Ir7Nf7iEe/ 0lSd0S 0e &t76alS5. 0O/ 3 CS0TI4EA2 T6KY5E9 H/ 5 J6OuLneD 2E0R04COLLABORATION
An Inductive Model of Collaboration
From the Stakeholder’s Perspective
KENNETH D. BUTTERFIELD
RICHARD
REED
Washington State University, Pullman
DAVID
J.
LEMAK
Washington State University, Tri-Cities
This work emerged from funded research examining collaboration among stakeholder organizations present at three U.S. nuclear weapons complex sites. The authors examine issues such as how and why stakeholder groups form collaborative
alliances when dealing with the target organization, what leaders of stakeholder
organizations actually think about when collaborating to deal with the target organization, and what outcomes result from the collaboration process. Drawing on
stakeholder theory and research in interorganizational collaboration, the authors
used an inductive, interview-based methodology to build a model of collaboration
among nonprofit stakeholder groups. The model contributes to the descriptive
stream of stakeholder theory and, in turn, has implications for the instrumental
stream. The model also offers implications for future researchers, leaders of
stakeholder alliances, and leaders of target organizations.
Keywords: stakeholder; qualitative methods; collaboration; descriptive stakeholder theory; instrumental stakeholder theory; nuclear weapons
complex; U.S. Department of Energy
As summarized by Donaldson and Preston (1995), there are three primary
streams of research within the stakeholder tradition: instrumental, normative, and descriptive. Instrumental stakeholder research focuses on how
firms pursue their interests through managing relationships with stakeholder groups. Normative stakeholder theory focuses on the moral obligations of managers with regard to their stakeholders. Descriptive stakeholder theory attempts to describe the actual behavior of managers, firms,
and stakeholders. Of these, the descriptive stream is the least developed
BUSINESS & SOCIETY, Vol. 43 No. 2, June 2004 162-195 DOI:
10.1177/0007650304265956 © 2004 Sage Publications 162
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 163
(Jones & Wicks, 1999), although important contributions have been made
over the past decade (e.g., Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999; Frooman,
1999; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Scott & Jehn, 2003).
We believe that a promising avenue for advancing knowledge in the
descriptive realm is to learn more about stakeholder-stakeholder and
stakeholder-firm relationships from the stakeholder’s point of view. Despite
scholarly calls for research that takes the stakeholder’s perspective (e.g.,
Frooman, 1999), few stakeholder-oriented studies have been conducted.
Notable exceptions include Scott and Jehn’s (2003) discussion of factors
that influence stakeholders’ perceptions of the object of their collaboration (referred to here as the target organization) and Frooman’s (1999)
treatment of strategies that stakeholders can use to influence the target
organization. Many important descriptive questions remain largely unanswered; for example, how and why do stakeholder groups form collaborative alliances when dealing with the target organization? What do leaders
of stakeholder organizations actually think about when collaborating to
deal with the target organization? What are the outcomes of collaborative
alliances? Although previous literature offers guidance in answering such
questions, this study offers additional insight by actually asking the leaders of actively collaborating stakeholder groups.
Because this topic remains largely uncharted territory, we used an
inductive, qualitative interview methodology. A qualitative approach is
considered appropriate when empirical research in an area is at an early
stage and when the phenomenon in question is perceptual and complex in
nature (e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 1994). To learn more about stakeholder
collaboration from the stakeholder’s point of view, we grounded the study
in the experiences and perceptions of the formal leaders of stakeholder
groups at separate locations within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
We begin with a review of relevant research from two literatures that
provide the theoretical framework for our study—stakeholder theory and
interorganizational collaboration. We then review our qualitative methodology, which includes a brief description of the context for our study—the
U.S. nuclear weapons complex. We then present the descriptive model of
stakeholder collaboration that emerged from our analysis. We conclude
with implications for future research and a discussion of how this descriptive model contributes instrumental insights. We believe that descriptive
AUTHORS’NOTE: This research was supported in part bya grant from the National Institute for Environmental Renewal. We wish to thank our interviewees for making their time
freely available. We thank Jerry Goodstein (Washington State University), Linda Klebe
Trevino (Pennsylvania State University), and our anonymous reviewers for their comments
and suggestions.We also thank Priscilla Cook, Janet Heter, and Mark Yockey ofWashington
State University for their help in the tasks of interview transcription and data organization.
164 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
work is important in its own right, but it can also contribute to the other
streams of stakeholder theory, particularly the instrumental stream. This is
important in light of the ongoing debate regarding the usefulness of
descriptive research and theory (e.g., Jones & Wicks, 1999; Trevino &
Weaver, 1999).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Stakeholder Theory
We adopt Freeman’s (1984) definition of stakeholders as groups or
individuals who can affect or be affected by the actions of anorganization.
In the instance of the nuclear weapons complex, stakeholders include a
variety of government and other nonprofit organizations that exist within
the communities surrounding each site. We focus on collaborative relationships among these nonprofit stakeholder organizations, which formed
alliances to deal with the target organization, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE).
As indicated above, the main thrust of work in stakeholder theory has
been instrumental or strategic in nature. This stream generally employs
means-ends reasoning, focusing on the impact of stakeholders on the firm
and how relationships with stakeholder groups can be managed
(Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jones & Wicks, 1999). For example, Harrison and St. John (1996) provided a model for firms to partner with stakeholders according to their strategic importance to the firm. Rowley (1997)
argued that network density allows stakeholders to “constrain the organization’s actions” and that the centrality of an organization in a network
allows it to “resist stakeholder pressures.” The overall conclusion of this
body of work is that managing stakeholder interests is in the best interest
of the firm and can improve the firm’s bottom line (e.g., Berman, Wicks,
Kotha, & Jones, 1999).
A second thrust in the stakeholder literature has been normative in
nature. Normative stakeholder theorists contend that firms should consider stakeholder interests not only for instrumental or strategic purposes
or because the stakeholder is perceived to possess power, legitimacy, or an
urgent claim (Mitchell et al., 1997) but also out of moral obligation. Common themes in this literature reflect normative philosophy (e.g.,
deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics), including the Kantian notion
that managers should treat stakeholders’ interests as having intrinsic
value, that managers should weigh the relative importance of obligations
to shareholders with those of other stakeholder groups (Jones & Wicks,
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 165
1999), and that managers should attempt to respond to stakeholder interests “within a mutually supportive framework” (Donaldson & Preston,
1995, p. 87). Although normative theory has usefully guided discussions
of when and why managers should pay attention to stakeholder interests,
empirical evidence has generally failed to support the notion that firms
work with stakeholders for normative reasons (e.g., Agle et al., 1999;
Berman et al., 1999; see Welcomer, Cochran, Rands, & Haggerty, 2003,
for an exception).
