating to context, pronunciation, or places made by the transcribers.
Finally, some minor adjustments were made to remove identifying words and non-relevant text
such as when interviews were interrupted. Once the transcripts were cleaned, the Leximancer
analysis was run to produce the concept and themes depicted in the Concept Map. Similar to
other studies (for example Dann 2010), the dominant thematic clusters automatically emerged
from the transcripts and guided the subsequent textual analysis. This involved reading all
excerpts from the transcripts relating to the concepts comprising each major theme and then
exercising judgement to distil the essence of the practitioners’ perspectives on each theme.
Selected excerpts for each theme have been included in the following chapter to help illustrate
these perspectives.
3.5. Chapter summary

This chapter presented that a constructionist epistemology, interpretivist research
paradigm and qualitative research approach were appropriate for the study. I argued for these in
the design of the study because they emphasise understanding rather than explanation of
phenomena, which is suitable for investigating social phenomena comprising complex dynamic
interrelationships such as cross-sector collaborations. I presented the long interview method as
a suitable qualitative approach for the study as it enables each interview to cover the relevant
material in a similar order for each interviewee but allows for open-ended responses and
maintaining a conversational approach. I suggested that this was consistent with the co-
constructed research process of the study. The interview structure was described and designed
around key elements of the Bryson, Crosby and Stone (2006) framework. The chapter also
described the participant recruitment approach and conduct of interviews. It concluded by
describing the data analysis approach where I argued in favour of Leximancer, a text analysis
technology with the ability to code and index concepts. This process assists the researcher to
easily identify relevant text excerpts and provides a useful approach to the systematic
interpretive analysis of text. The analysis and discussion of findings are presented in the
following chapter.
22
Chapter 4 Analysis & Discussion of Findings
23
4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.1. Introduction
The previous chapter described the research methodology employed to collect data to
answer the research questions. It described the approach to analysing the interview transcripts,
including how Leximancer identifies semantically significant words, called concepts, which are
generated by analysing the relationships between words and concepts. The first part of the
chapter reports the analysis of the data collected. The second part discusses the findings arising
from the data. Figure 1 is the Concept Map produced by the Leximancer analysis of the interview
transcripts. The concepts are the individual words in black text. The coloured spheres in the map
are themes identified in the analysis by clustering related concepts. As described in Chapter 3,
the Leximancer analysis has been used to replace traditional methods of coding interview
transcripts and serves as a useful approach to systematically analyse practitioners’ perspectives
by analysing the interview transcripts in relation to the themes identified in the Concept Map.
This chapter focuses on the most significant themes identified by Leximancer, namely “people”,
“process”, “collaboration” and “governance”. Excerpts from the transcripts relating to these
themes are analysed and findings presented in relation to each. It is this analysis at the textual
level that is most important in this study. A summary of findings are presented in Table 2. The
final part of the chapter discusses the findings of the study in relation to relevant academic
literature.
4.2. Data and findings

Figure 1: Leximancer Concept Map
24
Table 2: Summary of Leximancer Findings
Themes Concepts Summary of findings
People Trust Trust between people is necessary for effective cross-sector

count = 346 n = 16 collaborations.
relevance = 100% likelihood = 36%
Person Getting collaborators to see each other as people is important to

n = 26 successful cross-sector collaborations and building trust
likelihood = 39% amongst collaborators. Genuine personal interaction builds
shared understandings that help parties collaborate better.
Table Collaborators often need to meet around a metaphorical “table”.

n = 18
likelihood = 45%
Conversation “Conversation” around the metaphorical table is a process

n = 21 through which collaborators can see each other as people,
likelihood = 32% understand each other’s motivations and ways of thinking, and
establish trust amongst collaborators.
Time There is a requisite amount of time to be spent in the

n = 39 conversation phase of a cross-sector collaboration, but the
likelihood = 36% amount of time required varies for each collaboration.
Change Cross-sector collaborations are often driven by people wanting

n = 20 to enact change within their contexts. Part of the change
likelihood = 36% involves a transformation of traditional ways of working by
engaging across sectors to solve shared problems.
Process Design Cross-sector collaborations require bespoke development

count = 92 n = 20 through carefully designed processes that facilitate dialogue,
relevance = 27% likelihood = 33% maximise the collective potential of the collaboration and build
trust and understanding among the collaborators.
Leadership Practitioners did not have a common conception of leadership

n=9 but leadership was considered important in cross-sector
likelihood = 14% collaborations. Leadership was considered more important
when viewed as more than just positional leadership.
Collaboration Ability Cross-sector collaborators should have humility, curiosity,

count = 224 n = 10 reflexivity, empathy, and the ability to align personal objectives
relevance = 65% likelihood = 33% with the collective purpose of the collaboration.
System Cross-sector collaborators should have an appreciation of the

n = 20 system in which the collaboration takes place and an
likelihood = 20% understanding of their own place within the system.
Governance Governance is important to the success of cross-sector collaborations. Governance

count = 74 regimes should be widely representative in their decision-making people should
relevance = 21% authorise these groups to make decisions on their behalf, however achieving this
balance is difficult. Individuals involved in governance should possess high-order
skills to effectively make decisions on behalf of groups that they might not directly
represent and engage these groups in the collaboration.
25
4.2.1. People
The theme “people” is prominent in the data and is at the core of cross-sector collaborations,
and getting people to work effectively together is seen as important to the success of collaborative
initiatives. Specifically, people need to trust each other and this trust is most effectively
developed through genuine personal interaction “around a table” where there is time for
conversation that builds shared understandings. Trust and understanding enables collaborators
to drive change and create solutions to their problems. Each of these aspects relating to “people”
are analysed below.
4.2.1.1. Trust
“People” and “trust” are significant concepts in the data. Several practitioners discussed the
importance of trust between people as necessary to effective collaborations.
Taylor Trust is one of those things that where, if people don't trust each other yet, they're
probably not going to be very honest about what their agendas are.
Mary We talk a lot about collaborations being the answer, in terms of innovation, and I
think they potentially can be, but usually only when you see partners who've
worked together for a long time, so they can trust each other to take risks. That
doesn't happen because you say it will happen. It's a collaboration. It happens when
people trust each other, so that they know if they try something and it goes wrong,
it's okay. They'll learn from it, and they move ahead.
Trust was identified as contributing to an environment where collaborators feel safe to be
honest. Expressing honesty can be a risk but trust was also identified as enabling risk-taking.
There is an inherent risk associated with cross-sector collaborations since they entail working
with external parties. Pre-existing relationships with collaborators built trust to counteract
perceived risk. Mary was of the view that trust is a necessary condition and is usually required
prior to commencing a new collaboration. Louis says:
Louis I don’t think the project can start without a degree of trust that each individual
thinks is acceptable for them. Because it is a non-constraining initiative you only
engage … if the conditions that matter to you are met, and that would include trust.
… Maybe once trust is established, we are going in the right direction with the right
people and that is good enough [to start the project].
A non-constraining initiative refers to collaborations being optional to enter into in many
cases. This is important because optionality means collaborators can depart a collaboration if
they deemed there is not the requisite trust between them and the other participants. The belief
that appropriate people are involved in the collaboration can develop trust, which helps retain
collaborators in the initiative. Some practitioners pointed to the role physical environment can
have in supporting the development of trust, which was connected to psychological safety.
Jackson Your physical environment needs to support trust and safety. Having an
environment that feels friendly, open, transparent, all of those things will enable a
better collaboration ultimately … That ability for your environment to support
safety, trust, feeling and support visualization and different modes of people
expressing their ideas is really important.
That Jackson points to how a place feels and how that influences visualisation and
expressing ideas is important. It points to the affective, cognitive and behavioural interactions
with physical space that produce place attachment (Scannell & Gifford 2010). Place attachment
26
can be experienced at a social level, where it has been described as “a community process in
which groups become attached to areas where they may practice” (Scannell & Gifford 2010, p.
240). Jackson’s view supports these concepts.
On occasion, peoples’ trust might be based on the perceived trustworthiness of an

