Through the eighties and nineties the non-profit sector has experienced a series of changes that caused an increased competition for funds, volunteers, employees etc. However, the marketization of non-profit organizations was not the only reaction to the change of environment. An alternative response was to start considering formalized collaborations with other non-profits (Guo and Acar, 2005, Provan and Milward, 1995, Schwenger et al., 2014) as a way of gaining collaborative advantage, which provides gains via cooperation rather than competition (Bryson et al., 2001). Eikenberry and Kluver (2004) suggest that collaborative and cooperative efforts can be very powerful in enhancing the NPO`s role in civic society.
The idea of collaborative advantage was introduced by Huxham (1993; p. 603), who writes that “collaborative advantage will be achieved when something unusually creative is produced – perhaps an objective is met – that no one organization could have produced on its own and when each organization, through the collaboration, is able to achieve its own objectives better than it could alone”. Moreover, sometimes it might be possible to achieve through collaboration “some higher-level “meta-objectives”; objectives for society as a whole rather than just for the participating organizations” (Huxham, 1993; p. 603).
There has been a lot of research on collaborations between non-profit and business sector (Lee, 2015, Rim et al., 2016, Kim et al., 2012, Barroso-Méndez et al., 2014, Barroso-Méndez et al., 2016, Kolk and Lenfant, 2012), non-profit and public sector (Bovaird, 2014, Huxham and Vangen, 1996, Norris-Tirrell and Clay, 2016, Grubbs, 2000, Bertorelli and Brar, 2012), and non-profit sector and universities (Cristol, 2015, Bell et al., 2015, Stevens et al., 2013, Čada and Ptáčková, 2013, Olivier et al., 2016, Convergne, 2016). In 2005 Guo and Acar pointed out that regardless of the substantial research amount on non-profit collaborations, the scholarship in the field did not clearly distinguish the within-sector and cross-sector partnerships (Guo and Acar, 2005). Over the last years a number of authors addressed this gap and investigated the specifics of collaborations inside of the third sector (Proulx et al., 2014, Misener and Doherty, 2013, Battilana and Sengul, 2006, Gulzar and Henry, 2005, Stoll et al., 2010, Campbell, 2009). Proulx et al. (2014) state that currently the intra-sectoral collaboration might be the most common variety of collaborations for non-profit organizations.
Guo and Acar (2005; p. 342-343) define a non-profit collaboration as “what occurs when different nonprofit organizations work together to address problems through joint effort, resources, and decision making and share ownership of the final product or service”. Tsasis (2009; p. 7) proposes that collaboration in third sector is an “interorganizational effort to address mutual benefits or common interests among organizations through a process of information exchange and resource sharing”. This research agrees with both definitions of the non-profit collaboration, while prioritizing knowledge sharing as means of reaching common goals.
Types of collaborations vary from informal one-time transactions to the full legal integration of one or several organizations into one entity (Anheier, 2005, Guo and Acar, 2005, Proulx et al., 2014). The main characteristics that mark the difference among the collaborations is the degree of autonomy/integration (Guo and Acar, 2005), level of risk and cost (Anheier, 2005), and area of integration (programmatic, administrative, or both) (Kohm et al., 2000).
Kohm et al. (2000) make an important contribution with their extensive survey research on collaborative relationships among non-profit organizations in the United States of America (USA). They develop a partnership matrix, which accommodates seven types of possible relationships divided into collaborations and strategic restructuring. Collaboration, in the sense as it is used by Kohm et al. (2000), means an informal and typically not permanent commitment among organizations, which implies a work towards a mutual benefit, while maintaining organizational autonomy (La Piana and Harrigton, 2008). Strategic restructuring occurs when two or several organizations develop a relationship in order to increase efficiency or expand programmatic offer through “shared, transferred, or combined services, resources, or programs” (Kohm et al., 2000; p. 10). Strategic restructuring can have two forms. The first form is a strategic alliance, such as administrative consolidation or joint programming, which requires some formal agreement and transferred decision-making power, but does not call for a change of corporate structure. The second form is a corporate integration, such as management service organization (MSO), parent-subsidiary, joint venture, or merger. Integration involves changes to corporate structure and creation and/or dissolution of one or more organizations (Kohm et al., 2000).