A third stream of literature is descriptive in nature. Descriptive stakeholder theory attempts to describe the actual behavior of managers, firms,
and stakeholders. The descriptive stream embraces research from a variety of paradigms, including functionalist, interpretive, and critical perspectives (e.g., Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Calton & Payne, 2003) and
allows for multiple perspectives, including both the target organization
and stakeholders’ point of view. This stream also includes a wide variety
of methodologies (e.g., case studies and ethnographies) that have
advanced our understanding of firm-stakeholder behavior, the relative
importance of various behavioral factors, and the structures and processes
underlying firm-stakeholder relationships, usually from the firm’s point
of view (e.g., Heugens, Van Den Bosch, & Van Riel, 2002). Much of the
research within this stream focuses on answering basic questions (e.g.,
what, when, how, and why) regarding stakeholder and target-firm behavior that the instrumental and normative streams leave largely unanswered.
An example is Mitchellet al.’s (1997) theoretical work, in which they contend that managers will respond to stakeholders who have power, legitimacy, and an urgency of claims. In subsequent empirical work, Agle et al.
(1999) found that, for managers, shareholder, customer, and community,
salience is related to their power, legitimacy, and urgency of claim;
employee salience is derived from power and legitimacy; and government
salience comes from power and urgency.
Although some research is entirely descriptive, it should be noted that
the descriptive, instrumental, and normative streams are not always
clearly delineated. As suggested by Jones and Wicks (1999), areas of
overlap exist across the various streams. An example is Driscoll and
Crombie’s (2001) descriptive case analysis, which has instrumental and
normative implications for stakeholders and target firms.
Interorganizational Collaboration
Interorganizational collaboration is present when “a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process,
using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide to act on issues
166 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
related to that domain” (Wood & Gray, 1991, p. 146). According to Gray
and Wood (1991), collaboration refers to process, whereas collaborative
alliances are the forms. Community, government, and business organizations are increasingly forming collaborative alliances to tackle society’s
most complex social problems (Hardy & Phillips, 1998; Trist, 1983). By
combining resources and expertise, organizations enhance their ability to
achieve outcomes that would otherwise be impossible for them to achieve
alone (Huxham, 1996). The body of research that has examined these
interorganizational collaborations is large; it has addressed for-profit strategic alliances and joint ventures (e.g., Das & Teng, 2000; Doz, 1996;
Hamel, 1991), alliances between for-profit and nonprofit organizations
(e.g., Huxham & Vangen, 1996; Welcomer et al., 2003), between nonprofits (e.g., Galaskiewicz & Shatin, 1981), and between government
agencies and nonprofits (e.g., Roberts & Bradley, 1991).
According to Gray and Wood (1991), there are “three broad issues
essential to understanding collaborative alliances: (a) the preconditions
that make a collaboration possible and that motivate stakeholders to participate, (b) the process through which collaboration occurs, and (c) the
outcomes of the collaboration” (p. 13). Preconditions to collaboration are
factors that facilitate, motivate, or otherwise make collaborative alliances
possible (Gray & Wood, 1991). These include a perceived crisis (Gray,
1985), a common interest (Westley & Vredenburg, 1991), high stakes and
high interdependence (Logsdon, 1991), institutional pressures and the
need for legitimacy (Sharfman, Gray, & Yan, 1991), high prestige and a
densely populated social network (Stuart, 1998), a desire to protect common resources (Golich, 1991), access to resources, and the generation of
collective benefits, such as power (e.g., Gray & Wood, 1991).
Researchers have also identified a range of factors that facilitate the
collaboration process, including having the right partners, partner interdependence, coincidence of values, having a skilled convenor, positive
beliefs about expected outcomes, how decision making is organized,
behavioral learning, the size and configuration of the collaboration, the
type and duration of interaction, and fit with the environment (e.g.,
Chung, Singh, & Lee, 2000; Connor, Kadel-Taras, & Vinokur-Kaplan,
1999; Doz, 1996; Gray, 1985; Pasquero, 1991; Roberts & Bradley, 1991;
Sharfman et al., 1991; Wood & Gray, 1991). Many of these factors that
facilitate process also contribute to the successful outcome of collaborations, as do enduring links, shared understanding, longevity of bridging
members, alignment with the institutional environment, and structure
(Wood & Gray, 1991).
Successful outcomes include improved financial returns, finding solutions to problems, learning from partners, distributed risks, a greater level
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 167
of collective understanding, greater efficiency, and organizational survival (e.g., Gray & Wood, 1991; Hamel, 1991; Koh & Venkatraman,
1991; Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman, 1996). As described below, these
three issues—preconditions, process, and outcomes—formed the basis
for our interview protocol and helped shape the descriptive model.
METHOD
Research Context: The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex
Because this research was funded bythe National Institute for Environmental Renewal, we conducted it in the context of the cleanup of the U.S.
nuclear weapons complex. Although the production ofnew nuclear weapons was halted after the end of the Cold War, the complex remains in our
midst in the form of historically significant sites like Los Alamos, New
Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington; and some lesser
known sites like Fernald, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri; Mound, Ohio; and
Rocky Flats, Colorado. At these sites and others, “a legacy remains in the
form of vast quantities of nuclear and other types of hazardous waste . . . a
problem created and, for the most part, ignored over the past fifty years”
(U.S. Congress Budget Office, 1994, pp. ix-xv). The good news is that the
problems are no longer being ignored. The mission for the nuclear weapons complex has shifted from weapons production to environmental
cleanup and the transfer of land back to the private sector.
That shift in mission, which occurred in the early 1990s, was as dramatic as it was sudden for the DOE and its prime contractors that manage
the separate sites that make up the complex. Concentrating on production
output and maintaining secrecy was no longer the main order of the day.
Cleanup demanded a different set of skills, including gaining public
involvement in the process. Reed, Lemak, and Hesser (1997) concluded
that there was “strong evidence” to show that the nuclear weapons complex, which had originally been operated under a closed, rational system,
had moved to an open system of operation, but what was really needed to
overcome the management and social issues raised by the new mission
was natural decision making. Today, there is similarly strong evidence to
show that the DOE has moved toward that open, natural system and is
thus involving the communities that surround the individual sites in the
decision-making processes on cleanup and land transfer. To help minimize costs by making the cleanup process efficient, the DOE has encouraged the various groups that make up these communities to try and speak
with a unified voice.
168 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
Sites where there is extensive contamination are typically covered by
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (i.e., CERCLA, otherwise known as the Superfund Act), which
requires that stakeholders have a chance to comment on the cleanup process. Once cleaned, government agencies have first call on the land and
assets at each site. Absent any such calls, then it is required that the land
and assets are transferred back to the private sector. As and when such a
transfer occurs, stakeholders get the chance for further input. Also,
because the decommissioning and closure of sites can create unemployment in communities, the DOE has encouraged the formation of community reuse organizations (CROs) to identify opportunities for which land
and assets can be used. Although that encouragement includes funding,
CROs neither receive direction from nor report to the DOE; they can thus
be considered quasiautonomous nongovernment organizations. At a few
sites, the CROs were disbanded, but the majority have remained active
and thus provided a starting point for us to identify the stakeholders
involved in collaborations.
