Collaborative Community Management Through Social Networking
Alyssum C. Root and Diane E. Schmidt
CaliforniaStateUniversity, Chico
Introduction
Equitable participation is an indicator of successful collaborative community management and is affected both negatively and positively by community characteristics and managerial structures. For example, horizontal structures are more conducive to collaboration than highly hierarchical vertical structures. Social networking can be used as a basis for achieving both collaboration and equitable participation.
Like collaboration, social networks are subject to various community characteristics, which can either support or impede their formation and evolution. Shared values and goals, effective and open knowledge sharing and communication, a balance of homogeneity and diversity, trust and reciprocity, and a history of cooperative problem solving are some key characteristics of social networks. When these features are present in social networks, they are likely to have a high capacity for cooperative problem solving.
Conversely, the presence of some characteristics may decrease the effectiveness of collaborative community management. Competition is one such characteristic that can result from jurisdictional concerns. Competition may also lead to adversarial relationships among stakeholders. The negative history of such relationships is often a difficult barrier to overcome.
Network managers can employ various strategies to address these barriers and to build on community strengths. Social network mapping can help a facilitator to identify current social networks in the community and important stakeholders who have been excluded from collaborative efforts. The costs of developing and maintaining connections, as well as the costs of modifying vertical hierarchies and improving community characteristics can be weighed against the benefits of equitable participation and collaboration. Benefits include economies of scale and specialization, as well as increased capacity for collaboration. A cost benefit analysis can help facilitators to better understand these costs and benefits. When used together, a cost benefit analysis and social network mapping are strategies facilitators may use to determine where to focus resources to realistically maximize equitable participation in collaborative community management.
Collaborative Community Management Structures
Collaborative community management can be discussed in terms of the structures underlying interactions between stakeholders. Two forms of management structure include horizontal and vertical. Horizontal structures tend to be more supportive of cooperative problem solving because of features associated with flat hierarchies. Conversely, vertical structures may prohibit collaboration because of its complex hierarchy.
Other structural factors which influence collaborative community management include communication, institutionalization, and budgeting. Communication can be enhanced structurally through the use of technology and available formal and informal mechanisms. Budgeting also has an impact on collaboration, as flexible structures for financing projects can help to facilitate group work. Finally, the institutionalization of collaboration refers to the development of systems which support community cooperation.
Community Structures and Collaborative Management
Collaborative community management, describes people and organizations working together to solve a problem. To promote collaboration, stakeholders must agree on ways to assign tasks and roles for addressing the problem. Such coordination can occur within different types of structural forms. These are horizontal and vertical management forms.
Horizontal Management. Horizontal management structures describe coordinated relationships with relatively flat hierarchy. These arrangements often have fewer layers of bureaucracy, and therefore, fewer people who are officially responsible for supervising outcomes. As such, horizontal structures are usually considered to be less bureaucratic than vertical structures. Horizontal structures allow members of an organization more flexibility and discretion regarding how tasks are completed. Collaborative projects generally benefit from this management structure because it allows for the flexibility and opportunity needed to bring many, sometimes conflicting, ideas together. Moreover, members of the organization share information more easily because knowledge is held by more people, rather than being compartmentalized into divided departments or managers (Kumar and Dissel 2001).
Vertical Management. Interestingly, vertical hierarchies are grounded in interactions between governmental agencies, while horizontal hierarchies are seen as promoting collaborative work (Agranoff and McGuire 1999; Mandell 1999). Unlike horizontal structures, vertical management structures have many layers of authority within vertical hierarchy. Many people tend to be involved in the supervision and processing of tasks and ideas under this structure. Members of the organization spend significant amounts of time navigating this hierarchy for task clearances. Such hierarchy is often detrimental to collaborative management efforts because it reduces flexibility in responding to problems. For example, groups concerned about environmental issues began to replace some of the formal methods of participation, such as public lobbying, with grassroots organizations because the hierarchical approach of lobbying was too rigid (Sirianni and Friedland 1995).
Developing Collaborative Community
Communities with a history of collaboration are more likely to have supportive, horizontal structures through social systems and connections in place from previous experiences (Yamagishi and Cook 1993; Rural Sociological Society 2006). Many studies emphasize the positive impact of community history on collaborative efforts. When a community has a history of isolated or competitive problem solving, developing new structures to support successful collaborative community management can be a tool for facilitating successful collaborative efforts. One reason restructuring may be effective is that it often decreases the transaction costs of the project, which in turn encourages participation in collaborative efforts (Park and Reiock n.d.).