institution. Trust in an institution based on qualities such as organisational reputation or brand.
As Jill says
Jill You know, when I've seen an organization convene people, even though they don't
necessarily know each other, there's enough trust in the institution, or authority
that that institution has, to go, yeah, okay, we're going to come along and see if we
can do something together.
In this case, Jill’s experience says that trust built on long histories of working together is not
essential if the institution is trustworthy.
4.2.1.2. Person
Practitioners say that getting collaborators to “be personal” and to see an individual as a
person is important to the collaboration process. Revealing part of who collaborators are in terms
of their history and motivations helps build a more robust foundation for interpersonal
dynamics. Josh elaborated this concept.
Josh "Who am I as a person and why do I do the work I do? What is it I'm trying to do in
the world? What's the change I'm trying to make in the world? What motivates and
drives me?" That, to me, whenever we've run exercises like that at the beginning of
collaborative design work, it changes the nature of and the dynamic of the
relationships between the people in the room. Now I don't see you as the Director of
X Services or the General Manager of Y Services. I see you as John or Joan the
person, and I connect with you in a different way. I understand a bit more about
your back-story. About why you see the world the way you do. I have an
understanding of why you might believe some of the things you believe. It gives a
much richer platform for us to connect as people, to have a degree of trust. That
doesn't mean we agree with each other on everything, but the opportunity is we
now understand why we see things differently, rather than look at each other
across a break-out and go, "I can't believe you're saying these things. How can you
possibly see the world that way?"
This richer platform enables healthy disagreement and stronger relationships that can last
over the long term despite the tensions that inevitably emerge in such collaborations. Keith
expressed a similar sentiment and drew attention to the exposing nature of getting personal. This
vulnerability may be seen as another risk, albeit it at a different level, associated with the
processes involved in effective cross-sector collaborations.
Keith “Beyond that, we probably need to get into the interpersonal nature of, who are you
and why are you here with me? Which almost relates much more to a psychological
need for us to feel safe and feel that this person is of good intention. Collaboration
essentially requires a level of vulnerability and humility to succeed.”
The concept of humility, raised here in relation to the process of getting personal, was
reoccurring in the data and also arose in relation to leadership abilities required in
collaborations. Vulnerability in the collaboration context refers to people being open about some
aspect of themselves, such as their past or their motivations. Similar to expressing honesty, being
open can be a risk and thus requires trust, which I already identified as enabling risk-taking.
27
4.2.1.3. Table, conversation and time
An interesting co-occurrence of concepts was that of “people” and “table”. Exploring the
transcripts revealed “table” was often used in different ways, such as the following:
Christine They're able to assemble people based on that purpose, which is enough to get
people to the table initially.
Taylor I think it's really important to raise it and call it if you don't have the right people
around the table.
Sophie I got them all to go around the table and explain why they thought they were in that
room
Melanie There's the relationships between the people at the table…
Louis [A]n element that I now think is essential is investing in curating the people who
you bring to the table.
The table is a place for would-be collaborators to gather around as people and begin the
process of developing trust. A place, even a metaphorical place, appears important as a common
ground. Cross-sector collaborations may not have a real head-office and so a metaphorical place
where the collaboration can be curated is a very useful thing. Once gathered at the table, the next
important people-related concepts are “talking” and “conversation”. These are boundary
experiences as they are “shared or joint activities that create a sense of community and an ability
to transcend boundaries among participants” (Feldman et al. 2006, p. 94 cited in Morse, 2010,
p. 234).
In the data “conversations” are a process by which people develop their understanding to a
level where they can successfully collaborate in each unique context. As Mary suggests below,
conversations form the building blocks of bespoke collaborative arrangements. Developing these
arrangements can promote co-creation.
Mary I think that's a real problem in collaborations, where people say, "Oh, here is what
someone else did, let's do that." What I would tend to do, when I'm developing
agreements with people, is to have a series of conversations under a series of
headings, and then basically co-create the agreement. It needs to be specific to the
needs of that collaboration.
Trudy expressed a similar sentiment regarding getting collaborators to agree on what the
problem being addressed is:
Trudy It's normally untidy. It takes lots of conversations and seeding and have we thought
about this that and the other.
This seeding process requires inclusive dialoguing to help reinforce a sense of fairness within
collaborations, which is important in counteracting possible power imbalances.
Louis “Me allowing you your voice in that [process] is important, and listening to how
you see the system, is really important. Those things allow a fairness, which we all
ultimately respond to.”
Cross-sector collaborations bring together people and organisations who can have different
opinions, institutional logics and ways of working. The data shows that specific conversations
28
about differences can help to manage conflict better and to overcome the complexity of cross-
sector collaborations. As Sophie says
Sophie I think it's a lot more complex space, and what happens is if you don't have those
conversations up front, everything goes slower, because you'll come across them as
you're working along, and it'll get problematic. Whereas, the best ones have those
conversations up front. The ones I work on, we normally actually draft up a
partnering agreement, which is not a contract, it's a description of how people are
going to work together, and covers all those sorts of things, and builds in review
processes for the collaboration, not just for the project.
Digging deeper into the concepts of “people” and “conversations”, conversation is a
boundary experience through which collaborators can see each other as people and begin to
develop trust in each other. The extended excerpt from Josh below illustrates this finding in
relation to a conversation collaborators had articulating their motivations for entering the
catering industry.
Josh The basic premise for all of that conversation is “Tell me the story of your life in the
context of the decisions you've made, the people you've met, the places you've been,
the experiences you've had which, whether you realized it or not at the time, helped
shape and form and guide you to the point you're at now” … [for] some people it
was the normal stuff like I went to catering college. You know, great.
But then people started talking about, “Well, actually, it was my mum. My mum
that got me involved and interested in catering.” When you start to unpack that,
they go “It was my mum because she was an amazing cook and I've always just had
a love of food.” Then the next person would go “That's interesting because it was my
mum that inspired me because she was a terrible cook and I couldn't wait until I
was able to cook for myself to have some decent food.” Then the next person would
go, “Well, you know it was my mum because growing up we didn't have very much
money, and I was just sort of blown away by the way in which she was so creative
with very little, kind of, to start with. She used to turn these seemingly very basic
ingredients into fantastic meals.”
You've now got these different people who are looking at each other, going we've
got a shared story here. They are different stories, but they are similar stories, and
now the reason why I'm passionate about or invested in, or I care about making a
difference through the work I do, you can start to talk about that, rather than well,
you know, the problem with the international food and beverage team is X. Well,
actually, the reason the problem with them is Y. We're having that conversation
while we're talking about our mums. A much more human conversation.
The shared honesty and vulnerability in story-telling is a means by which to have a
transparent conversation. This process ties together the previously discussed concepts of trust
and being personal in collaborations.
The data also revealed a significant relationship between the concepts “people” and “time”,
specifically “time” for “conversation”. The practitioners suggested the process of dialoguing
cannot be rushed and requires the deliberate allocation of time.
Jill What typically happens in Australia is, where we sign a contract with a consortium
that's been called together really quickly to respond to a call for a tender, none of
those conversations are had, and so they start [to collaborate], and then they find
out that they disagree with how they're going to do it, or who's going to take
responsibility, or what the governance structures going to look like … I take a
preventative healthcare approach [of investing time up front tackling the issues] …
29
At the end of it, they'll say, "That was fantastic, it was time really well spent.”
Sometimes convincing people to make that investment up front is challenging, but
it's always worth it.
The data revealed that in cross-sector collaborations, perhaps more than other
collaborations, the allocation of time to reach agreement on a shared collaborative intent is a
worthwhile investment. Melanie expressed a similar perspective and alluded to the importance
of time in establishing trust and relationships by slowly dissolving barriers and rigidities that
inhibit good relationships:
Melanie You often start with people who don't know each other, who kind of feel like they
already know enough about whatever the issue is, and come at it in a quite rigid or
protective, or their boundaries are pretty tight, or whatever. It takes time to get
those people to start to even acknowledge that is something that is a little bit of a
hurdle.
Summarising the data in relation to “people” and “table”, “conversation” and “time”, the
analysis reveals that collaborators need to meet around the metaphorical table and take the
appropriate time to engage in conversation with the aim of seeing each other as people,
understanding each other’s motivations and ways of thinking, and establishing trust as the basis
on which to successfully collaborate. This is a dialoguing process. Moreover, each cross-sector
collaboration is unique and requires a patient and bespoke approach to the dialoguing process.
4.2.1.4. Change
The analysis also revealed that “people” and “change” co-occurred. Exploring these concepts
in more detail within the transcripts, practitioners indicated that the desire of people to see
change in a particular context was an important driver of the need to collaborate across sectors.
Christine [Cross-sector collaborations occur because of] some level of urgency as well. You
know that there's a case for change.
Trudy [Cross-sector collaborations occur because of] an understanding that something

needs to change. The most successful collaborations that I've seen have actually
been as the result of typically one or a very small group of people who've driven it,
as opposed to a CEO saying we need to learn how to collaborate.
The desire, understanding and urgency for change create a unified and a strong purpose in
cross-sector collaborations. Cross-sector collaborations are often driven by people wanting to see
change within their contexts and part of the change involves a transformation of traditional ways
of working by engaging with others from different sectors to solve shared problems.
4.2.2. Process
“Process” and the role that “design” and “leadership” play in the process of cross-sector
collaboration is interesting.
4.2.2.1. Design
“Process” and “design” co-occurred in the data. Structuring and developing a cross-sector
collaboration is a process of design that requires careful bespoke development. The language
used by practitioners to discuss the design process is nuanced and alludes to the complexity of
cross-sector collaborations.
30
Trina The process that we designed for the visioning workshops particularly is for a
generation of systemic visions, because we don't really want to be focusing on a
particular sub-system, but we would like to look at cities as systems. Our process
design reflected that aim. The process itself facilitated, we hope to a large extent,
facilitated alignments during the workshop itself, or identification of conflict points
among the participants about what is desirable.
Designing the process for facilitating dialogue to maximise the collective potential of cross-
sector collaborations is of paramount importance. The process for facilitating dialogue thus
becomes an important boundary experience for collaborators.
Josh: “It's essential that you give everybody a voice in the collaborative process … Now,
that doesn't mean that, therefore, we're all beholden to incorporate those ideas and
thoughts into the solution, but if you don't give people a chance to say it, nobody
else will ever know and you lose some of the potential of the collective conversation.
That's a really important moment, if you like, in the design process. That's where
your maximum divergence, maximum potential value, maximum potential
creativity is, you've got the thoughts of everybody. Now you're designing and
building possible solutions with all of it, rather than some of it.
Maximising dialogue, potential value and potential creativity is critical to success and
designing processes to do this must be taken seriously. Some practitioners spoke about the
process of design in relation to the membership of a cross-sector collaborations. Structures with
suitable memberships can thus form boundary organisations which are structural catalysts
driving the development of collaborations among different organisations (Morse, 2010). In this
data the “sponsor group” manages across organisational boundaries. Jackson asks:
Jackson “How do you structure the sponsorship [as in sponsor group] for collaborative
work? Is representation across the parties that are involved [required], but also
looking to have a bit of a diagonal slice of the organizations in the group for the
design the process itself? This isn't the preserve of the executive, this is about
everybody – from the decision-making authority power holders in a legitimate
sense through to the people who are the front-line. Who actually do the work and
live the experience. You need all of those voices in the design process.”
Earlier (see section 4.2.1.3. Table, conversation and time) Louis spoke of “curating” people
and here he talks of “incubating”. His view is very organic but he sees the (in vitro) space as one
with an architecture that allows for incubation.
Louis The design process is taking four, give, six meetings to [prepare for] a three day
session. From a pure content standpoint, you do not need six meetings to design a
three-day session, but what happens is you create the context for the sponsorship
[group] to interact in vitro, you create a way to incubate a different behaviour or
different way to look at the problem.
Summarising the data in relation to “process” and “design”, the analysis revealed that cross-
sector collaborations require bespoke development through a carefully designed process that
facilitates dialogue, maximises the collective potential of the collaboration and is instrumental
in building cohesion among the collaborators.
4.2.2.2. Leadership
Practitioners placed great importance on the role of leadership with in the collaborative
process. The inherent potential of leadership qualities such as humility and generosity but also
31
ambition accord with integrative behaviours such as proficient interpersonal skills and treating
collaborators as equals. Louis points out that
Louis We had a strong understanding that success would be combination of creating the
right leadership conditions … There needs to be an inherent potential, a pre-existing
potential that you can build from. If there is not a fair level of humility, ambition,
generosity, if there is not a baseline of leadership qualities you are not going to
build anything.
Creating leadership conditions is a group responsibility and leadership becomes another
builder of potential. Exploring the concepts of “process” and “leadership” in more detail within
the transcripts demonstrates that leadership plays an important role within cross-sector
collaborations, but that there were varied understandings of leadership. Trudy articulated this
view and suggested there was a misunderstanding as to what genuine leadership is:
Trudy I think the first question is to define what does leadership look like in these type of
initiatives. I think leadership has become so bastardized, we don't actually really
know what it means any more … If I think about catalytic leadership, big
collaborations need many people leading and managing in different ways to make
them more successful ... it's not positional leadership, it's the capacity to bring a
system together. What's the leadership required to see an opportunity and then be
able to bring whoever has the right people in that system, they may not be obvious,
together? To be compelling enough to get them to put aside their personal agendas
to work together. I think that's a really unique form of leadership, which is back to
the late action stages of leadership.
Her view of the necessary role of leadership in cross-sector collaborations aligned with
aspects of integrative leadership, such as the systems-orientation of integrative thinking
(Alexander et al. 2001; Senge 1990; Sun & Anderson 2012;), the unifying actions of integrative
behaviours that foster semi-permanent connections (Alexander et al. 2001; Ospina & Foldy
2010; Page 2010; Silvia & McGuire 2010; Sun & Anderson 2012) and rally collaborators toward
a shared purpose (Vangen & Huxham 2003). Trudy’s reference to late action stages of leadership
accords with integrative thinking as a “high-order” attribute (Sun & Anderson 2012) and along
with humility and generosity it connects to wisdom (McKenna, Rooney & Boal 2009). Her view
of leadership as “bastardised” is also important. She is pointing to leadership as a reified concept
that has a dark or less desirable side (Tourish 2013) when it is not accompanied by humility and
generosity.
Practitioners viewed the role of leadership as greater when it was viewed as more than just
positional leadership, as Trudy did above. Jackson is also somewhat critical in arguing that:
Jackson In the process, [leadership is] not always necessary. The leadership should be there
so they can be part of it, but if you’re best place to lead us through this moment and
that leads to an epiphany, brilliant. There doesn't need to be a leader during that
moment. In fact, actually applying too much leadership within the creative process
is one way of destroying it.
Jackson’s view is that positional leadership plays a role in legitimising and thus initiating a
cross-sector collaboration, and also in implementing outcomes of the collaboration through the
allocation of resources. However he conceded that leadership was not always necessary to drive
the collaborative process. However, if one were to expand the definition of leadership beyond
that derived from the authority of a position, it could be argued that leadership can be exercised
by people regardless of their formal position. This nuance was articulated by some practitioners:
32
Mary [E]ven using that language of leadership is confusing, because I'm talking about
leadership at every level and actually how people prep, you know, the mindset and
the way of working and the processes that help people make progress.
For Mary, leadership is a concrete way of being and doing (preparation, mindset and
working). While some practitioners viewed leadership as related to position and authority, others
viewed in terms of influencing others regardless of position.
Christine I think [collaborative leadership] speaks to the nature of whole-system