Sample and Procedure
We collected data from three sites using an inductive, structured interview approach (Berg, 1989) and analyzed it using a content analysis procedure (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles&Huberman, 1984; Strauss &
Corbin, 1994). Data from agreater number ofsites would have been desirable, but the costs of collection were prohibitive. Access to data was also
restricted at sites that were at the wrong stage in the cleanup process.
Many sites were too early in the process and were still struggling with
characterization (i.e., the assessment of the extent and type of contamination), and one site, at Pinellas, Florida, had already been cleaned and
decommissioned. Additionally, some sites lacked collaborative alliances
because they had either not been formed or they had formed and failed. In
the former case, obviously,itwouldbeimpossibletostudy collaborations.
In the latter case, however, it would have been useful to study why collaborations failed, and we elected to use resources pursuing that avenue of
inquiry at one site, but the study had to be abandoned because too many of
the original actors had left and could not be traced. It should therefore be
noted that our results are derived purely from collaborations that were
successful in forming and operating.
The three sites that were selected are geographically dispersed—one in
the East, one in the West, and one in the middleof the 48contiguous states.
The typical scenario at these sites was that collaboration clearly existed,
but some members had lost interest in the asset-transfer decisions and had
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 169
dropped out, which left the remainder in an enduring collaborative relationship. Our three-site sample included collaborations among four, five,
and six groups. The 15formal leaders of these sovereign groups were contacted and asked if they would be willing to participate in the research
project. All agreed to participate.
The next step involved interviewing them. Each interviewee was asked
to fill out a brief questionnaire (age, gender, etc.) and was then interviewed using a standardized interview protocol. The protocol (see appendix) was guided by Gray and Wood’s (1991) notions of preconditions,
process, and outcomes and was designed to tap broad, general issues that
allowed interviewees spontaneously to discuss topics that were important
to them. However, if the interviewee mentioned something that was
judged to be important, the interviewer would ask follow-up questions.
Each interviewee was assured that the information gathered would be
handled in a strictly confidential manner. Confidentiality was considered
critical because of the sensitive nature of the topic and because of the
importance of obtaining candid, honest information. Each interviewee
granted permission to audiotape the interviews. The tapes were later transcribed. Thirteen of the interviews were conducted face-to-face. Because
of scheduling limitations, the remaining two were conducted via telephone. We noted no systematic difference between the interviews conducted by phone and those conducted in person. Twelve of the interviewees were male and 3 were female. The mean profile was 53.3 years of age,
1.2 years of graduate-level education, and 6.9 years with their current
organization, for which they worked an average of 39.2 hours per week.
Five reported that their work with their organization was voluntary
(unpaid), whereas 10 received financial compensation for their work. The
number of people employed by or were volunteers of these organizations
ranged from 3 (a coalition of three heads of local government) to 700 (the
governing body of a city). The mean was 112.9 employees. Ten of the interviewees represented public sector groups, such as county commissioner or
city mayor, 3 were managers of CROs, and 2 interviewees represented private sector groups (e.g., a private safety and health organization).
Analysis
The transcribed interview data were analyzed using a three-step content analysis procedure (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman,
1984; Strauss & Corbin, 1994). In the first or unitizing step, a member of
the research team and a research assistant broke down all of the data into
“thought units” (e.g., Gioia & Sims, 1986). A thought unit can be a single
word, a phrase, a complete sentence, a short paragraph, or even parts of
170 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
separate sentencesaslong asa complete and unique thought orideaiscaptured. Each thought unit was printed onaseparate index card along with as
much of the original interview context as would fit on the card. The cards
were also coded with an identifying number. Every comment made by
each of the 15 interviewees was subjected to this unitizing process. Once
all of the data were unitized, an initial screening was done to remove all of
the thought units that were irrelevantto the research topic (e.g., discussion
of the interviewee’s personal life). Six-hundred and thirteen thought units
were thus excluded from the analysis.
In the second, or so-called categorizing step, the same researcher and
research assistant organized all of the 1,987 remaining thought units into
emergent categories. To the extent possible, the data were allowed to
“speak for themselves” (Butterfield, Treviño, & Ball, 1996, p. 1483) so
that the categories emerged from the data. The goal was to minimize differences among thought units within a category while maximizing differences across categories.
To ensure reliability of the categorization process, the other two members of the research team independently sorted a sample of the cards into
the emergent categories. Remaining consistent with similar analyses (e.g.,
Butterfield et al., 1996), the sample was created by randomly selecting a
minimum of 20% of the cards from each category; rounding up produced
a sample of 22.7% of the cards. Interrater agreement was calculated using
the relatively conservative P statistic (e.g., Light, 1971). Initial agreement
was .78, with at least two of the three raters agreeing 94.9% of the time. In
accordance with standard qualitative-data analysis techniques (e.g.,
Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1984; Strauss & Corbin,
1994), the research team then discussed areas of disagreement, negotiated
changes (e.g., combining or dividing categories, altering category names
as appropriate), and recategorized the cards. Final interrater agreement
was .90, with at least two of the raters agreeing 95.3% of the time.
In the third, or classifying step, categories were grouped into emergent
themes. This process was similar to that used in the categorizing step, but
the goal wastogroup categories into metacategories. As in previous steps,
the process was intersubjective and involved negotiation, reformulation,
and reality checks to ensure that the themes fit the data. For example, the
data were originally grouped into eight themes, but reformulation reduced
that number to six.
The themes were then organized into an overall model by all three
researchers. To enhance the validity of this model, we omitted categories
that were generated by comments from interviewees at just one or two
sites. Although 101 categories were initially identified in our analysis,
only the 51 categories (representing 85.7% of the data) that were common
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 171
to all three collaborative alliances were used to create the model. We then
sent the model to 11 of the original 15 interviewees (the other 4 were
unavailable at the time) and solicited their feedback on the model. This
provided them with the opportunity to tell us if they thought anything was
wrong with the model, such as the content or organization of the themes,
factors that were included that should not be, or factors that were missing.
The feedback we received ranged from having “nothing to add” to the
observation that the model “comprehensively captured the factors and
issues.” Some interviewees stressed that they thought a particular part of
the model was important, but none wanted to change it. This process
further supports the validity of the model.
Strengths and Limitations of the Methods
Scholars have debated the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative
methodologies that rely on perceptual and retrospective accounts (e.g.,
Strauss & Corbin, 1994). For example, one might argue that imperfect
recall can compromise the accuracy of interviewees’ accounts, and our
findings may not correspond to the perceptions of relatively objective
observers. However, because our goal is to obtain a better understanding
of stakeholder alliances from the stakeholders’ perspective, we are as
interested in learning about leaders’ perceptions as we are in learning
about the reality of stakeholder alliances. Thus, leaders’perceptions are of
central interest to this research.
Another limitation concerns the possibility that certain questionsinour
interview protocol may have primed interviewee responses. However, as
discussed below, the detailed responses to the questions suggest much
more than simple priming. For instance, Question 3, regarding roles,
turned out to be largely redundant because a large proportion of the comments on roles occurred in response to Question 1. For Question 9, interviewees discussed power, but not legitimacy, thus suggesting that they
were not primed in their responses; additionally, the question frames the
issue of power as an outcome, but interviewees also discussed it as a
motivator.