Promoting Communication. Furthermore, when a community has already instituted horizontal structures with decentralized power and flexibility integrated into the process, it can maximize the effectiveness of interactions by making mechanisms for both informal and formal dialogue available to all participants. These mechanisms may include agreements about terminology and processes for dialogue to improve communication between participants (Bergstrom, et. al. 1995).
In many ways, technology is a useful tool for improving community collaboration by enhancing communication and information sharing. For example, the promotion of inexpensive and universally compatible and accessible computer technology would increase the community’s overall capacity for collaboration by expanding the base of potential participants who have efficient access to knowledge-sharing devices (Preece 2002).
Institutionalization. After repeated small successes in collaborative problem solving, the collaborative process becomes institutionalized. Making small changes that facilitate collaborative projects and increasing the size of the efforts communities undertake (Bergstrom, et. al. 1995; Lawson 2004). Community leaders promote the development of a history of cooperation. Such collaborations evolve into powerful coalitions which span regional boundaries, (McAfee 1993).
Budget flexibility. Finally, for collaborative management to become institutionalized, communities often benefit from budget flexibility (Lawson 2004). For example, several categorical grants could be formally held by a collaborative body to make access to funding sources less disjointed (Rural Sociological Society 2006). Though these funds still could only be spent for specific purposes, access for multiple constituencies could be improved. Fiscal policies can also be used to support the sustainability of collaborative projects through grants which focus on long term outcomes and community based solutions and evaluation, rather than on short term project funding (Rural Sociological Society 2006). Grants which specifically support cooperative work promote collaborative management. For example, grants to “generate” volunteer efforts from church and business groups (Sirianni and Friedland 1995), and mutual resource development provide incentives for governmental and non-governmental cooperative projects (Bergstrom, et. al. 1995).
Social Networks As Foundations For Collaboration
Social networks include many different groups and can be used to impact the community. These networks include stakeholders from the public, private, and non-profit sector and can be both formal and informal. Stakeholders can be identified through social network mapping, and connected through effective leadership. Networks vary in size and power as well, some are grassroots organizations which impact the local area and others are national, multi-network organizations which affect policy at a federal level. They are
Social networks are based upon trust and reciprocity between network members. This can be positively or negatively affected by whether the members have shared values and goals, healthy diversity, open knowledge sharing, and prepare for the sustainability of the network. Furthermore, competition can be debilitating for networks, as it brings up jurisdictional concerns and may create an adversarial history between stakeholders.
Structured Networks
Any group of people who regularly interact with each other can be identified as a network. Social networks are both relational and positional because they are based on relationships between members with various roles (Erger, Lovalglia, et. al., 1993). These networks form to achieve a purpose, such as solving a problem (positional), or they may simply evolve because the members have common interests or (relational) associations (Agranoff and McGuire 1999). As such, a social network can take various forms, including everything from a social evening spent together to a formal contract between agencies. Finally, Network members are interdependent; this interdependence is often one of the reasons they become part of a social network.
The network’s capacity for collaboration is founded in stakeholders and the relationships between them (Bergstom, et. al. 1995). Such interactions may be formal or informal, and can occur within the network itself, or between networks. Furthermore, these relationships may not be constantly active. For example, members may only interact with certain other networks when there is a specific problem to be answered (Ajuja 2000 Holley and Krebs 2002).
Stakeholders. Stakeholders, as members of social networks, take many forms. All the players who are affected by a problem and its solution are stakeholders. Though some stakeholders may be excluded from collaborative projects, they all generally belong to a social network. For example, politicians may either avoid participation in a cooperative project or only participate minimally because their constituents do not agree with the project (Park and Reioch n.d).
Formally, stakeholders may be part of a public, private, or non-profit organization, or they may be political actors (Park and Reiock n.d.); informally, they may belong to a group of friends or colleagues who are unorganized, but share some interests and/or values. For example, people who work for public sector agencies have limitations as to political participation while at work, but may be part of a change or anti-change coalition in their neighborhood. Alternatively, public managers are generally involved in many networks, because they work with members of other agencies in all sectors (Agranoff and McGuire 1999). Furthermore, private employees are not bound by the same laws as those working in the public sector; there may be, however, organizational policies which prohibit them from representing the agency without approval.
Formal and informal networking. As networks become more interdependent, they also become more reliant on cooperation between the networks (Dissel and Kumar 2001). Members of social networks are often connected within their formal organizations, or are part of different formal organizations and interact outside of them. This can occur both formally and informally (Bergstrom, et. al. 1995). In some metropolitan areas, for example, local governments have official interlocal agreements which cause employees from several local governments to work together to solve the same problems (Park and Reiock n.d.). Informally, members of various organizations may know each other socially and come to rely on each other as sources of information in certain circumstances. Much research has been done on the importance of social networking for job searches. This research has shown that a person’s network through their membership in organized groups and through informal friendships is a determinant in the person’s successful search for work (Beggs, Haines, and Hurlbert 2000).