collaboration, that actually everybody has to be taking up a leadership role,
because they're all part of creating the solutions to it. So they've got to find a way to
bring that in and work together. That's what I would say is leadership, is helping
people face the new reality and adapt well to that.
Taylor expressed an opinion consistent with this view that leadership requires being able to
influence people to adapt to the context and ensure collaborators are heard. Giving voice to the
diversity of identities in cross-sector collaborations is an integrative thinking capability. The
capacity to adapt to context is an integrative process that can be leveraged in collaborations (Sun
and Anderson 2012). Integrative leaders need to exploit their high-order awareness of processes
and structures to beneficially co-evolve collaborations (Crosby & Bryson, 2010b; Huxham &
Vangen, 2000, Sun and Anderson 2012)
Taylor [Collaborators] need to almost make sure that there are other voices around the
table … in that decision-making capacity who also have the ability to hold that
adaptive leadership space.
Summarising the data in relation to “process” and “leadership”, leadership plays a
substantial role in the process of cross-sector collaboration. Practitioners viewed the role of
leadership in cross-sector collaboration as greater when viewed as more than just positional
leadership. Some practitioners proposed adaptive leadership as appropriate for cross-sector
collaborations and referred to it as both the adaptability of leaders to the context and their ability
to influence other people to adapt to the context.
4.2.3. Collaboration
Given the subject matter of the practitioner interviews, it is unsurprising that
“collaboration” emerged as an important theme. “Collaboration” co-occurred with “ability” and
“system”. Exploring these concepts in more detail within the transcripts revealed that
practitioners view particular abilities as positively assisting cross-sector collaborations.
Particular abilities are important to successful cross-sector collaborations. These abilities focus
on aligning personal and collective purpose, and strongly echo the theory on integrative thinking
in terms of maintaining a systems perspective on a collaboration and understanding the
interrelations of the different dynamisms at play within the collaboration (Alexander et al. 2001;
Senge 1990; Sun & Anderson 2012). Christine said:
Christine We landed on principles [for collaboration] … which had both a level of awareness
and skills to fit purpose, that our ability to know collective and personal purpose …
So purpose, power, role, working with difference, and sustainability as kind of core
competencies, if you like. Principles that we need to be aware of around both, I
mean, so much of it is the awareness, the systemic awareness, the personal
awareness people need to work successfully in collaboration.
33
Systemic awareness is a very important ability in this excerpt. However, humility is again
proposed as an ability conducive to collaborating, which has already been identified as an
integrative behaviour. However, Jackson says:
Jackson [T]here are definitely mindsets that enable collaboration. That humility is really
important. That ability is not a prerequisite, but really helps. People with high
humility can collaborate very easily. Their sense of self is more balanced … If you
have got the answer and you believe that 100%, you'll not be able to collaborate.
That ability to be slightly wrong, or not wrong, or not know, to admit that is one of
those conditions required to actually have that collaboration to work.
The ability to be slightly wrong or to “not know” are important and stand in contrast to high-
order cognitive skills. But high-order humility skills may be just as important.
Some practitioners emphasised the importance of high-order cognitive skills such as the
reflexive abilities and empathetic “place-taking” skills such as being cognisant of the beliefs and
perspectives of others. These abilities are form part of integrative thinking.
Trudy [A] lot of the collaborations that work well are when they put in place action
research or reflection processes, where they are stepping out of what they're doing
constantly to reflect on the process of how they're collaborating … That ability to
step out and reflect, in the moment, even, about how they're working together and
what's going on is, in my mind, the work of collaboration, because that's what
they're trying to create out in the community.
Christine [T]hey've all got to build the capability to work politically across different beliefs
and perspectives.
An awareness of one’s place within the system, the ability to reflect by “stepping out”, and
to be politically aware are mentioned as important. Systemic awareness is a significant aspect of
integrative thinking (Sun & Anderson 2012; Alexander et al. 2001; Senge 1990) and is endorsed
by practitioners such as Keith.
Keith [Important to successful collaborative initiatives] is the ability to articulate the

scope and the frame of reference to what you are going to collaborate on … is
essentially creating this collective view of the system, so we can all observe
something we can see ourselves in and relate how others are connected, to start to
pull together a frame or a scope which we can then attend to what we can
collectively collaborate on to improve. With the knowledge of how it connects
everyone in that, stakeholders or different parts.
Summarising the data in relation to “collaboration”, “ability” and “system”, the analysis
revealed that practitioners advocated for collaborators to have qualities and/or skills such as
humility, curiosity, reflexivity, empathy, an appreciation of the system in which the collaboration
is taking place, an understanding of one’s own place within the system, and an ability to align
personal objectives with the collective purpose of the collaboration. The views of practitioners in
relation to “process” and “collaboration” again supported aspects of existing theory relating to
integrative structures and processes, integrative thinking and integrative behaviours.
4.2.4. Governance
The final significant theme to emerge from the Leximancer analysis is “governance” and the
role it plays in successful cross-sector collaborations. “Money”, “group”, “business”,
“organizations” and “work” tended to co-occur with “governance”. While governance may seem
34
straightforward in theory (“as long as the collaboration is trying to be representative in its
decision making, and that people will authorize that group to make decisions on their behalf”
– Christine) it is challenging to enact this in practice. The variety of opinions on governance
presented below indicates that there is little agreement about what it is and how it should be
done. Mary emphasised the finality of their authority within the governing group:
Mary “It has to make sure a right people sitting at the collaboration table. Say if you've
got a governance committee, it helps if they all come from similar levels, in terms of
their decision-making authority, because it can be frustrating if someone brings up
[that] they must report back to 3 different people before they can make a decision, if
everyone else sitting there is a CEO. That can be a bit challenging for governance
committees.”
Other areas of focus related to the representativeness of membership within governance
structures, where some practitioners warned of overly inclusive and therefore potentially
unmanageable memberships. This recognition of the limitations of structures supports a
leadership dimension of integrative structures and processes (Crosby & Bryson 2010; Huxham
& Vangen, 2000, Sun & Anderson 2012). Taylor is not sure about the best approach and says:
Taylor I think there's got to be a median in between representing everyone, and having an
effective governance group that can make decisions … Should it be the most senior
executives of the different organizations? Or should it be more diverse?
Balancing representativeness with manageability can be achieved by having both a
sponsorship group comprising persons with formal authority and a group of champions use who
informal authority to engage others in the collaboration (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). Ideally
champions act as “collaborative capacity builders” which are people “who either by legal
authority, expertise valued in the network, reputation as an honest broker, or some combination
of the three, has been accorded a lead role in the network’s problem-solving exercises” (Weber &
Khademian 2008, p. 340).
Continuing the uncertainty in practitioner perspectives, Jackson is rather vague and

abstract in his thinking about governance:
Jackson We'll use a governance structure up front in the framing [of the collaboration],
which will be a representative team of leadership and people who are in the system,
but representative of the whole system so they can define the problem in the correct
ways. That governance stays all the way through, so they're also accountable for
ensuring there's enough resource.
Louis shows a similar abstractness in suggesting that:
Louis I think this is essential for ... the little core group that will drive the initiative to be
engaged. Their responsibility is then having to connect at the right level [of all
affected organisations to ensure some representative engagement] … if you can
hold all the layers [of representativeness] together, then it becomes your
responsibility to create the entry steps for every level of conceptualization it may
have.
Furthering describing the challenge of effective governance, some practitioners referred to
the important capabilities for collaboration (discussed previously in Section 4.2.3
35
Collaboration). The expertise demanded of these high-order skills indicates the difficulty in
implementing effective governance regimes.
Some practitioners suggested that the challenges in relation to cross-sector collaboration

governance models were driving their evolution in an attempt to find better approaches. One
particular change relates to making the membership of governance structures more fluid so that
they can change as the collaboration progresses through various stages of development. This
approach to evolving the collaboration for its benefit is consistent with theory on integrative
processes (Crosby & Bryson 2010; Huxham & Vangen, 2000, Sun & Anderson 2012). Christine
provides a cogent account of this position:
Christine I do think we're going through a bit of a transition at the moment … trying to find
different [governance] models … where that [governance] role is rotated, and
different people come forward to take it up at different stages … [with] an initial
backbone that's kicked [the collaboration] off and held that [governance] role, but
they've then built the capability within the collaboration for others to take that role
up. It evolves and rotates.
Summarising the data in relation to “governance”, the analysis revealed that practitioners
recognised the important of governance to the success of cross-sector collaborations. While they
believe that governance regimes should representative, and that people should authorise these
groups to make decisions on their behalf, achieving such a regime is difficult in practice. Finally,
some practitioners suggested that the difficulties arising in relation to cross-sector collaboration
governance models were driving their evolution in an attempt to find better approaches. For the
most part, practitioners look uncertain about how to do governance and who should do it.
Although governance is prominent enough in the data to be a theme, Leximancer found that few
concepts co-occurred with it in a meaningful way indicating that interviewees struggled to find
coherent narratives about it (Rooney 2005).
4.3. Discussion of findings

The literature review in chapter 2 discussed Huxham and Vangen’s (2005) theory that
collaborative leadership—defined as “what makes things happen in a collaboration” (Huxham &
Vangen, 2005, p. 202). The research question of the study seeks to build upon this definition by
determining what makes things happen in cross-sector collaborations according to
practitioners’ perspectives. The discussion of the findings in this chapter follows Huxham and
Vangen’s assertion that leadership is enacted through the interconnected media of structures,
processes and participants (2005, p. 202) to make things happen. Prior to discussing the findings
in relation to these three media, I will focus on the integrative role of leadership in bringing
together the various aspects of cross-sector collaborations.
4.3.1. Integrative Leadership

Similar to Huxham and Vangen (2005), Crosby and Bryson (2005) consider what makes
things happen in collaborations but define leadership in collaborative contexts as “the
inspiration and mobilization of others to pursue collective action in pursuit of the common good”
(2005, p. xix). Within the findings there was no common conception of leadership. Some
practitioners conceived of leadership in relation to formal position where leadership was
considered within the collaboration. However others viewed leadership at a more macro level
above the collaboration, describing it as “catalytic leadership … [with the] capacity to bring a
36
system together”. This macro-level type of leadership is consistent with the definition of
“integrative leadership” as "integrating people, resources and organisations across various
2014, p. 57). As presented in chapter 2, integrative leadership relates primarily to cross-sector
collaborations (Morse, 2010), and since most cross-sector collaborations have an element of
public interest in the outcome it is also referred to as integrative public leadership. A synthesis
of the integrative public leadership literature revealed that integrative public leaders catalyse
cross-sector collaborations through integrative thinking, integrative behaviour, integrative
leadership resources, and integrative structures and processes (Sun & Anderson 2012). I have
interwoven integrative leadership into my discussion of findings in relation to structures,
processes and participants in cross-sector collaborations. The discussion argues that
practitioners view the dimensions of integrative leadership as important in producing an
effective cross-sector collaboration, and therefore integrative leadership is an important part of
effectively making things happen in a cross-sector collaboration.
4.3.2. Structures
This section discusses my findings in relation to structures and existing theory. First, the
findings support existing claims that structural arrangements affect cross-sector collaborations
(Alter & Hage 1993). The impact of institutional forces were recognised by practitioners
(Huxham & Vangen 2000) and prior relationships between collaborators were seen to be “linking
mechanisms” (Waddock 1986) that play a role in the formation of partnerships (Bryson, Crosby
& Stone 2006). The findings of this study are consistent with the literature in this respect and
suggest that prior connections play role in establishing trust between collaborators:
“[T]he role of prior relationships or existing networks is also important because it is

often through these that partners judge the trustworthiness of other partners and the
legitimacy of key stakeholders” (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015, p. 652).
The findings also related trust to risk taking and in this way prior structural relationships
between parties were claimed to minimise the risks of collaborating.
Prior structural relationships also help provide a context to the collaboration as they
immediately extend the focus of the collaboration beyond one party. The findings suggest that
cross-sector collaborators should appreciate the system in which the collaboration takes place
and an understanding of their own place within the system. This is because a systemic
perspective is considered important for helping collaborators understand how the system
connects with a view to solving the shared problem that initiated the collaboration. These
findings are consistent with integrative thinking, which involves the cognitive ability to maintain
a systems perspective on a collaboration while distinguishing between and understanding the
interrelations of the different dynamisms at play within the collaboration (Alexander et al. 2001;
Senge 2006; Sun & Anderson 2012). Prior relationships between structures thus help build trust
between collaborators and give them a better platform from which to collaborate.
Second, the most significant aspect of structure arising in the findings relates to governance
of cross-sector collaborations. Governance structures representative of the various collaborating
organisations were viewed as desirable by practitioners who spoke, for example, of the need for
“a diagonal slice of the organizations” to be represented in the governance structures.
Representativeness was desirable for several reasons because it can help (1) increase
37
understanding among collaborators, (2) meet the various objectives of the collaborators, (3)
engage multiple parties in the collaborative initiative, and (4) maximise the potential of the
collaboration. While processes can assist in bringing about these objects, as will be discussed
below, the structure of governance regimes serve to reinforce them as well.
The findings of the study have emphasised the importance of collaborators understanding
each other’s motivations and ways of thinking. Further, the findings suggest that representative
governance structures assist in increasing this understanding among collaborators. This finding
is consistent with the theory relating to boundary organisations, which are structural catalysts
driving the development of collaborations among different organisations (Morse, 2010).
Understanding motivations is also complementary to aspects of integrative thinking that
promote understanding of collaborators valued identities (Hartman, Hofman & Stafford 1999;
Ospina & Foldy 2010). While representative forms of governance structures provide a platform
for interactions that increase understanding between collaborators, processes within cross-
sector collaborations help accelerate these interactions (discussed in Section 4.3.4 Processes).
Related to boundary organisations, the findings suggest that place is connected to