We believe that our use of a qualitative research methodology is an
important contribution of this study. Qualitative methods are particularly
appropriate when exploring uncharted territory because rich and relatively unconstrained data can be conveyed from the interviewees to the
researchers. Qualitative techniques are also appropriate when the phenomenon being studied carries a great deal of emotional baggage,as in the
case of the nuclear weapons complex, where health, safety, and economic
survival are at stake (e.g., Weart, 1988). We attempted to ensure rigor by
172 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
using a systematic approach that involved ensuring anonymity on the part
of interviewees, using a standardized interview protocol, employing multiple researchers to analyze the data, calculating interrater agreement,
conducting reality checks, negotiating differences among the researchers,
and employing multiple validity checks (e.g., Glaser & Strauss, 1967;
Miles & Huberman, 1984; Strauss & Corbin, 1994).
FINDINGS
Six major themes emerged from the data: motivating factors, formation factors, formation moderators, operating factors, outcomes, and outcome moderators. Table 1 includes the themes, categories, examples of
each category, frequencies (F, the number of times each category
appeared in the data), and the percentage of interviewees appearing in
each category. The emergent descriptive model of collaboration from the
stakeholders’perspective is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 lists each individual category within the two moderator themes because many of these
moderators are new to the literature.
The following discussion follows Gray and Wood’s (1991) three-factor model of collaboration—preconditions, process, and outcomes—but
is further organized into the six themes shown in Table 1 and illustrated in
Figure 1. We encourage the reader to reference the table and figure to
facilitate understanding. In the following discussion, we focus mainly on
the categories that received the highest frequencies and those that are relatively new tothe literature.Weappealtothe interorganizational collaboration literature to guide our discussion and to highlight findings that
corroborate or extend current knowledge.
Motivating Factors
The first theme includes factors that motivated the stakeholder groups
to come together and collaborate. Findings in this category corroborate
and extend what Gray and Wood (1991) referred to as “preconditions” of
collaboration—factors that facilitate, motivate, or otherwise make stakeholder alliances possible.
The largest set of categories refers to collective factors, which are
wholly consistent with the assumption of goal commonality or complementarity that permeates the collaboration literature. The most frequently
mentioned category was community-focused goals (Category 1), and
statements focused on such issues as community improvement, including
(text continues on page 178)
173
174
175
176
177
178 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
Moderators
Moderators
Trust
Cognitive barriers
Leadership
Resistance
Knowledge/intelligence
Personal characteristics
Group size
Personal characteristics
Physical proximity
Power/politics
Leadership
Target-organization
responsiveness
Presenting a unified front
Financial barriers
Common goals/interests
Conflict Bureaucracy
Preconditions
Process
Outcomes
Figure 1. Descriptive Model of Collaboration From the Stakeholder’s Perspective
safety and health concerns; quality of life issues; and environmental
stewardship. For example,
What can we do that’s best for the people in our cities? In our case [the most
significant issue] happens to be water. That overwhelms everything else,
because water in the West is such a commodity.
Other collective motives were shared economic and financial interests
(Category 2), a common threat or enemy, a shared vision or a mutual
belief in the importance of common goals (Category 3), and legal concerns or mandates (Category 7). All correspond to the recognized precondition of a common interest (e.g., Westley & Vredenburg, 1991).
Self-interested goals represented another set of motivating factors
(Category 4) that correspond to existing literature; theorists have noted
that collaboration can be a vehicle for pursuing self-interested goals such
as increasing power (e.g., Huxham, 1996). We were interested to observe
that, from the leaders’ point of view, many self-interested goals overlapped with collective interests (e.g., social interests, economic interests,
a perceived threat or enemy, legal issues, etc.). This finding sheds light on
Huxham’s (2000) observation that group leaders often experience a tension between pursuing their own organization’s needs and attempting to
collaborate with partner organizations. In our interviews, we heard almost
nothing about this tension, suggesting that a high degree of goal congruence may reduce or eliminate the problem.
The interviewees also revealed a need to act on feelings of duty and
responsibility (Category 5). Duty and responsibility as a motivating factor
is implicit within the collaboration literature, but as far as we have been
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 179
able to ascertain, this work provides the first empirical verification of that
motive. For example,
This is something that affects this many people, millions, not just the population inour cities. . . . If there are five million people or three million people
that are affected by what we do out there, that’s worth listening to.
A third motivating factor was power (i.e., feeling the need for help,
unity, and achieving strength in numbers [Category 6}). Power is a dominant theme in the collaboration literature (e.g., Gray & Wood, 1991), and
many statements in this category demonstrated that power was of central
interest. Many interviewees indicated that collaboration can create powerbased synergies—together they will have more power than the sum of the
power of each individual.
For instance,
[Collaboration] has drawn the coalition members closer together,in that we
realize that working together, we have a stronger alliance than working
individually.
Because these formal leaders recognized the importance of their power
relative to the DOE, it suggests rationality and sophistication in their
thinking (i.e., collaborate to increase power).
We were somewhat surprised that some of the motivating factors suggested by previous work were not emphasized or, in some cases, not even
mentioned. These include a need for legitimacy (Sharfman et al., 1991), a
desire for prestige (Stuart, 1998), information exchange or learning (Eden
& Huxham, 2001), and resource dependency (e.g., Logsdon, 1991).
Although the DOE did provide some resources in the form of grants,
access to that money did not emerge as a motivating factor. The reason for
the nonfinding on legitimacy may be that legitimacy was not important to
them. This conclusion, we believe, is unlikely. Interviewees were aware
that the DOE preferred the thought of dealing with one unified group of
representatives for the local community rather than numerous groups with
divergent views. Surprisingly, interviewees did not stress thatasanimportant motivator. One possibility is that the interviewees took their legitimacy for granted; many interviewees were from public sector organizations and may have perceived themselves as high in legitimacy. Another
possibility is that the interviewees perceived legitimacy as being subsumed within power, which they viewed as being important.
180 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
Formation Factors
Researchers have also illuminated processes that occur early inthe collaborative process, including identifying key players and resources and
establishing ground rules (e.g., Gray, 1996). Others have identified factors that facilitate the formation of an alliance or make it possible (Gray &
Wood, 1991). These include a densely populated social network (Stuart,
1998), high stakes, and high interdependence (Logsdon, 1991).
Some of our findings at the formation stage correspond closely with
this existing research. For instance, Categories 8, 9, and 10 indicate that
these leaders emphasized the importance of the roles played by groups, or
the individuals representing those groups, and they worked to ensure that
each player assumed an appropriate role. For example,
The DOE’s responsibility is to clean it up. The EPA’s responsibility is to
oversee and make sure that it gets cleaned up properly. . . . [Our] function is
to be engaged in the selection of a remedy process.
As isclear from the above, the DOE had its own roleasthe organization
responsible for cleanup, but it also had something of a role in providing
resources (Category 12). Resources thus turned out to be important in formation but, as already pointed out, they were not relevant as a motive for
collaboration. Further related to the idea of roles are relationships, partnerships, and network connections (Category 11), or the lack of them
(Category 16).