Impact of Networks
Formal social networks are established, organized groups, and vary in size and power. Some large networks affect policy at, state, national, and international levels. One teenage pregnancy prevention coalition, for example, became involved in developing policy that required minimum quality standards for private child care providers and legislated matching grants. This network impacted the problem teenage pregnancy and parenthood at a state level (Bergstrom, et. al. 1995). Other formal networks may be grassroots change or anti-change coalitions whose focus is specific and applies to a small segment of the community. These smaller networks usually have fewer members and are less powerful than large groups, yet they have a notable impact within their community. Within each of these organizations, informal social networks tend to emerge. They often are not highly visible groups and managers may not even realize they exist. Such networks tend to develop between colleagues who have similar specialties (such as technical knowledge). These groups may be represented in the form of friendship activities, such as time spent together outside of work socializing. Importantly, networks of people with specialized knowledge at work may also emerge through knowledge sharing. In fact, one study showed that workers are about five times more likely to call someone within their social network to ask a question than they are to use other resources (Parker, Cross and Walsh 2001).
As such, social networks can have an impact on problems at many levels. When members of one network choose to work with members of another network, they loosely connect the two groups. A new network then emerges from this connection, which includes all the groups who are working together to solve a particular problem. In this way, even small isolated social networks may have more of an impact on the problem they are attempting to address through their connection to the larger group than they otherwise would have had (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). Thus, the potential size and impact of social networks is so broad that stakeholders are generally part of one regardless of whether they are involved collaborative efforts to resolve the problem.
Characteristics of Collaborative Social Networks
Social networks that are conducive to collaborative community efforts often have similar characteristics such as a history of collaboration and trust, as well as shared norms, values, and goals. Social networks which are the most successful at cooperative problem solving also have a balanced membership. Thus, they include stakeholders who share some values and goals but also have diverse skills and interests outside of the network. A lack of these characteristics may diminish the network’s ability to participate in collaborative efforts, however, the presence of competition between networks and can be detrimental to such efforts as well.
Historical cooperation. Social networks which have historically used cooperation with other networks to address problems are more likely to continue participating in collaborative efforts. Experience with collaboration sets precedents which tend to lead to the continued use of collaboration. For example, local governments are more likely to establish economic development partnerships if they have previously used interlocal agreements (Park and Reiock n.d.). The previous development of collaborative relationships increases trust between networks and creates cultural norms which include collaborative relationships. Thus, the community’s capacity for collaborative problem solving increases as a result of previous positive experiences with such projects. (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). Even in small municipalities, collaboration between networks has become mainstream (Agranoff and McGuire 1999).
Trust and reciprocity. Traditions of trust and reciprocity are associated with successful collaboration between social networks. This is especially important in collaborative relationships where participants’ contributions are not equally matched (Yamigishi and Cook 1993). Many collaborative efforts create opportunities for free-riding, where stakeholders can gain the benefits of a collaborative effort without contributing a proportionate share of resources. When participants do not trust that members from other networks will fulfill their obligations, they are less likely to join the effort; this is often due to concerns that they will be contributing more resources to the collective effort than they would if they handled the problem alone (Yamigishi and Cook 1993; Park and Reiock n.d.)
Further, reciprocity is a foundational concept for collaborative efforts. Members of networks generally enter into cooperative agreements, whether formal or informal, expecting that the resources they contribute will be reciprocated either immediately or at some point in the future. For example, when local governments arrange collaborative efforts with other city governments, they generally have expectations that their citizens will benefit from the relationship through services provided by the partner (Park and Reiock n.d). Though members do not need to agree with each others’ beliefs, it is important that they trust each other to share a belief in reciprocity (Agranoff and McGuire 1999
Trust and reciprocity is important as well for knowledge sharing as a structural component of collaboration. Collaboration often requires that networks share valuable information with each other. Such sensitive information is often vital to the success of collaborative projects because trust is an especially important component in reducing potential conflict (Schriner 1997). This knowledge, especially in the private sector, could potentially be used against the organization that provided the information (Lawson 2004). Studies have indicated that this is a common concern among industry partners. For example, one survey found that sixty-seven percent of those surveyed would take advantage of an opportunity to look at the marketing plans of competitors, even though many of them noted that this would be unethical (Thompson 2006). Thus, network members who do not trust that the information they share will be used with discretion, or who fear it will later be used against them, may be less likely to share it initially.