integrative behaviours such as visualisation and expressing ideas. As indicated earlier, the table
is a place for would-be collaborators to gather around as people and begin the process of
developing trust. Place attachment is produced by affective, cognitive and behavioural
interactions (Scannell & Gifford 2010) which overlaps with integrative thinking and integrative
behaviours. Related to place attachment is place identity, a “pot-pourri of memories,
conceptions, interpretations, ideas, and related feelings about specific physical settings as well
as types of settings” (Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff 1983). Similar to the social level of place
attachment (Scannell & Gifford 2010), place identity can be a function of what people do and
communicate to each other (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell 1996). The “table/place” acts as a hybrid
boundary organisation and boundary experience that creates trust, builds attachment between
collaborators and the collaboration, and can unify the various purposes of the collaborators.
The findings also suggest that representative governance structures assist in ensuring that
the objectives of all parties entering the cross-sector collaboration are known and considered.
This finding relates to claims that structural aspects of collaborations help shape the agendas of
collaborations (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Agendas are set within collaborations to achieve the
various objectives of the parties. Interconnected structures, such as representative governance
structures, can “determine such key factors as who may have an influence on shaping a
partnership agenda, who may have power to act and what resources may be tapped” (Huxham &
Vangen, 2005, p. 204). Practitioners spoke of these factors in terms of decision-making authority
and indicated that an effective governance structure should have final authority in terms of
decision-making.
Another element of the findings was that representative governance structures can help to
engage multiple parties by giving a cross-section of collaborating organisations a seat at the table.
Even if not all parties can be engaged in the final governing structure within the collaboration,
practitioners recognise that these parties need to be involved within some structure of the
collaboration as “you need all of those voices” to contribute. This is consistent with elements of
integrative thinking that promote understanding the valued identities of collaborators to “give
voice to the diverse identities in the multi-sector collaboration” (Sun & Anderson 2012, p. 314)
and develop a shared identity for it (Ospina & Foldy 2010).
38
My analysis found that memberships of governance structures should possess a degree of
fluidity so that they can change as the collaboration progresses through various life-cycle stages.
This is consistent with the integrative structures and processes dimension of integrative
leadership, which includes being able to appreciate the limitations and affordances of
collaborative structures and recognise the need to evolve those structures for its benefit (Sun &
Anderson 2012). Possessing the skills to engage collaborators in the process of co-evolving the
collaboration is an aspect of integrative leadership (Crosby & Bryson, 2010; Huxham & Vangen
2000).
Finally, the findings also suggested that diversity within structures was important in
maximising the collective potential of cross-sector collaborations. This is unsurprising since
many cross-sector collaborations are driven by a need for independent parties to work together
to address complex public issues (Agranoff 2007; Ansell, Chris & Gash 2008; Bryson, Crosby &
Stone 2006, 2015; Provan & Kenis 2008; Thomson & Perry 2006). Practitioners emphasised
structures that give everybody a voice as a means to helping gain “maximum divergence,
maximum potential value, [and] maximum potential creativity”. Doing so can connect with the
identities of collaborators and help facilitate their emotional engagement in the initiative
(Redekop 2010). While structures help bring about these important outcomes in cross-sector
collaborators—namely increasing understanding among collaborators, addressing the various
objectives of the collaborators, engaging multiple parties in the collaborative initiative, and
maximising the potential of the collaboration—structures are closely integrated and supported
by processes, which also help achieve these outcomes.
4.3.3. Processes
This section discusses the findings in relation to processes and existing theory. Processes
include the “formal and informal instruments … through which the collaboration’s
communications take place” (Huxham & Vangen 2005, p. 205). The research findings
extensively covered processes, which is unsurprising given that the interview participant sample
focused on cross-sector collaboration practitioners working as consultants designing and
facilitating such collaborations—their expertise relates to using processes to bring about a
valuable outcome. Much of the findings supported the existing theory relating to the role of
processes in effectively making things happen in collaborations. In particular, the findings
affirmed the role of boundary experiences in catalysing “integration and collaborative action”
(Morse, 2010, p. 234), where boundary experiences are “shared or joint activities that create a
sense of community and an ability to transcend boundaries among participants” (Feldman et al.
2006, p. 94 cited in Morse, 2010, p. 234). Practitioners discussed in depth the need for joint
activities to transcend boundaries among collaborators.
The findings presented the dialoguing process as a vital boundary experience that catalyses
integration and collaborative action. The dialoguing process was identified as the process of
convening, often spoken of as “meeting around the table”, and take the appropriate time to
engage in conversation with the aim of seeing each other as people, understanding each other’s
motivations and ways of thinking, and establishing trust as the basis on which to successful
collaborate. The findings suggested that this process helps “transcend boundaries” (Morse,
2010). Specifically, the boundary experience of conversation between collaborating parties was
viewed as important in enabling genuine personal interaction that builds shared understandings
and helps parties to collaborate better. Within an actor-network (Latour 1987) conception the
39
dialoguing process is highly regarded in terms of its ability the influence the network of a cross-
sector collaboration.
The findings supported theory relating to integrative thinking which includes the ability to
understand the different “dominant logics” of different organisations involved in a collaboration
(Hartman, Hofman & Stafford 1999). Overcoming these logics helps build shared identities
(Ospina & Foldy 2010) and shared understandings that help facilitate emotional engagement in
the collaboration (Redekop 2010). The dialoguing process can also be viewed as an integrative
behaviour as it fosters semi-permanent connections (Alexander et al. 2001; Bazzoli, Harmata &
Chan 1998; Crosby & Bryson 2010; Huxham & Vangen 2000; Ospina & Foldy 2010; Page 2010;
Paul et al. 2001; Silvia & McGuire 2010; Sun & Anderson 2012), specifically by developing
relationships with collaborating parties (Ospina & Saz-Carranza 2010). Interestingly the findings
did not place emphasis on the role of boundary objects catalysing collaborative action, which
include artefacts such as strategic plans.
Beyond the general dialoguing process discussed above, the findings included specific
processes through which collaborative leadership can be enacted. Huxham and Vangen’s (2005,
p. 205) suggestion that processes can include workshops was affirmed. Practitioners, for
example, discussed how workshops help identify and resolve conflict, and facilitate alignment
among collaborating parties. This is consistent with Feldman et al’s (2006, p. 94) conception of
boundary experiences as “joint activities that create a sense of community and an ability to
transcend boundaries among participants”.
The language of the boundary experiences as a “facilitating” process reveals an important

aspect of the processes of cross-sector collaborations, namely that they are nuanced, non-
coercive and are intended to fine-tune complex arrangements for optimal performance. This
assertion is supported in the findings by the emphasis placed on “designing” processes within
cross-sector collaborations. For example, practitioners called for processes to be designed to
extract “maximum divergence, maximum potential value, [and] maximum potential creativity”
from the structures and participants of cross-sector collaborations. Drawing together differences
or diversities of abilities and worldviews provides the basis from which to creatively construct
solutions to shared problems (Ospina & Foldy 2010). Furthermore, the findings suggest that
participatory design process may assist in developing “trust and alignment” amongst
collaborators. The language of alignment also alludes to processes of fine-tuning complex
arrangements within collaborations, as do findings that advocate for processes to support
“curating the people” tasked with important roles in the collaboration. The claim that boundary
experiences in cross-sector collaborations must be nuanced is supported by the practitioners’
emphasis on the need for an appropriate amount of time to be spent in the dialoguing process
and that the process for each collaboration should be bespoke. Given the complexity of what they
entail, these processes can be referred to as “high-order” attributes of integrative thinking (Sun
& Anderson 2012).
4.3.4. Participants
This section discusses the findings in relation to participants (or people) and existing theory.
Participants who “engage in networking tasks and employ methods of coordination and task
integration across organizational boundaries” (Alter & Hage 1993, p. 46) have been referred to
as ‘boundary spanners’ (Williams 2002). While “people” was an important theme within the
40
data, the findings focused more on the “networking tasks” and “methods of coordination” rather
than the specific people engaged in them. This is explained by the interview sample, which is
comprised of practitioners whose employment involves designing and facilitating cross-sector
collaborations. As a result, practitioners have focused on the elements of the collaborations that
they can affect and this did not include “participants”, since practitioners do not select the
collaborating parties.
The findings indicate that people wanting to enact change within their contexts drive cross-
sector collaborations—they are mobilized by desire for change that will fix a problem. These
findings are consistent with the catalytic role of boundary spanners who work and integrate
across boundaries to provide “a spark or catalyst that truly makes a difference” (Luke 1998, p.
4). Integrative leadership resources includes the moral desire to serve the community by bringing
in necessary expertise and using appropriate social connections in collaborations (Sun &
Anderson 2012). However, practitioners did not focus on serving the community while speaking
about the desire for change but the fact that practitioners have been engaged for their expertise
indicates that the act of their employment might be representative of integrative leadership
resources. The motivations of key people who play catalytic roles in collaborations, thus,
represent a significant factor relating to participants.
The findings suggest that cross-sector collaborators should have humility, empathy,
reflexivity, and the ability to align personal objectives with the collective purpose of the
collaboration. These findings are consistent with the literature. The capability of integrative
thinking to emotionally engage diverse groups in cross-sector collaborations has already been
discussed (Redekop 2010). Extending this, professional empathy is a concept well-established in
the design-thinking field where it refers to seeing the world through the eyes of others and using
this perspective to guide design decision (Bason 2010; Brown 2009). While empathy is
considered a desirable quality among participants, a large part of effective cross-sector
collaboration relates to processes that intend to achieve a similar outcome in terms of
transcending boundaries and hence it has been discussed in relation dialoguing processes (see
above Section 4.3.3. Processes).
Related to the concept of empathy, humility has been recognised as a quality of boundary-
spanning leaders who take satisfaction in the shared accomplishments collectives and whose
ambitions are more directed to collective success than “personal glory” (Linden 2003, p, 154).
Described as “ego strength” in the domain of psychology, this refers to people who “don’t have
the internal motivation to be in charge of everything … [but have a] willingness to share credit,
which is crucial in forging agreements and sustaining action” (Luke 1998, p. 230–31). Humility
or ego strength would thus help align personal objectives with the collective purpose of the
collaboration. Integrative behaviours include treating collaborators as equals, considering their
welfare and celebrating their successes, all of which helps build trust in the relationship (Bazzoli,
Harmata & Chan 1998; Silvia & McGuire 2010; Vangen & Huxham 2003). The emphasis on
humility and generosity indicate that wisdom (McKenna, Rooney & Boal 2009) plays a role in
successful cross-sector collaborations. The importance of reflexivity within cross-boundary
governance and arrangements is well established (Ansell, Christopher 2011; Jay 2013;
Temmerman, De Rynck & Voets 2015). This was supported by calls for participants to “constantly
to reflect on the process of how they're collaborating”.
41
There was some indication in the findings that practitioners viewed themselves as key
participants in the collaborations. This was understandable given the importance of coordinating
the collaborative process and employing actions—“designing”, “facilitating”, “curating”—which
have been described as nuanced, non-coercive and intended to fine-tune complex arrangements
for optimal performance. These actions are the expertise areas of cross-sector collaboration
practitioners. One practitioner described her role as that of “coaxing catalyst”. This view of the
role of cross-sector collaboration practitioners is consistent with the conception of boundary
spanners. It is also consistent with integrative behaviours which are actions taken to foster semi-
permanent connections in order to achieve public good (Alexander et al. 2001; Bazzoli, Harmata
& Chan 1998; Crosby & Bryson 2010; Huxham & Vangen 2000; Ospina & Foldy 2010; Page 2010;
Paul et al. 2001; Silvia & McGuire 2010; Sun & Anderson 2012). For example, in the findings the
coaxing actions of practitioners included “putting a proposition to them [the collaborating
parties] and then making it happen because they’re so busy but also because my sense was they
didn't know how to progress it so it didn't look like every other thing that they'd been involved
with or seen before”. Therefore, given that leadership in collaborations is enacted through
participants who “employ methods of coordination and task integration across organizational
boundaries” (Alter & Hage 1993, p. 46), effective practitioners can be considered a key element
of collaborative leadership and making things happen in cross-sector collaborations.