Three categories readily combined into what might be described as situational learning. They include learning from the practices and methods
of other stakeholder alliances (Category 13), recognizing the importance
of growth (Category 14), and learning how to divide up the labor (Category 15). For example, on learning from others, it was stated that
you just adopt somebody else’s process and have faith in it.
Because this learning occurred during formation, it does not fit the
usual view of organization learning (e.g., Argyris & Schon, 1978). Rather
than learning to adapt through cultural change, it is, more accurately, a
realizationofthe needtolearn about howtoorganize and todo soquickly.
Moderators of the Formation Process
Our third theme pertains to moderators of the formation process—factors that influence the relationship between motivating factors and forma-
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 181
tion factors. Previous theory has identified several factors that may be
applicable at this stage, including having the right partners, having a coincidence in values, and having a skilled convenor (e.g., Gray, 1989).
Three of the four categories in this theme deal with personal traits and/
or interpersonal issues: personal characteristics (Category 17), power or
politics (Category 19), and leadership (Category 20). On the issue of personal characteristics, which was by far the largest of these categories, one
interviewee stated the following:
There’s a staffer . . . who single-handedly destroyed the city’s relationship
with the congressman’s office, the senator’s office, the governor’s office,
the DOE. Single handedly! That incredible personality, that is so destructive, really can harm a process such as this.
Such personality issues were obviously between the alliances and individuals in other organizations, but personality issues among communitygroup leaders within the collaborative alliance could also facilitate or
inhibit the formation process. Personality issues remained separate to the
inevitable politics. With the exception of one comment that referred to
internal power and politics, Category 19 reflects relationships between
the alliances and other organizations, of which there was a wide range.
Power as a moderator to formation is therefore different from power as a
motivator for collaborating (i.e., power to deal with the DOE). The physical proximity (Category 18) of collaborating groups was also seen as
affecting formation. This findingis similar to Gray’s (1985) argument that
proximity would affect collaboration. The interviewees’ perception of
leadership as affecting the probability of successful formation is not surprising, but we were surprised to find that the interviewees viewed other
influences, such as personalities and power, as more important.
Operating Factors
The fourth theme pertained to operating factors. Theorists and
researchers have identified numerous leadership behaviors that are applicable atthis stage. These include using power to influence others, empowering, supporting and facilitating, motivating, stimulating creativity, and
using good communication skills (Bryson & Crosby, 1992; Chrislip &
Larson, 1994; Huxham & Vangen, 2000). Other relevant issues found in
the collaboration literature include behavioral learning, implementing the
alliance’s plan, involving consultants and mediators, dealing with constituencies, building external support, establishing structures, and ensuring
member compliance (e.g., Doz, 1996; Gray, 1989, 1996). Operating fac-
182 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
tors accounted for more than a quarter of all usable observations in our
data. For purposes of discussion, we split the categories into two groups,
behavioral learning and organizing, which are consistent with previous
literature.
Doz (1996) found that behavioral learning includes learning about the
joint environment; learning about partner goals, motives, and skills; and
learning to cooperate and compromise. In our findings, the most prevalent
behavioral-learning category was cooperation and working together
(Category 21). Consistent with previous collaboration theory (e.g.,
Bryson & Crosby, 1992; Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Gray, 1989), every
interviewee saw cooperation as important. One-hundred and eleven
thought units were placed in this category, including statements about the
importance of collaboration, forming close partnerships, facilitation, consensus building, support, coordination, agreement, teamwork, and having
shared understandings among members. As expressed by one
interviewee,
How canwework togethertomake...some sortofwin-win situation out of
this?
Another behavioral-learning category emphasized the importance of
communication (Category 22), which included listening to others, making expectations clear, keeping key decision makers informed, maintaining a dialog among groups and with the DOE, and trying to understand
others’ perspectives. For example,
More than ever, I think it’s extremely important for us to be listening to the
other groups and the citizens.
The data also reinforced the importance of working at maintaining
relationships and networks (Category 25), the importance of inclusiveness, and the importance of participation (Category 26), all of which, if
they are to be maintained, necessitate getting input from a variety of
sources, improving conflict handling skills, and developing the ability to
compromise (Category 29); developing commitment and perseverance in
the form of hard work, dedication, and following through on promises
(Category 30); being honest with each other (Category 33); and the developing the ability to manage in an environment characterized by diverse
backgrounds, interests, and opinions (Category 34).
The organizational-process factors revolved around basic management issues, such as planning and obtaining information, rather than more
sophisticated problems, such as seeking alignment with the institutional
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 183
environment. The most common organizational-process factor described
planning activities (Category 23), including asking key questions about
future direction and establishing a vision, goals, and objectives, notions
similar to Gray’s (1985) notions of problem setting and direction setting.
One interviewee expressed the following:
We’re starting to develop a common vision . . . starting from the beginning ... work through what it is that you want to do. Explore, take the time,
go through the painful process of trying to figure out what it is that your organization wants to be.
Planning activities also included identifying uses for the weaponscomplex land and facilities (Category 27) and considering risk and liability (Category 31). Interviewees also mentioned the importance of gathering and disseminating accurate and valid information (Category 24). The
interviews revealed numerous ways of coping with the need for information and new ideas, many of which were satisfied by conducting research
and attending conferences. Interviewees also stressed the importance of
exchanging information with other members. For example,
Occasionally, I learn things about [another stakeholder alliance] from people that spot it and send it to me, or ask me about it and I catch up on it. Information is really, really important.
Continuing in that same vein, consultants and other outside experts
were brought in to provide information to assist in decision making (Category 28). This finding is consistent with previous research (e.g., Huxham,
2000) and shows a recognition of limitations and a willingness to appeal
to outside experts for advice on a variety of issues, including dealing with
the DOE, working with others, budgeting, fund-raising, and more. The
final organizational-process factor concerns managing politics and politicians in the decision-making process (Category 32) and included the
importance of “getting local politicians on board” to help the groups
pursue their common goals.
Overall, we found significant correspondence between the issues predicted by existing literature and those discussed by these leaders. The data
also extend previous collaboration theory by demonstrating the relative
importance of these factors to these leaders (e.g., cooperation and working together was most important, whereas managing politics was less
important) and by surfacing categories not emphasized in previous literature, including gathering and disseminating information, pursuing full
participation of all interested parties, considering risk and liability, dealing with others in an honest manner at all times, and managing diversity.
184 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
Outcomes
Previous collaboration research has identified outcomes that are relevant to stakeholder alliances, such as problem solving, learning from partners, distributed risks, achieving collaborative advantage, a greater level
of collective understanding, generating social capital, shifts in the power
distribution, efficiency, and organizational survival (e.g., Gray, 2000;
Gray &Wood, 1991; Hamel, 1991; Huxham, 1996; Mowery etal., 1996).
We found the most support for successful problem solving, learning, and
collaborative advantage. Predictably, some outcomes closely matched the
motivations to collaborate, but others that were generally seen as worthwhile outcomes emerged during the process of collaboration.