Guo and Acar (2005) base their classification on the work of Zajac et al. (2011) in health care and Kohm et al. (2000) in human services and cultural organizations. They propose eight forms of collaborations and organize them into two categories – informal and formal collaborations. In the informal collaborations the organizations preserve their autonomy and decision-making power, such informal collaborations are: information sharing, referral of clients, sharing of office spaces, and management service organization (MSO). In the formal collaborations, such as joint program, parent subsidiary, joint venture, and merger, the participating organizations go through strategic restructuring, while sharing their resources and offering combined services. In contrast to previous work, MSOs are considered being informal collaborations due to their episodic and rather subcontracting nature, which permit to maintain organization’s autonomy.
Anheier (2005) suggests eight collaborative relationship types, which can be organized from the most informal and opportunistic to the most formal collaboration: coordination, umbrella group, partnership, simple form and complex form of joint venture, management service organization (MSO), parent cooperation, and merger.
Proulx et al. (2014) also propose eight models: confederation, joint administrative operations, joint partnership with a new formal organization, joint partnership for issue advocacy, joint partnership with affiliated programming, joint program office, partially integrated merger, and the fully integrated merger. Research of Proulx et al. (2014) deserve special attention since it is one of the most recent and complete papers on non-profit collaboration types. The intention of the authors was not to summarize all possible models of collaboration, but to provide a description of the most successful ones. For this purpose they chose as a sample the quarterfinalists (44 out of 644 applicants) of the competition among the best and most innovative non-profit collaborations in the USA in 2009. The classification proposed by Proulx et al. (2014) is more specific and success oriented in comparison to the collaboration types discussed above. Consequently, it will be used as a framework for current research.
In order to make a decision whether NPO should enter in any type of collaboration with another NPO(s), management should consider all possible negative outcomes. Anheier (2005) lists four critical factors to consider: costs, risks, organizational autonomy, and value compatibility.
In case of costs it is important to consider not only the direct financial costs (Huxham, 1993), but also the opportunity costs of not cooperating. Considering risks means estimating possible problems and especially impact on reputation (Proulx et al., 2014, Snavely and Tracy, 2002), if the collaboration does not work out. Taking the risk of collaborating is associated with inter-organizational and inter-personal trust (Vangen and Huxham, 2003, Tsasis, 2009, Bunger, 2013), which is essential in initiating and nurturing of the collaborative process (Vangen and Huxham, 2003, Snavely and Tracy, 2002). Huxham and Vangen (2013; p. 154) define trust as the “anticipation that something will be forthcoming in return for the efforts that are put into the collaboration”.
Loss of organizational autonomy is another important topic for consideration, which is mentioned by various authors apart of Anheier (Proulx et al., 2014, Tsasis, 2009). It might result in reduced control and flexibility (Huxham, 1993) and a threat to the loss of organizational identity (Proulx et al., 2014).
Value compatibility is the fourth issue listed by Anheier (2005). However, it is more than the shared values. Tsasis (2009) reports enhanced relationships when the organizations also share the ideology and norms, which help to find easier the consensus. Huxham and Vangen (1996) speak about a set of goals and aims, which should be agreed upfront and which can help to be clear about why the collaboration exists even if there are some important differences among the organizations. Otherwise a culture clash is inevitable (Popp et al., 2014).
Huxham (1993) mentions the common issue of sharing the credit and glory for achievements inside of collaborations, where each organization still needs to report results to various stakeholders. Proulx et al. (2014) see also the problem of accountability and responsibility in mutual projects. Popp et al. (2014) discuss the challenge of management complexity across organizations within the network context.
All the listed problems show that it is not an easy decision and task to collaborate with other non-profit organizations. NPOs should expect to invest a considerable amount of time and effort to make the collaboration work. Huxham and Vangen (1996) introduce a concept of collaborative inertia, which means the state when the perceived output of collaboration is much lower than expected. As the main reason is often identified a lack of commitment from some of the members. However, collaborators who show persistence and determination tend to achieve after some time successful relationships (Huxham and Vangen, 1996).
Nevertheless, sometimes working alone cannot allow reaching the established goals and collaboration is the only solution (Huxham, 1996, Provan and Milward, 1995). Following section will help to understand the principal motives for collaborations among NPOs.