This chapter began by explaining the Leximancer analysis of the interview transcripts. It
outlined how the Leximancer output directed the systematic analysis of practitioners’
perspectives by analysing the interview transcripts in relation to the identified themes. The
analysis of the chapter focused on the most significant themes presented in the Leximancer
results, namely “people”, “process”, “process”, “collaboration” and “governance”. Excerpts from
the transcripts relating to these themes were analysed and findings presented in relation to each.
The final part of the chapter discussed the key findings in relation to existing theory.
The discussion argued that integrative leadership is an important part of effectively making
things happen in a cross-sector collaboration. Prior structural relationships were found to help
build trust between collaborators and give them a better platform from which to collaborate.
Representativeness in structures was advocated for because it can help increase understanding
among collaborators, meet the various objectives of the collaborators, engage multiple parties in
the collaborative initiative, and maximise the potential of the collaboration. My analysis found
that memberships of governance structures should possess a degree of fluidity so that they can
change as the collaboration progresses through various life-cycle stages.
The findings also emphasised the importance of collaborators understanding each other’s
motivations and ways of thinking, and the need “give voice to the diverse identities in the multi-
sector collaboration” (Sun & Anderson 2012, p. 314). The findings affirmed the role of boundary
experiences in catalysing “integration and collaborative action” and presented the dialoguing
process as a vital boundary experience. The boundary experience of conversation between
collaborating parties was considered important in enabling genuine personal interaction that
builds shared understandings and helps parties to collaborate better. The language of the
boundary experiences as a “facilitating” process revealed an important aspect of the processes of
cross-sector collaborations, namely that they are nuanced, non-coercive and are intended to fine-
tune complex arrangements for optimal performance.
42
My analysis found that people wanting to enact change within their contexts drive cross-
sector collaborations. The findings also suggested that cross-sector collaborators should have
humility, empathy, reflexivity, and the ability to align personal objectives with the collective
purpose of the collaboration. Finally, effective practitioners were found to be a key element of
collaborative leadership and making things happen in cross-sector collaborations.
The following chapter makes conclusions about the findings in relation to the research
problem and questions of the study.
43
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Implications
44
5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1. Introduction
This chapter follows the discussion of the findings in chapter 4 and makes conclusions about
the findings in relation to the research problem and questions. Practitioners emphasised many
elements important to the success of cross-sector collaborations that were already present in the
existing literature. These elements included linking mechanisms such as the presence of
boundary-spanning participants (Crosby & Bryson 2010), the ability to frame issues in a manner
so that diverse collaborators understand their importance and relevance to them (Cikaliuk 2011),
the role that prior connections play in establishing trust between collaborators (Bryson et al.
2011), the need for inclusive structures to help implement the collaboration and facilitate
governance (Berardo, Heikkila & Gerlak 2014; Quick & Feldman 2011; Saz-Carranza & Ospina
2010), the importance of trust (Lee et al. 2012) and communication (Koschmann, Kuhn & Pfarrer
2012), the need for both a sponsor and a champion group (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015), and
the need for people to exercise leadership at various levels within the collaboration (Agranoff
2012; Baker, Kan & Teo 2011; Clarke & Fuller 2010).
The chapter also discusses implications of the findings for areas of theory, methodology and
practice. Implications for theory include the need for the principal governance group working on
the cross-sector collaboration to have ultimate decision-making authority, the need for bespoke
processes for each collaboration, and the important of place and place attachment in cross-sector
collaborations. Implications for practice includes designing the collaborative environment needs
to support trust and safety as a means of enabling integrative thinking and behaviours. The
(metaphorical) arena around which collaborators can gather and begin the dialoguing process is
an important part of the collaborative environment that needs to be designed by practitioners
Finally, the limitations of the study are presented and possible future research directions
are outlined to conclude the chapter. These include further exploration of governance, place and
wisdom in cross-sector collaborations, and investigation of government-led collaborations.
5.2. Conclusions about the research problem and questions

The increased belief that cross-sector collaborations have the potential to tackle complex
problems has attracted attention from both practice and academia. First, it has driven the
development of an industry of cross-sector collaboration practitioners who work to design and
facilitate such collaborations. Second, it has spawned academic research on cross-sector
collaborations (see Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006; Thomson & Perry 2006; Ansell & Gash 2008;
Agranoff 2007, 2012; Provan & Kenis 2008; Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh 2011; Koschmann,
Kuhn & Pfarrer 2012). However, the existing research on cross-sector collaborations has focused
on case analyses and as a result there is an opportunity to explore existing theoretical
understandings of cross-sector collaborations through the practical insight of a sample of cross-
sector collaboration practitioners. The problem addressed in this research was how practitioners
work on cross-sector collaborations.
Conclusions relating to the research problem are presented in Table 3, where elements
identified by collaborative practitioners as important to the success of cross-sector collaborations
are listed in the first column. The elements that are also present in existing cross-sector
collaboration theoretical frameworks are noted in the second column. Elements related to
45
leadership are italicised in Table 3. It should be noted that practitioners did not share a common
conception of leadership but emphasised aspects of both integrative leadership and the
interconnect media of structures, processes and participants through which collaborative
leadership is enacted (Huxham & Vangen 2005). However, practitioners placed greater
emphasis on structures and processes than on participants. I hypothesise that this is due to
practitioners focusing on designing and facilitating cross-sector collaborations, which are
elements that they can influence, whereas selecting collaborating participants is not within their
realm of control. Further, practitioners focused on three dimensions of integrative leadership
(Sun & Anderson 2012), namely integrative thinking, integrative behaviours and integrative
processes and structures. Integrative leadership resources were not emphasised by practitioners
but I hypothesise that the act of employing practitioners for their expertise in relation to cross-
sector collaborations represents collaborating parties utilising integrative leadership resources.
46
Table 3: Research problem conclusions
Elements identified by collaborative practitioners as important to Elements of existing cross-sector collaboration frameworks
the success of cross-sector collaborations emphasised by collaborative practitioners
Practitioners emphasised all three of the interconnect media—structures, Leadership in collaborations is enacted through the interconnected media of
processes and participants—through which collaborative leadership is structures, processes and participants (Huxham & Vangen 2005).
enacted, however the least emphasis was placed on participants.
Some practitioners conceived of leadership in relation to formal position Integrative leadership is a macro-level type of leadership referring to
where leadership was considered within the collaboration. However others "integrating people, resources and organisations across various boundaries to
viewed leadership at a more macro level above the collaboration and able to tackle complex public problems and achieve the common good" (Crosby &
“bring a system together”. Bryson, 2014, p. 57).
Practitioners emphasised the effect that structural arrangements have on cross- Structure plays a role of structure in collaborations (Agranoff 2007; Bryson,
sector collaborations. Prior structural relationships between parties were Crosby & Stone 2006; Provan & Kenis 2008) (Alter & Hage 1993; Huxham &
claimed to increase trust and minimise the risk of collaborating. Vangen 2005). Prior relationships between collaborators can be “linking
mechanisms” (Waddock 1986) that can play a role in the formation of
partnerships (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006). Establishing trust amongst
collaborators is a key collaborative process (Ansell, Chris & Gash 2008; Bryson,
Crosby & Stone 2006; Provan & Kenis 2008).
Practitioners suggested that cross-sector collaborators should have an Integrative thinking involves the cognitive ability to maintain a systems
appreciation of the system in which the collaboration takes place and an perspective on a collaboration while distinguishing between and
understanding of their own place within the system in order to better understanding the interrelations of the different dynamisms at play within the
understand how the system connects with a view to solving shared problems. collaboration (Alexander et al. 2001; Senge 2006; Sun & Anderson 2012).
Practitioners emphasised the importance of collaborators understanding each Boundary organisations are structural catalysts that drive the development of
other’s motivations and ways of thinking. Practitioners indicated that collaborations among different organisations (Morse, 2010). Integrative
representative governance structures can assist in increasing this thinking helps promote understanding of collaborators valued identities and
understanding among collaborators. thereby increase understanding among them (Hartman, Hofman & Stafford
1999; Ospina & Foldy 2010).
Practitioners emphasised the role that representative governance structures can Structural aspects of collaborations help shape the agendas of collaborations
play in ensuring that the objectives of all parties entering the cross-sector (Huxham & Vangen, 2005) and interconnected structures can “determine such
collaboration are known and considered. key factors as who may have an influence on shaping a partnership agenda, who
may have power to act and what resources may be tapped” (Huxham & Vangen,
2005, p. 204).
Practitioners suggested that effective governance structures have final authority
in terms of decision-making.
47
Practitioners suggested that diversity within structures was important in Elements of integrative thinking promote understanding of collaborators’
maximising the collective potential of collaborations but one needs to give valued identities in order “give voice to the diverse identities in the multi-sector
voice to all perspectives in the collaboration. collaboration” (2012, p. 314). Giving voice to all can help connect with the
identities of collaborators and help facilitate their emotional engagement in
the initiative (Redekop 2010). It can also help develop a shared identity for the
collaboration (Ospina & Foldy 2010).
Practitioners suggested that the membership of governance structures should Integrative structures and processes include being able to appreciate the
evolve as the collaboration progresses through various stages of development. limitations and affordances of collaborative structures and recognise the need
to evolve those structures for its benefit (Sun & Anderson 2012). Governance
structures need to change over time in relation to external environments and
internal dynamics (Cornforth, Hayes & Vangen 2014; Provan & Kenis 2008;
Stone, Crosby & Bryson 2013).
Practitioners endorsed the dialoguing process as a vital boundary experience Face-to-face dialogue, trust building, and the development of commitment and
that catalyses integration and collaborative action. The dialoguing process shared understanding are crucial within the collaborative process (Ansell,
was identified as the process of convening, often spoken of as “meeting around Chris & Gash 2008). Integrative thinking includes the ability to understand the
the table”, and taking the appropriate time to engage in conversation with the different “dominant logics” of different organisations involved in a
aim of seeing each other as people, understanding each other’s motivations collaboration (Hartman, Hofman & Stafford 1999). Overcoming these logics
and ways of thinking, and establishing trust as the basis on which to successful helps build shared identities (Ospina & Foldy 2010) and shared
collaborate. understandings that help facilitate emotional engagement in the collaboration
The metaphorical table affirms that place attachment can be experienced at a (Redekop 2010).
social level. Practitioners viewed the boundary experience of conversation The dialoguing process can also be viewed as an integrative behaviour as it
between collaborating parties as important in enabling genuine personal fosters semi-permanent connections (Alexander et al. 2001; Bazzoli, Harmata
interaction that builds shared understandings and helps parties better & Chan 1998; Sun & Anderson 2012), specifically by developing relationships
collaborate. with collaborating parties (Ospina & Saz-Carranza 2010).
A suitable “place” in the collaboration is related to integrative thinking and
integrative behaviours such as visualisation and expressing ideas, and thus
can take on the role of a boundary organisation.
Practitioners emphasised the role workshops can play in identifying and Huxham and Vangen (2005, p. 205) include workshops as a type of joint activity
resolving conflict, and facilitating alignment among collaborating parties. boundary experience that creates a sense of community and can transcend
boundaries among participants (Feldman et al. 2006)
48
Practitioners placed emphasis on “designing” processes within cross-sector
collaborations and suggested that participatory design process may assist in
developing “trust and alignment” amongst collaborators.
Practitioners emphasised the need for bespoke processes for each collaboration
and that an appropriate amount of time be spent in the dialoguing process.
Practitioners indicated that cross-sector collaborations are often driven by Boundary spanners play a catalytic role as they integrate across boundaries to
people wanting to enact change within their contexts and fix a problem. provide “a spark or catalyst that truly makes a difference” (Luke 1998, p. 4).
Practitioners emphasised the need for cross-sector collaborators to empathy. Integrative thinking includes the capability of emotionally engaging diverse
groups in cross-sector collaborations (Redekop 2010). Professional empathy is
a concept well-established in the design-thinking field where it refers to seeing
the world through the eyes of others and using this perspective to guide design
decision (Bason 2010; Brown 2009).
Practitioners emphasised the need for cross-sector collaborators to have Humility is a recognised quality of boundary-spanning leaders who take
humility as a means of establishing relationships and building trust. satisfaction in the shared accomplishments of collectives and whose ambitions
are more directed to collective success than “personal glory” (Linden 2003)
and can help forge agreements (Luke 1998). Integrative behaviours include as
treating collaborators as equals, considering their welfare and celebrating
their successes, all of which helps build trust in the relationship (Bazzoli,
Harmata & Chan 1998; Silvia & McGuire 2010; Vangen & Huxham 2003).
Practitioners emphasised the need for cross-sector collaborators to be reflexive. The importance of reflexivity within cross-boundary governance and
arrangements is well-established (Ansell, Christopher 2011; Jay 2013;
Temmerman, De Rynck & Voets 2015).
Practitioners emphasised the ability to align personal objectives with the The ability to rally collaborators toward a shared purpose is key to collaborating
collective purpose of the collaboration. (Vangen & Huxham 2003). Such unifying actions help overcome differences and
resolve conflicts (Alexander et al. 2001; Morse 2010; Nielsen 1990; Ospina &
Saz-Carranza 2010; Page 2010; Redekop 2010). Humility can help forge
agreements (Luke 1998) and align personal objectives with collective purpose.
There was some indication in the findings that practitioners viewed themselves
as key participants in the collaborations who play boundary-spanning roles.
49
Practitioners emphasised elements important to the success of cross-sector collaborations
that were already present in the existing literature, however practitioners did not refer to all
aspects of existing models and notably quiet in relation to outcomes and accountabilities
(Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2006), administration (Thompson & Perry 2006), intermediate
outcomes (Ansell and Gash 2008), and the role of authoritative texts in collaborations
(Koschmann, Kuhn & Pfarrer 2012).
The first cluster of findings that are present in the existing literature relate to the antecedent
conditions of cross-sector collaborations. A complex issue requiring a cross-sector collaboration
to solve it is an antecedent condition identified by practitioners (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015).
Also, some practitioners alluded to the role a supportive institutional environment can play in
the emergence of a cross-sector collaboration (Bryson et al. 2008) but they did not emphasise
these aspects.
Second, practitioners emphasised linking mechanisms such as the presence of boundary-