The largest outcome category contained 116 statements regarding the
belief that the alliances had been successful (Category 35), although there
were some reservations (Category 38). Many of the claims of success
were nonspecific, but some saw success in terms of getting the DOE to act
on recommendations for site cleanup. Others simply defined success in
terms of tasks and whether goals had been achieved. For instance,
For the most part, we’re being successful. We’ve already created about
thirty businesses and 350 jobs.
Outcomes that were not derived from the original goals also emerged.
Some saw a successful outcome as maintaining a community dialogue,
and some defined it in terms of creating a positive public opinion:
The public seems happy, satisfied with the property transfer.
Similarly, learning, which was not one of the original motivations for
collaboration, was also mentioned as an outcome. Most learning was
derived from sharing information but, as the following statement shows,
some skills were also learned:
They [a collaborating partner] are very good at lobbying. . . . To tell you the
truth, we’ve learned a lot from them.
Another outcome was changed relationships (Category 36), which is
consistent with previous literature (e.g., Gray, 2000; Kressel, Pruitt, &
Associates, 1989). Many interviewees referred to changed relationships
between individuals, both within and among groups, and to changes
among groups as a whole. For example, one changed-relationship outcome obviously reflects behavioral learning:
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 185
Maturing is probably a good word. As the groups got more experience in
working together and had successes working together, it was easier to move
forward with other things.
The final outcome, and one of the original motivations for collaboration, was power (Category 37). Power was seen in terms of the ability of
the community to speak with one voice to influence the DOE’s actions on
cleanup. This is consistent with Gray’s (2000) treatment of shifts in power
distribution as an outcome of collaboration. For instance,
We have a couple of big sticks that we can now use with the DOE. [Collaboration] gives us more bargaining power.
Moderators of Outcomes
Previous research has identified factors that facilitate the achievement
of collaborative outcomes, including leadership, interdependence, a coincidence of values, trust, positive beliefs about expected outcomes, how
decision making is organized, the size and configuration of the collaboration, the type and duration of interaction, and fit with the environment
(e.g., Chung etal, 2000; Connor etal., 1999; Gray, 1989; Pasquero, 1991;
Roberts & Bradley, 1991; Sharfman etal., 1991; Wood & Gray, 1991). We
identified 13 moderators of the relationship between operating factors and
outcomes, some of which correspond with previous literature. The most
commonly mentioned moderator dealt with the responsiveness of the target organization (Category 39). Many interviewees indicated that goals
were more likely to be achieved when the DOE was responsive to alliance
needs and interests but that some actions, such as inconsistent policies,
maintaining too much psychological distance, or being too controlling,
interfered with the ability to achieve goals. For example,
[The DOE] is, at times, very difficult to work with. Even today there are
problems.
[The DOE] won’t listen. It’s a constant battle to say “you’ve got to listen to
local governments.”
Bureaucracy (Category 43) also inhibited successful outcomes. This category is interesting because it includes not only the problems that arose
between the alliances and government agencies that were not partners but
also problems that arose between the alliance and the bureaucracies of the
sovereign organizations that were collaborating. Eden and Huxham
(2001) observed a similar phenomenon among public organizations and
nonprofit groups.
186 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
Another moderator that was outside leaders’ control was resistance
(Category 44) by other organizations or individuals in other organizations
who, for unknown reasons, put up roadblocks. Similarly, the interviewees
viewed conflict (Category 49), not only with the DOE but also with other
organizations that were not part of the collaboration, as having a negative
effect on outcomes.
All other moderators were internal to the alliance—for instance, the
second most commonly cited moderator was having or not having and/or
presenting a unified front (Category 40). Once more, power issues were
seen as being important; a large, strong, unified voice that includes as
many interested groups as possible facilitates the achievement of goals.
For example,
Whenwetalked tothem, wewere representing all these groups,sothey had to
talk to us. . . . We came from one angle—one angle, one voice.
Force becomes the key ingredient in getting [the DOE] to do what they
should be doing . . . that’s a constant battle. It’s a battle that never ends.
Financial issues (Category 41) was another moderator. The availability
of funds, or the lack of them, affected outcomes. Another was the existence of mutual benefits, interests, and common goals (Category 42),
which was also one of the motivating factors for collaboration. This had
a positive effect; the lack of them had a negative effect. The fact that this
category emerges as a moderator suggests that over the period between
formation and achieving outcomes, some members’ goals may have
changed, or the degree of commonality may have shifted.
Trust (Category 45) among members emerged as another moderator.
Cognitive barriers (Category 46), arising not only from a lack of expertise
or information but also from being myopic, were seen as having anegative
effect. The other sideof that coin, knowledge or intelligenceof the various
players (Category 48), was seen as having a positive effect.
Not surprisingly, the interviewees once again perceived leadership
(Category 47) as being important, but we were again interested to find that
the interviewees viewed other moderating factors as being more central to
alliance success than leadership. Leadership was the ninth most commonly mentioned moderator, behind almost all of the factors discussed
above. We were also interested to learn that the leadership of the overall
alliance did not remain constant from the formation stage to the achievement of outcomes. Leadership changed over time, depending on who had
the greatest ability to deal with the target organization (i.e., the DOE) at a
particular phase of the process.
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 187
Personal characteristics (Category 50) again emerged as a moderator,
and it played a similar role to the personal characteristics moderator in the
formation stage. From the frequency of observations on leadership and
personal characteristics, it appears that they are more important as moderators on outcomes than on formation. Finally, the size of the stakeholder
alliance (Category 51) moderated outcomes; small was seen as good,
large as bad, but any and all interested parties were welcome to join.
Our findings also demonstrate the relative importance of these moderating factors in facilitating or preventing the attainment of successful outcomes. Responsiveness of the target organization was the most important,
whereas organization size was less important. These findings also surface
new categories not emphasized in previous collaboration literature. In
addition to target organization responsiveness, new categories include
barriers such as bureaucracy, financial concerns, cognitive barriers, and
blocking behavior by other parties.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This research offers many implications for practice and future
research. We focus our discussion on the findings that were most important (i.e., received the highest frequencies), those that offer instrumental
insights for leaders of stakeholder organizations and target organizations,
and those that extend previous literature.
Implications for Practice
Although the purpose of this study was to create a descriptive model,
the data also offer instrumental insights—both for leaders of stakeholder
organizations and for leaders of target organizations. We believe that this
is an important contribution as theorists have debated the usefulness of
descriptive research (e.g., Donaldson, 1999; Jones & Wicks, 1999;
Trevino & Weaver, 1999). We contend that descriptive work is important
in its own right, and it can also contribute to the other streams of stakeholder theory, particularly the instrumental stream.
Our data suggest that the most important influence on the alliances’
success was the perceived responsiveness of the target organization. This
has important instrumental implications for leaders of target organizations, who may not always be aware of the impact of their actions or inactions on stakeholder groups. To the degree that the target organization’s
success corresponds with the alliance’s success (as is the case with the
DOE and its stakeholders), leaders of target organizations are advised to
188 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
keep lines of communication open, to offer guidance and support, to be
consistent, and to be as responsive as possible to the alliance’s needs and
interests. Leaders of target organizations should also be aware that various
actions, such as inconsistent policies, maintaining too much psychological distance, or being too controlling, interfere with the alliance’s ability
to achieve its goals. However, we should note that in some cases, target
organizations may not perceive that their success is a function of the alliance’s success (e.g., when a for-profit business is the target organization).
In such cases, stonewalling (i.e., failing to be responsive, maintaining psychological distance, etc.) may be an appropriate instrumental strategy.
Future research might examine situations in which responsiveness or
unresponsiveness is an appropriate strategy and the conditions in which
such actions benefit or harm stakeholder organizations.
The model also offers instrumental insights for leaders of stakeholder
organizations regarding managing relationships with other alliance members and with the target organization. One insight is that leadership within
stakeholder alliances is highly dynamic. Different behaviors were
required of leaders at different phases of the alliance, and the role of overall leader was passed from person to person depending on the shifting
needs of the alliance and the demands of the target organization. In the
motivation phase, the leader’s primary role is that of energizer—motivating and inspiring people, championing the cause, and getting people on
board. As one interviewee described, “We had to... be out there, beating
the drums for the community and for our employees.” In the formation
phase, the leader shifted to roles such as team builder and organizer, a shift
that meant finding good people and getting them into the most appropriate
positions to deal with the target organization, including the role of leadership. Many interviewees noted that the person who was in the best position to lead the alliance at any given time simply assumed the role of
leader. As one interviewee expressed, “It’sjustamatterof getting theright
[people] in here to do it. . . . It’s almost like putting a puzzle together.”
As the alliance progressed to the operation phase and then to the outcome phase, the leader assumed other roles, including planner, coordinator, communication facilitator, information gatherer, relationship builder,
and conflict handler. As mentioned by one interviewee, “The community
responds much better to somebody that is really engaging with people and
listens as much as possible. The level of trust that gets built up... is important.” Effective leader behavior at this phase included those discussed in
previous research, such as using power and influence, empowering others, supporting and facilitating, motivating, stimulating creativity, and
using good communication skills (Bryson & Crosby, 1992; Chrislip &
Larson, 1994; Huxham, 2000), but also included guiding the alliance
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 189
toward its goals, disseminating information, cultivating relationships, getting input from multiple sources, bringing in consultants, mediating disputes, ensuring commitment, managing politics, following through on
commitments, and managing a diverse set of people and interests.
Overall, our findings indicate that the leadership of collaborative alliances is dynamic, complex, andmultifaceted. Stability might be expected
in organizations where ongoing patterns of interaction have become institutionalized over time, where people feel committed to a specific leader,
and where those in power are able to perpetuate their power advantage
(e.g., Pfeffer, 1977). Collaborative alliances, in contrast, are ambiguous
and complex contexts where social structures, processes, and membership can change rapidly (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). In such an environment, it appears necessary to modify and reassign the leadership role as
circumstances change. However, it should be noted that some aspects of
leadership were stable across time and across alliances. For instance,
using relationship-focused and participative leadership styles was uniformly perceived as being conducive to success, whereas using an autocratic or task-focused style was not. As stated by one interviewee, “The
facilitator gets things done;... that hard-line thing just doesn’t go over.”
The data also reveal important characteristics of effective alliance leaders
(Categories 20 and 47), including intelligence, patience, optimism, flexibility, and honesty and integrity. Although intelligence and integrity have
consistent support in the mainstream leadership literature (e.g., Yukl &
Van Fleet, 1992), these others characteristics also appear to be
advantageous in the leadership of collaborative alliances.
Implications for Future Research
Although our findings on individual interests, collective interests, and
power as motivating factors were clearly predicted by the collaboration
literature, we also found evidence for motives, such as feelings of duty and
responsibility. Many interviewees focused on community improvement,
thus revealing the belief that the context for collaboration was wider than
the collaboration itself and that their efforts could have far-reaching
effects, influencing other people’s livelihoods, health, and future. Other
motives included economic issues and resolving legal issues. Future
research on stakeholder alliances should reflect this expanded perspective
on motivating factors and probe more deeply into why alliance members
come together.
Our findings on formation support and extend Gray and Wood’s (1991)
theoretical work on the preconditions of collaboration. The data shed light
on what happens once alliance members come together, supporting the
190 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
importance of fundamentals such as who should be involved, what role
each member should play, how the formation should proceed, and situational learning. The data also provide empirical evidenceof moderators of
the formation process, including personal characteristics, power, and
leadership. Given that 60% of our respondents commented on the role of
individual personalities, behaviors influencing the success of the formation of the alliance, or both, future research might examine such people
more closely and identify the behaviors and traits that are most important
in facilitating or hindering alliance formation.
Our findings on the operations phase generally fit with notions such as
behavioral learning and organizing (Doz, 1996; Gray, 1985). This part of
the model contained the highest frequency of responses, suggesting its
importance in future research on stakeholder alliances. Notions such as
cooperating and working together, good communication, effective planning and information gathering, cultivating personal relationships, and
maintaining high levels of inclusiveness and participation in decision
making proved to be particularly important. These findings support the
development of theory and research that views stakeholder collaboration
as a highly interactive, social process—one that involves many players,
both participants and observers, both inside and outside the alliance. We
therefore encourage future research that considers data from multiple
sources, including those who drop out of alliances, erstwhile alliance
members, and those who choose not to participate in an alliance.
There was also a general fit between our findings and current theory
regarding outcomes, particularly on the issues of problem solving, altering the relative bargaining power of the participants, learning from other
alliance members, and changing the dynamics of relationships among the
various players (e.g., Gray & Wood, 1991; Huxham, 1996; Kressel et al.,
1989). We also uncovered a variety of moderators to the process-outcome
relationship, many of which were not anticipated by previous research. In
the interest of learning how desired outcomes can be achieved, future
research might more closely examine the interactions between the operating factors and moderators. For instance, although our data suggest that
stakeholder alliances are more successful when the target organization is
responsive to the alliance’s needs, we still know little about the specific
target-organization behaviors that would be most useful to an alliance.
We should note that some constructs, such as learning and power,
emerged in subtly different forms at different stages in the collaboration
process. If we are to gain realistic and accurate insights into collaboration,
researchers are encouraged to resist the temptation to collapse them into
broader, more encompassing constructs, such as one overall construct for
learning and one for power.
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 191
We see this study as offering an expanded perspective for future
researchers, leaders of target organizations, and leaders of stakeholder
alliances. However, additional work is needed to refine our understanding
of the new themes and categories that surfaced in this research and to
develop more precise measures of the associated constructs.
APPENDIX
Interview Protocol
We are interviewing numerous people who have been involved in collabora
tions at ________________ , _ , and _______ . The infor
mation we gather will be kept confidential; no one other than myself and my col
leagues at ______________ will have access toit. When we have completed
the interviews, we will aggregate the data and look for similarities and commonalties. I’d like your permission to tape this interview so that we can transcribe your
answers into a form where they can be aggregated and analyzed along with information from our other interviewees.