spanning participants (Crosby & Bryson 2010), the ability to frame issues in a manner so that
diverse collaborators understand their importance and relevance to them (Cikaliuk 2011),
agreement on the general problem to be solved, the interdependence of collaborators (Simo &
Bies 2007), and accepted norms of operation (Koschmann, Kuhn & Pfarrer 2012). The role that
prior connections play in establishing trust between collaborators was emphasised (Bryson et al.
2011). Koschmann, Kuhn, and Pfarrer (2012) have suggested that naming the collaboration, and
developing a narrative and “authoritative text” can help foster collective agency amongst
collaborators but practitioners did not discuss this. Further, requests for things such as
proposals, plans and technologies can drive cross-sector collaborations (Bryson, Crosby & Stone
2014; Quick & Feldman 2011) but practitioners did not raise these. In terms of structures,
practitioners emphasised the need for inclusive structures to help implement the collaboration
and facilitate governance of the collaboration (Berardo, Heikkila & Gerlak 2014; Quick &
Feldman 2011; Saz-Carranza & Ospina 2010).
Fourth, in terms of trust and communication, practitioners strenuously emphasised the

importance of trust, which they consider the heart of successful collaborations (Lee et al. 2012).
Practitioners were also cognisant of the fact that collaborations have differing levels of trust
between collaborators at the outset but that this has to be continuously developed throughout
(Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh 2012; Nolte & Boenigk 2011; Walker & Hills 2012). The emphasis
on humility and generosity indicate that wisdom (McKenna, Rooney & Boal 2009) plays a role
in successful cross-sector collaborations. Practitioners placed great emphasis on the importance
of communication in terms of the dialoguing process, which is the “complex process of meaning
negotiation and construction” throughout the collaboration (Koschmann, Kuhn & Pfarrer 2012,
p. 335). They also affirmed the value of face-to-face communication within the collaboration
(Ansell, Chris & Gash 2008; Romzek, LeRoux & Blackmar 2012). Practitioners’ emphasis on the
metaphorical table suggests that place attachment (Scannell & Gifford 2010) can be experienced
at a social level in cross-sector collaborations. However, practitioners also ascribed importance
to physical place, which they related to integrative thinking and integrative behaviours such as
visualisation and expressing ideas. Physical place can thus take on the role of a boundary
organisations, which are structural catalysts driving the development of collaborations (Morse
2010). However the “table” place also acts as a boundary experience that creates trust, builds
50
attachment between collaborators and the collaboration, and unifies the various purposes of the
collaborators.
Fifth, practitioners also recognised the need for both a sponsor and a champion group, the
former to provide formal authority in the collaboration and the latter to use informal authority
to engage others in the collaboration (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). Some practitioners
supported the view that to succeed many people must exercise leadership at various levels within
the collaboration and partner organisations (Agranoff 2012; Baker, Kan & Teo 2011; Clarke &
Fuller 2010). The role of leadership in creating boundary organisations, shared purpose and
boundary experiences was also affirmed (Morse 2010).
5.3. Implications for theory

The conclusions of the study affirm much of the existing theory relating to cross-sector
collaborations and the role of leadership in successfully delivering them. Given the
comprehensiveness of existing theory it is unsurprising that elements identified by practitioners
have been theoretically grounded but it is still encouraging that this stream of research accords
with practitioner perspectives. Existing literature recognises that cross-sector collaborations are
complex and propositions as to what delivers them successfully are not intended to be a
prescriptive list but rather a general set of suggestions that may in any set of combinations deliver
a successful collaboration.
Despite the comprehensiveness of existing theory, the study yielded some unique findings.
First, practitioners emphasised the need for the principal governance group working on the
cross-sector collaboration to have ultimate decision-making authority. It was proposed that not
having this level of authority could stall action in the collaboration and cause frustration among
other collaborating parties who already possess such decision-making authority. Thus, having a
governance group with ultimate decision-making authority can grease the wheels of the cross-
sector collaboration by enabling matters to be signed off immediately.
Second, practitioners emphasised “designing” processes within cross-sector collaborations.

This design component comprised a large part of the work practitioners do on cross-sector
collaborations and practitioners emphasised the need for bespoke processes for each
collaboration. A bespoke approach to each cross-sector collaborations allows practitioners to
utilise their expertise. Related to this, engaging professional cross-sector collaboration
practitioners represents utilising integrative leadership resources in order to serve the
community by bringing in necessary expertise and use of appropriate social connections (Sun
and Anderson 2012). Furthermore, there was some indication in the findings that practitioners
viewed themselves as key participants in the collaborations who play boundary-spanning roles.
Practitioners thus act as “collaborative capacity builders” since by a combination of legal
authority, valued expertise and reputations as honest brokers, they play lead roles in solving the
object problem of the collaboration (Weber & Khademian 2008).
Finally, practitioners’ concern with place manifested in two ways relevant to theory. A
conducive “place” is related to integrative thinking and integrative behaviours such as
visualisation and expressing ideas, and thus can take on the role of a boundary organisation,
which is a structural catalyst driving the development of collaborations (Morse 2010). This place
attachment is produced by affective, cognitive and behavioural interactions (Scannell & Gifford
2010) which overlap with integrative thinking and integrative behaviours. The other element of
51
place is the, sometimes metaphorical, arena around which collaborators can gather as people
and begin the dialoguing process. The metaphorical aspect affirms that place attachment can be
experienced at a social level, where it has been described as “a community process in which
groups become attached to areas where they may practice” (Scannell & Gifford 2010, p. 240).
These two elements related to place represent additions to the cross-sector collaboration theory.
5.4. Implications for practice

The findings of this study are all derived from practitioners and are thus relevant to the act
of designing and facilitating cross-sector collaborations. Given the complexity of cross-sector
collaborations it has been suggested that the best that research can offer practitioners is design
guidance (Romme & Endenburg 2006) and “handles for reflective practice” (Huxham and
Vangen 2005; Popp et al. 2014). This guidance is likely to be welcome since practitioners highly
value bespoke design processes in cross-sector collaborations. The study reiterates the
practitioner advice offered by Bryson, Crosby and Stone (2015, p. 647): the collaborative
advantage gained by collaborating should clear; collaborations should be treated as complex,
dynamic, multilevel systems; a design approach should be taken for each cross-sector
collaboration; groups of committed sponsors and champions should be involved throughout;
inclusive processes should be used to develop inclusive structures to sustain inclusive processes;
and flexible governance structures should be adopted which evolve through the various life cycle
stages of the collaboration.
Beyond reiterating the above advice, the theoretical findings have two main implications for
practice. First, governance groups will benefit from having as much decision-making authority
as possible. This capability can hasten the collaborative process and should be designed into the
collaboration. Second, the design of the collaborative environment needs to support trust and
safety to enable integrative thinking and behaviours such as visualisation and expressing ideas.
The findings show trust and safety is connected to the dialoguing process. The (metaphorical)
arena around which collaborators can gather and begin the dialoguing process is an important
part of the collaborative environment that needs to be designed by practitioners.
5.5. Limitations and implications for future research

There were several limitations to the study. First, interviews were conducted face-to-face
where possible but on occasion were conducted via video or voice call where participants were in
another city or there were scheduling challenges. The ability of the interviewer to respond to non-
verbal communications may be limited in these instances. Given the time and location
constraints of the study this was unavoidable. Second, the complexity of cross-sector
collaborations may warrant multiple interviews with each respondent to adequately cover the
range of variables that can affect such collaborations. Although the findings support much
existing cross-sector collaboration theory there were many aspects of theory that were not
discussed and the opportunity to engage further with practitioners may have affirmed more of
this theory. Given the time constraints of the study this was also inescapable. Third, although
some of the practitioners were experienced internationally, the interview sample was based in
Australia and therefore the practitioner perspectives on cross-sector collaborations are not
necessarily globally applicable. Fourth, the final sample of the study was reduced because of the
need to exclude the interviews of some participants who did not meet the participant criteria
relating to the number of cross-sector collaborations they had been involved in. Although
52
expertise in a chosen topic can reduce the number of participants required in a study (Jette,
Grover & Keck 2003) the final sample was below the intended 20 and thus a possible limitation
of the study.
Given the complexity of cross-sector collaborations Bryson, Crosby and Stone’s (2015) final
proposition is that the “normal expectation ought to be that success will be very difficult to
achieve in cross-sector collaborations”. Their complexity also presents challenges for research:
“Collaboration processes are complex enough as to demand a simultaneous analysis of

all its moving parts, a goal that should drive future research efforts in this area”
(Berardo, Heikkila & Gerlak 2014, p. 701).
Future studies that examine practitioner perspectives of cross-sector collaborations should
consider conducting observational studies or multiple interviews with each respondent to further
explore the full complexity of such collaborations. Alternatively, practitioners’ interviews could
be supplemented with focus groups in an attempt to extract richer perspectives on the subject
matter.
As indicated in chapter 3, the study initially intended to include government workers and
policy developers who had worked across a range of projects on which they had to design and
facilitate cross-sector collaborations. However, it emerged that the context of government-led
cross-sector collaborations differed from those not led by government due to the macro-level of
much policy development. Cross-sector research would benefit from future studies comparing
government-led cross-sector collaborations with those in which government is not a leader or
even a participant at all (although this is uncommon in cross-sector collaborations).
Specific concepts in the findings should be explored in future studies. The variety amongst
practitioners’ opinions on governance indicates that further research on this specific element of
cross-sector collaboration is warranted. “Place” featured heavily in practitioners’’ perspectives
and research on place attachment in cross-sector collaborations will shed new light on this topic.
The connection between integrative thinking and wisdom in cross-collaborations is another
concept that future research should explore.
Finally, the interdisciplinary nature of cross-sector collaborations necessitates blending

multiple theoretical and research perspectives and this presents a challenge to scholarship in the
area (Rethemeyer 2005). Public management researchers who consider cross-sector
collaborations as networks draw upon rich theoretical foundations and focus on structural
variables (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015) but can neglect the dynamic aspects and ongoing
process dimensions (O'Toole 2014; Popp et al. 2014). In contrast, it is claimed that scholars who
view collaborations as collective action solutions to shared problems do not ground their
research in theory to the same extent, but provide greater insight into process dimensions and
generate work that is more easily applied in practice (Bryson, Crosby & Stone 2015). To address
the inherent complexity of cross-sector collaborations future research must bridge these two
perspectives (O’Toole 2014).