We are asking all interviewees the same broad questions, but please feel free to
elaborate on any points that you feel are relevant.
Questions
1. How did the collaborative alliance (partnership) for the transfer of land at
_________________ form? Who initiated it?
2. What is the relationship between your organization and the others in the
collaboration? How are you connected?
3. What role does each organization play in the collaboration?
4. Why did you decide tocollaborate? What were the benefits, and what were
the risks of not forming a collaborative alliance?
5. What factors were considered important in collaborating? Which worked
in favor of formation, and which inhibited formation?
6. Has the collaboration been a success, and how do you define that
success (or failure)?
7. Has collaborating changed the dynamics among the various players?
8. Has the collaboration increased, decreased, or not affected the costs of
gathering, disseminating, and analyzing information? And has it changed
the amount or type of information you use?
9. Has collaborating affected your legitimacy or bargaining power with the
DOE?
10. Is there anything else you think I should know about the collaboration?
Note: DOE = U.S. Department of Energy.
192 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
REFERENCES
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 507-525.
Argyris, C. A., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation
matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488-506.
Bryson, J., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burrell, G.,&Morgan,G.(1979).Sociological paradigms and organizationalanalysis. London: Heinemann.
Butterfield, K. D., Trevino,L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Punishment from the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1479-1512.
Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L. (2003). Coping with paradox: Multistakeholder learning dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems. Business &
Society, 42(1), 7-42.
Chrislip, D., & Larson, C. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders
can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chung, S., Singh, H.,&Lee,K.(2000). Complementarity, status similarity, and social capital
as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1-22.
Connor,J. A., Kadel-Taras, S.,& Vinokur-Kaplan,D. (1999). The roleof non-profit management support organizations in sustaining community collaborations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10, 127-136.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, 11, 77-101.
Donaldson, T. (1999). Response: Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 237-241.
Donaldson, T., &Preston,L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theoryof the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or
learning processes. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 55-83.
Driscoll, C., & Crombie,A. (2001). Stakeholder legitimacy management and qualified good
neighbor: The case of Nova Nada and JDI. Business and Society, 40(4), 442-471.
Eden, C.,&Huxham, C., (2001).The negotiationofpurposein multi-organizational collaborative groups. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 373-391.
Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review,
24(2), 191-205.
Galaskiewicz, J., & Shatin. D. (1981). Leadership and networking among neighborhood
human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 253-270.
Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1986). Cognition-behavior connections: Attribution and verbal
behavior in leader-subordinate interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 197-229.
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 193
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine.
Golich, V. L. (1991).A multilateral negotiations challenge: International managementofthe
communications commons. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 228-251.
Gray, B.(1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration.Human Relations,
38, 911-936.
GrayB.(1989).Collaborating: Findingcommon ground for multi-partyproblems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, B. (1996). Cross-sectoral partners: Collaborative alliances among business, government, and communities. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 5779). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gray, B. (2000). Assessing inter-organizational collaboration: Multiple conceptions and
multiple methods. In D.O. Faulkner & M. DeRond (Eds.), Cooperative strategy: Economic, business, and organizational issues (pp. 243-260). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Gray B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 3-22.
Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83-104.
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9, 217-230.
Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2), 46-60.
Heugens, P., Van Den Bosch, F., & Van Riel, C. (2002). Stakeholder integration: Building
mutually enforcing relationships. Business & Society, 41(1), 36-60.
Huxham, C. (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage.
Huxham,C. (2000).Leadershipinthe shapingand implementationofcollaborationagendas:
How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal,
43(6), 1159-1175.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (1996). Working together: Key themes in management of relationships between public and non-profit organizations. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 9, 5-17.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S.(2000). Ambiguity, complexity, and dynamics in the membership
of collaboration. Human Relations, 53, 771-806.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206-221.
Koh, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1991). Joint venture formations and stock market reaction: An
assessment in the information technology sector. Academy of Management Journal, 34,
869-892.
Kressel, K., Pruitt, D.G., & Associates. (1989). Mediation research. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Light, R.J. (1971). Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 365-377.
Logsdon, J. M. (1991). Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problemsolving collaborations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 23-37.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
194 BUSINESS & SOCIETY / June 2004
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R, & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
Mowery, D. C, Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm
knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 63-76.
Pasquero, J. (1991). Supraorganizational collaboration: The Canadian environmental experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 38-64.
Pfeffer, J. (1977) The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 104112.
Reed, R, Lemak, D. J., & Hesser, W.A. (1997). Cleaning upafterthe Cold War: Management
and social issues. Academy of Management Review, 22, 614-642.
Roberts, N. C, & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: A case
study of public policy initiation at the state level. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
27, 209-228.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influence.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 887-910.
Scott, E. D., & Jehn, K. A. (2003). About face: How employee dishonesty influences a stakeholder’s image of an organization. Business & Society, 42(2), 234-266.
Sharfman, M. P., Gray, B., & Yan, A (1991). The context of interorganizational collaboration
in the garment industry. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 181-208.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stuart, T. E. (1998). Network position and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of
strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 668-698.
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (1999). Response: The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists—Not converging theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 222227.
Trist, E. L. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of interorganizational
domains. Human Relations, 36(3), 247-268.
U.S. Congress, Budget Office. (1994). Cleaning up the Department of Energy’s nuclear
weapons complex. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office.
Weart, S. R. (1988). Nuclear fear. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Welcomer, S. A., Cochran, P. L., Rands, G., & Haggerty, M. (2003). Constructing a web:
Effects of power and social responsiveness on firm-stakeholder relationships. Business
& Society, 42(1), 43-82.
Westley, F., & Vredenburg, H. (1991). Strategic bridging: The collaboration between environmentalists and business in the marketing of green products. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 27, 65-90.
Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 139-162.
Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In
M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 147-197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Kenneth D. Butterfield is an associate professor of management at Washington
State University. He received his Ph.D. in business administration from The Pennsylvania State University. His current research interests include managing ethical
Butterfield et al. / STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION 195
decision making and behavior in organizations, moral awareness, and organizational punishment. He can be reached at kdb@wsu.edu.
Richard Reed isaprofessor of management at Washington State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Bradford. His research interests include a
wide range of strategy issues. Currently, he is working on projects dealing with
misleading financial disclosures, firm crisis and board governance, liability of obsolescence, organizational adaptation, and distance education. He can be
reached at richard_reed@wsu.edu.
David J. Lemak is an associate professor of management and decision sciences
and Director of Business Programs at the Washington State University Tri-Cities
campus. He received his Ph.D. from Arizona State University, M.B.A. from Indiana University, and B.A. from Ohio Wesleyan University. His research is multidisciplinary but centers around strategic management processes. He has explored
a variety of topics such as quality management, strategy formulation, stakeholder
theory, and most recently, the social/management issues of downsizing the U.S.
nuclear weapons complex. He can be reached at dlemak@tricity.wsu.edu.