Finally and in brief, practitioners affirmed much of the existing theory regarding cross-
sector collaborations and the role of leadership in successfully delivering them. Despite the
comprehensiveness of existing cross-sector collaboration theory, the study yielded some unique
53
findings relating to the need for the principal governance group working on the cross-sector
collaboration to have ultimate decision-making authority and the emphasis practitioners place
on “designing” processes within cross-sector collaborations. Further, practitioners viewed
themselves as key participants in the collaborations and thought that they played boundary-
spanning roles and act as collaborative capacity builders (Weber & Khademian 2008). Areas
relating to the limitations of the participant sample, the need for more depth in data collection,
exploration of governance, place and wisdom, investigation of government-led collaborations,
and bridging different research perspectives offers exciting possibilities for future research.
54
References
55
6. REFERENCES
Agranoff, R 2007, Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations,
Georgetown University Press.
—— 2012, Collaborating to manage: A primer for the public sector, Georgetown University
Press.
Alexander, J, Comfort, M, Weiner, B & Bogue, R 2001, 'Leadership in collaborative community
health partnerships', Nonprofit Management and Leadership, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 159-75.
Alter, C & Hage, J 1993, Organizations working together, Sage Publications Newbury Park, CA.
Anderson, M & Sun, P 2015, 'Reviewing Leadership Styles: Overlaps and the Need for a New
‘Full‐Range’Theory', International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 00, pp. 1–21.
Ansell, C 2011, Pragmatist governance: Re-imagining institutions and democracy, Oxford
University Press on Demand.
Ansell, C & Gash, A 2008, 'Collaborative governance in theory and practice', Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543-71.
Babiak, K & Thibault, L 2009, 'Challenges in multiple cross-sector partnerships', Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 117-43.
Baker, E, Kan, M & Teo, S 2011, 'Developing a collaborative network organization: leadership
challenges at multiple levels', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 24, no.
6, pp. 853-75.
Bason, C 2010, Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society, Policy Press.
Bazzoli, G, Harmata, R & Chan, C 1998, 'Community-based trauma systems in the United States:
an examination of structural development', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1137-
49.
Berardo, R, Heikkila, T & Gerlak, A 2014, 'Interorganizational Engagement in Collaborative
Environmental Management: Evidence from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 697-719.
Bernstein, R 2010, The pragmatic turn, Polity.
Brown, T 2009, Change by design, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY.
Bryman, A & Burgess, B 2002, Analyzing qualitative data, Routledge.
Bryson, J & Crosby, B 1992, Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a
shared-power world, Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, J, Crosby, B & Bryson, J 2009, 'Understanding strategic planning and the formulation
and implementation of strategic plans as a way of knowing: The contributions of actor-
network theory', International Public Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 172-207.
Bryson, J, Crosby, B & Stone, M 2006, 'The design and implementation of Cross‐Sector
collaborations: Propositions from the literature', Public Administration Review, vol. 66, no.
s1, pp. 44-55.
—— 2014, 'Designing and Strategically Managing Cross-Sector Collaborations', in M
Fratantuono, D Sarcone & J Colwell Jr. (eds), The U.S.–India Relationship: Cross-Sector
Collaboration to Promote Sustainable Development, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army
War College, Carlisle, PA, pp. 31-88.
—— 2015, 'Designing and Implementing Cross‐Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging',
Public Administration Review, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 647-663.
56
Bryson, J, Crosby, B, Stone, M & Mortensen, J 2008, Collaboration in Fighting Traffic
Congestion: A Study of Minnesota’s Urban Partnership Agreement (No. CTS 08-25).
Bryson, J, Crosby, B, Stone, M, Saunoi-Sandgren, E & Imboden, A 2011, The Urban Partnership
Agreement: A Comparative Study of Technology and Collaboration in Transportation
Policy Implementation, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota.
Bryson, J & Einsweiler, R 1991, Shared Power: What is it? How does it work? How can we make
it better, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Burns, C, Cottam, H, Vanstone, C & Winhall, J 2006, 'RED paper 02: Transformation design',
London: Design Council.
Carson, D, Gilmore, A, Perry, C & Gronhaug, K 2001, Qualitative marketing research, Sage.
Charmaz, K 2006, Constructing grounded theory, Sage.
Charmaz, K & Belgrave, L 2002, 'Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis', The
SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, vol. 2, p. 2002.
Chircop, A, Bassett, R & Taylor, E 2015, 'Evidence on how to practice intersectoral collaboration
for health equity: A scoping review', Critical Public Health, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 178-191.
Churchman, CW 1967, Guest editorial: Wicked problems, JSTOR, 0025-1909.
Cikaliuk, M 2011, 'Cross-sector alliances for large-scale health leadership development in
Canada: lessons for leaders', Leadership in Health Services, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 281-94.
Clarke, A & Fuller, M 2010, 'Collaborative strategic management: strategy formulation and
implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships', Journal of
Business Ethics, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 85-101.
Cleveland, H 2002, Nobody in charge: Essays on the future of leadership, vol. 9, John Wiley &
Sons.
Collis, J & Hussey, R 2009, Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and
Postgraduate Students, Palgrave Macmillan.
Cornforth, C, Hayes, JP & Vangen, S 2014, 'Nonprofit–Public Collaborations Understanding
Governance Dynamics', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 775–
795.
Costantino, T 2008, 'Constructivism', The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods,
vol. 1, pp. 116-9.
Coviello, N 2005, 'Integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques in network analysis',
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 39-60.
Creswell, JW 2013, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches,
Sage publications.
Cretchley, J, Rooney, D & Gallois, C 2010, 'Mapping a 40-year history with Leximancer: Themes
and concepts in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology', Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 318-28.
Crosby, B 2010, 'Leading in the Shared‐Power World of 2020', Public Administration Review,
vol. 70, no. s1, pp. s69-s77.
Crosby, B & Bryson, J 2005, Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a
Shared-Power World, 2nd edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
—— 2010, 'Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector
collaborations', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 211-30.
57
—— 2014, 'Public Integrative Leadership', in D Day (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leadership
and Organizations, Oxford University Press, p. 57.
Crosby, B, Bryson, J & Stone, M 2010, 'Leading across frontiers: how visionary leaders integrate
people, processes, structures and resources', The New Public Governance. London:
Routledge, pp. 200-22.
Crotty, M 1998, The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process, Sage.
Crouch, M & McKenzie, H 2006, 'The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative
research', Social Science Information, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 483-99.
Czarniawska, B 2014, Social science research: from field to desk, Sage.
Dann, S 2010, 'Redefining social marketing with contemporary commercial marketing
definitions', Journal of Business Research, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 147-53.
De Geus, A 1988, 'Planning as learning', Harvard Business Review, no. March/April, pp. 70-4.
Denhardt, J & Campbell, K 2006, 'The role of democratic values in transformational leadership',
Administration & Society, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 556-72.
Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y 2008, Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, vol. 3, Sage.
Eden, C & Huxham, C 1996, 'Action research for management research', British Journal of
Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 75-86.
Egginton, W & Sandbothe, M 2004, 'The pragmatic turn in philosophy', Albany: State University
of New York.
Eldabi, T, Irani, Z, Paul, R & Love, P 2002, 'Quantitative and qualitative decision-making
methods in simulation modelling', Management Decision, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 64-73.
Emerson, K, Nabatchi, T & Balogh, S 2012, 'An integrative framework for collaborative
governance', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-29.
Faugier, J & Sargeant, M 1997, 'Sampling hard to reach populations', Journal of Advanced
Nursing, vol. 26, pp. 790-7.
Feldman, MS, Khademian, AM, Ingram, H & Schneider, AS 2006, 'Ways of knowing and
inclusive management practices', Public Administration Review, vol. 66, no. s1, pp. 89-99.
Getha-Taylor, H 2008, 'Identifying collaborative competencies', Review of Public Personnel
Administration, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 103-19.
Glaser, B & Strauss, A 1967, 'The discovery grounded theory: strategies for qualitative inquiry',
Aldin, Chicago.
Goodroe, J & Beres, M 1991, 'Network leadership and today's nurse', Nursing management, vol.
22, no. 9, pp. 56-62.
Green, J & Thorogood, N 2009, Qualitative methods for health research, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Guba, E & Lincoln, Y 1994, 'Competing paradigms in qualitative research', in N Denzin & Y
Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research, 2 edn.
Guston, D 2001, 'Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction',
Science, Technology, and Human Values, pp. 399-408.
Harmaakorpi, V & Niukkanen, H 2007, 'Leadership in different kinds of regional development
networks', Baltic Journal of Management, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 80-96.
Hartman, C, Hofman, P & Stafford, E 1999, 'Partnerships: a path to sustainability', Business
Strategy and the Environment, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 255-66.
58
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, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1159-75.
—— 2005, Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage,
Psychology Press.
Imperial, M 2005, 'Using collaboration as a governance strategy lessons from six watershed
management programs', Administration & Society, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 281-320.
Innes, J & Booher, D 2010, Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative
rationality for public policy, Routledge.
Jay, J 2013, 'Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid
organizations', Academy of Management Journal, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 137-59.
Jette, D, Grover, L & Keck, C 2003, 'A qualitative study of clinical decision making in
recommending discharge placement from the acute care setting', Physical Therapy, vol. 83,
no. 3, pp. 224-36.
Keast, R, Brown, K & Mandell, M 2007, 'Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings
and strategies', International Public Management Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 9-33.
Kettl, D 2006, 'Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative',
Public Administration Review, vol. 66, no. s1, pp. 10-9.
—— 2015, 'The Job of Government: Interweaving Public Functions and Private Hands', Public
Administration Review, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 219-29.
Koschmann, M, Kuhn, T & Pfarrer, M 2012, 'A communicative framework of value in cross-sector
partnerships', Academy of Management Review, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 332-54.
Lai, A 2012, 'Towards a collaborative cross-border disaster management: A comparative analysis
of voluntary organizations in Taiwan and Singapore', Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis: Research and Practice, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 217-33.
Latour, B 1987, Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society,
Harvard university press.
—— 2005, 'Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory', Reassembling the
Social-An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, by Bruno Latour, pp. 316. Oxford
University Press, Sep 2005, vol. 1.
Lee, H-W, Robertson, P, Lewis, L, Sloane, D, Galloway-Gilliam, L & Nomachi, J 2012, 'Trust in a
Cross-Sectoral Interorganizational Network: An Empirical Investigation of Antecedents',
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 609-31.
Liesch, P, Håkanson, L, McGaughey, S, Middleton, S & Cretchley, J 2011, 'The evolution of the
international business field: a scientometric investigation of articles published in its premier
journal', Scientometrics, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 17-42.
Lincoln, Y, Lynham, S & Guba, E 2011, 'Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences, revisited', The Sage handbook of qualitative research, vol. 4, pp. 97-
128.
Linden, R 2003, Working across boundaries: Making collaboration work in government and
nonprofit organizations, John Wiley & Sons.
Luke, J 1998, Catalytic Leadership: Strategies for an Interconnected World, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mason, M 2010, 'Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews', in
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 11.
59
Mattessich, P & Monsey, B 1992, Collaboration: what makes it work. A review of research
literature on factors influencing successful collaboration, ERIC.
McCracken, G 1988, The long interview, vol. 13, Sage.
McGuire, M 2006, 'Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we
know it', Public Administration Review, pp. 33-43.
McKenna, B, Rooney, D & Boal, KB 2009, 'Wisdom principles as a meta-theoretical basis for
evaluating leadership', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 177-90.
McNamara, M 2011, 'Processes of Cross-Sector Collaboration: A Case Study of the Virginia
Coastal Zone Management Program', in Nonprofit Policy Forum, vol. 2.
Menand, L 2001, The metaphysical club, Macmillan.
Moore, M & Hartley, J 2008, 'Innovations in governance', Public management review, vol. 10,
no. 1, pp. 3-20.
Morse, R 2008, 'Developing public leaders in an age of collaborative governance', Innovations
in Public Leadership Development, pp. 79-100.
—— 2010, 'Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public value', The
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 231-45.
Neuman, W 2003, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, US:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Nielsen, R 1990, 'Dialogic leadership as ethics action (praxis) method', Journal of Business
Ethics, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 765-83.
Nolte, I & Boenigk, S 2011, 'Public–nonprofit partnership performance in a disaster context: The
case of Haiti', Public Administration, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 1385-402.
Nosella, A & Petroni, G 2007, 'Multiple network leadership as a strategic asset: The Carlo Gavazzi
Space case', Long Range Planning, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 178-201.
Novelli Jr, L & Taylor, S 1993, 'The Context for Leadership in 21st-Century Organizations A Role
for Critical Thinking', The American Behavioral Scientist (1986-1994), vol. 37, no. 1, p. 139.
O'Leary, R & Vij, N 2012, 'Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are
we going?', The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 507-522.
O'Toole, L 2014, 'Networks and Networking: The Public Administrative Agendas', Public
Administration Review.
Ospina, S & Foldy, E 2010, 'Building bridges from the margins: The work of leadership in social
change organizations', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 292-307.
Ospina, S & Saz-Carranza, A 2010, 'Paradox and collaboration in network management',
Administration & Society, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 404-40.
Page, S 2010, 'Integrative leadership for collaborative governance: Civic engagement in Seattle',
The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 246-63.
Paul, J, Costley, D, Howell, J, Dorfman, P & Trafimow, D 2001, 'The Effects of Charismatic
Leadership on Followers’ Self‐Concept Accessibility', Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1821-42.
Popp, J, Milward, H, MacKean, G, Casebeer, A & Lindstrom, R 2014, 'Inter-organizational
networks: a review of the literature to inform practice', IBM Center for the Business of
Government: Washington, DC.
Proshansky, H, Fabian, A & Kaminoff, R 1983 ‘Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the
self’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 57-83.
60
Provan, K & Kenis, P 2008, 'Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and
effectiveness', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 229-
52.
Quick, K & Feldman, M 2011, 'Inclusive boundary work in collaborative planning', paper
presented to Public Management Research Association conference, Syracuse, New York, June
2011.
Redekop, B 2010, '‘Physicians to a dying planet’: Helen Caldicott, Randall Forsberg, and the anti-
nuclear weapons movement of the early 1980s', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
278-91.
Rethemeyer, K 2005, 'Conceptualizing and measuring collaborative networks', Public
Administration Review, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 117-21.
Rethemeyer, K & Hatmaker, D 2008, 'Network management reconsidered: An inquiry into
management of network structures in public sector service provision', Journal of Public
Rittel, H & Webber, M 1973, 'Dilemmas in a general theory of planning', Policy Sciences, vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 155-69.
Roberts, N 1997, 'Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting
direction', Public Administration Review, pp. 124-32.
—— 2000, 'Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution', International Public
Management Review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-19.
—— 2002, The transformative power of dialogue, JAI Press, Boston.
Roberts, N & King, P 1996, Transforming public policy: Dynamics of policy entrepreneurship
and innovation, Jossey-Bass Incorporated Pub.
Romme, A, & Endenburg, G 2006 ‘Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular
design’, Organization Science, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 287-297.
Romzek, B, LeRoux, K & Blackmar, J 2012, 'A preliminary theory of informal accountability
among network organizational actors', Public Administration Review, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 442-
53.
Rooney, D 2005, 'Knowledge, economy, technology and society: The politics of discourse',
Telematics and Informatics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 405-22.
Rooney, D, Paulsen, N, Callan, V, Brabant, M, Gallois, C & Jones, E 2010, 'A new role for place
identity in managing organizational change', Management Communication Quarterly, vol.
24, no. 1, pp. 44-73.
Rorty, R 1982, Consequences of pragmatism: Essays, 1972-1980, University of Minnesota Press.
Saunders, M, Saunders, M, Lewis, P & Thornhill, A 2011, Research methods for business
students, 5/e, Pearson Education India.
Saz-Carranza, A & Ospina, S 2010, 'The behavioral dimension of governing interorganizational
goal-directed networks—Managing the unity-diversity tension', Journal of Public
Scannell, L & Gifford, R 2010, 'Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework',
Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1-10.
Schatzki, T, Knorr-Cetina, K & Von Savigny, E 2001, The practice turn in contemporary theory,
Psychology Press.
Senge, P 2006, The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization, Broadway
Business.
61
Silvia, C & McGuire, M 2010, 'Leading public sector networks: An empirical examination of
integrative leadership behaviors', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 264-77.
Simo, G & Bies, A 2007, 'The role of nonprofits in disaster response: An expanded model of cross‐
sector collaboration', Public Administration Review, vol. 67, no. s1, pp. 125-42.
Smith, A, Grech, M & Horberry, T 2002, 'Application of the Leximancer text analysis system to
human factors research', Unpublished manuscript. The University of Queensland at
Brisbane.
Smith, A & Humphreys, M 2006, 'Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural
language with Leximancer concept mapping', Behavior Research Methods, vol. 38, no. 2, pp.
262-79.
Smith, J 1983, 'Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue',
Educational Researcher, pp. 6-13.
Stabell, C 1978, 'Integrative complexity of information environment perception and information
use. An empirical investigation', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 22,
no. 1, pp. 116-42.
Stone, M, Crosby, B & Bryson, J 2013, Adaptive Governance in Collaborations, Routledge,
London.
Sun, P & Anderson, M 2012, 'Civic capacity: Building on transformational leadership to explain
successful integrative public leadership', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 309-
23.
Temmerman, C, De Rynck, F & Voets, J 2015, 'Opening the black box of metagovernance: the
roles of central government in local multilevel networks–the case of the local job centers in
Flanders', International Review of Public Administration, no. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-16.
Tetlock, P 1983, 'Accountability and complexity of thought', Journal of personality and social
psychology, vol. 45, no. 1, p. 74.
Thompson, N & Campling, J 2003, Promoting equality: Challenging discrimination and
oppression, Palgrave Macmillan Basingstoke.
Thomson, A & Perry, J 2006, 'Collaboration processes: Inside the black box', Public
Administration Review, pp. 20-32.
Tourish, D 2013, The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership, Routledge, London.
Twigger-Ross, C, & Uzzell, D 1996 ‘Place and identity processes’, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, vol. 16, 205-220.
Umble, K, Steffen, D, Porter, J, Miller, D, Hummer-McLaughlin, K, Lowman, A & Zelt, S 2005,
'The National Public Health Leadership Institute: evaluation of a team-based approach to
developing collaborative public health leaders', American Journal of Public Health, vol. 95,
no. 4, pp. 641-4.
Vangen, S & Huxham, C 2003, 'Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of
ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers', British Journal of
Management, vol. 14, no. s1, pp. S61-S76.
Veal, A & Ticehurst, B 2005, Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach, Addison-
Wesley Longman, Incorporated.
Waddock, S 1986, 'Public-private partnership as social product and process', Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy, vol. 8, pp. 273-300.
Walker, R & Hills, P 2012, 'Partnership Characteristics, Network Behavior, and Publicness:
Evidence on the Performance of Sustainable Development Projects', International Public
Management Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 479-99.
62
Wallace, M & Suedfeld, P 1988, 'Leadership performance in crisis: The longevity-complexity
link', International Studies Quarterly, pp. 439-51.
Weber, E & Khademian, A 2008, 'Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative
capacity builders in network settings', Public Administration Review, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 334-
49.
Williams, P 2002, 'The competent boundary spanner', Public Administration, vol. 80, no. 1, pp.
103-24.
Wood, DJ & Gray, B 1991, 'Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration', The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 139-62.
63
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Ethics approval
64
65
Appendix B: Interview questionnaire
Question 1: Describe the conditions that generally lead to successful cross-sector

collaborative initiatives?
Prompt: Are collaborators connected prior to the initiatives?
Prompt: Are collaborators in agreement as to the problem seeking to be addressed?
Question 2: What types of processes and practices do successful cross-sector

collaborative initiatives follow?
Prompt: Are these processes/practice formal or informal?
Prompt: How would you describe the working environment of successful collaborative
initiatives?
Prompt: Are there any practices or processes that you believe are important to the success
of collaborative initiatives?
Question 3: How do the structure and governance of successful cross-sector

collaborative initiatives emerge?
Prompt: Are there any strengths or weaknesses relating to the structure, governance or
membership of successful collaborative initiatives that you think are noteworthy?
Prompt: How do cross-sector collaborations gain legitimacy?
66

01 Whole

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Whole

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Whole

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practitioners’ perspectives on

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Laws (Honours), Macquarie University

Bachelor of Commerce-Marketing (Honours), Macquarie University

Master of International Business with Master of International Relations, Macquarie University

Department of Marketing & Management

Research increasingly focuses on cross-sector collaborations as government and

Integrative leadership refers to a stream of theory that relates to leadership specifically in

1.2. Research problem and questions

Research problem: How do practitioners work on cross-sector collaborations?

Question 1: What do collaborative practitioners identify as important to the success of

Question 2: Which elements of existing cross-sector collaboration frameworks do

1.3. Design of the study

1.4. Organisation of the thesis

2.2. Complex problems (requiring shared-power solutions)

Given the premised of no-one-in-charge shared-power world, power-sharing arrangements

2.3.1. Leading collaborations

2.3.2.1. Integrative leadership: leading cross-sector collaborations

2.4. Practitioner perspectives on cross-sector collaboration

Question 1: What do collaborative practitioners identify as important to the success of

Question 2: Which elements of existing cross-sector collaboration frameworks do

Question 3: What role do practitioners see leadership playing in cross-sector

2.5. Chapter Summary

An interpretivist paradigm draws upon constructionism as it considers knowledge to be

3.3. Research design and methods

Research problem: How do practitioners work on cross-sector collaborations?

First, qualitative research is appropriate for understanding complex interrelationships

3.3.1. Long interview method

3.3.2. Interview structure

3.4. Data collection and analysis

3.4.2. Conduct of interviews

At the commencement of interviews, following the formalities of reading and signing

Table 1: Overview of interviews

3 Colin Management consultant 07 -06-15 47 Phone

5 Trudy Leadership Consultant 30-07-15 54 Face-to-face

7 Trina Academic 10-08-15 40 Video conference

9 Jill Project Manager 21-08-15 68 Face-to-face

12 Taylor Collaboration consultant 03-09-15 48 Phone

Audio recordings of all interviews were collected and transcribed by professional

3.4.3. Data analysis approach

3.5. Chapter summary

4.2. Data and findings

Themes Concepts Summary of findings

People Trust Trust between people is necessary for effective cross-sector

Person Getting collaborators to see each other as people is important to

Table Collaborators often need to meet around a metaphorical “table”.

Conversation “Conversation” around the metaphorical table is a process

Time There is a requisite amount of time to be spent in the

Change Cross-sector collaborations are often driven by people wanting

Process Design Cross-sector collaborations require bespoke development

Leadership Practitioners did not have a common conception of leadership

Collaboration Ability Cross-sector collaborators should have humility, curiosity,

System Cross-sector collaborators should have an appreciation of the

Governance Governance is important to the success of cross-sector collaborations. Governance

On occasion, peoples’ trust might be based on the perceived trustworthiness of an

Melanie There's the relationships between the people at the table…

Trudy [Cross-sector collaborations occur because of] an understanding that something

Christine I think [collaborative leadership] speaks to the nature of whole-system

Keith [Important to successful collaborative initiatives] is the ability to articulate the