Beyond the perception of trust, the actual trustworthiness of participants is also important to the overall success of the project, and to the community’s capacity for collaborative efforts. Self interested actions by one participating network which causes harm to others may result in retaliatory actions by other networks. These reactions become detrimental to the entire collaborative project and decrease the likelihood that members will use cooperative problem solving in the future (Dissel and Kumar 2001).
Shared values and goals. Another notable characteristic of social networks is shared values and goals. Shared values and goals often help participants to overcome structural differences and focus instead on what is shared (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). In some cases, networks share very little in terms of culture and priorities, yet they are able to agree on goals designed to solve a mutual problem, and/or for the ultimate good of the community (Mandell 1999). Common goals motivate stakeholders to join and participants to make genuine efforts (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). This can provide a basis for communication among groups and help dissimilar networks to establish commonalities, build trust, and better understand their relatedness.
Limited diversity. While it is likely to be more difficult for networks that have different or contradictory norms to work together, some diversity of resources within and between networks can help collaborative community management to be successful. Such variance among participants is commonly linked to successful outcomes in community development projects (Rural Sociological Society 2006). Variety of networks also provides access to a wide range of knowledge and resources for the purposes of meeting the collaborative goal (Bergstom et. al., 1995). Further, different perspectives may offer innovative solutions to the problem, whereas insufficient information may impede a collaborative group’s ability to be adaptable to changing needs (Agranoff and McGuire, 1999; Holley and Krebs 2002). Alternatively, homogeneity in some structures improves communication between groups and makes working together much easier. This similarity between and among groups allows for less complicated communication, and generally inspires higher levels of trust between participants.
Level of knowledge sharing. Network members’ contributions can also be discussed in terms of whether their knowledge is generalized or specialized. Networks that include members with more generalized knowledge tend to communicate better and to share their ideas with each other more often. There are also indications that this results in more innovative and sometimes more successful outcomes. While there may be several members with some specialized knowledge in a generalized group, ideas from a variety of perspectives are available to the whole group (Rulke and Galaskiewicz 2000). As part of a transdisciplinary practice, the leaders of collaborative efforts should have some knowledge about every aspect of the project (Agranoff and McGuire 1999).
Specialized members, however, are usually very good at sharing information with each other, but not as likely to work outside of their own group. Such networks are, therefore, more likely to operate as isolated units and are less likely to successfully engage in collaborative projects (Parker, Cross, and Walsh 2001). Further, these groups are unlikely to be accessed by other parties because of the specialized language they use, especially in highly technical fields. Words that mean one thing to one group may have a different meaning to another network. Specialists are also unlikely to access other networks because they do not understand what knowledge other groups have available (Rulke and Galaskiewicz 2000).
Roles of different stakeholders. The members of networks can also be described as having a particular role within the group and in reference to other networks. Players are either hubs, weavers, or boundary spanners within a given network. The players who act as a hub are the central players of the network; these are the people through whom the members connect and remain connected (Holley and Krebs 2002). The players who are closely connected to the hub form the core of the network. They generally provide the stability of the network (Beggs, Haines, and Hulbert 2000). The weavers are connected to the hubs of several different networks and actively work to connect networks to each other. These people are also often the leaders of the collaborative effort and draw several different groups in to help resolve the problem. Similar to weavers, boundary spanners are on the periphery of the network, and are usually connected to other networks. These members are generally only loosely connected to any one network but provide a connection to players in other networks. Importantly, they are able to cross boundaries to develop these connections (Lawson 2004). Each of these positions serves the purpose of either keeping the core of the group together, or keeping the group from polarizing and becoming isolated. Networks naturally tend to separate into isolated groups if there is no one who works to connect them and maintain those connections (Holley and Krebs 2002).
Sustainability. Ideally, collaborative efforts and relationships between networks will be sustainable into the future, and planning for sustainability will begin with the development of the project (Akerlund 2000). Relationships become more sustainable as groups experience successful outcomes which are directly related to participation in collaborative management, and feel a sense of ownership over the project (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani, 2002). The endurance of cooperative relationships over time allows the community to fully benefit from collaborative projects (Dissel and Kumar 2001). For example, for programs that help vulnerable populations, such as recovering substance users, there are ethical considerations regarding the ending of the program. Many clients return to destructive lifestyles when they are unable to complete their treatment program, especially if there are not any other alternative programs available (Akerlund 2000).
Another feature of sustainability involves planning for the future; such planning might include preparation for long term resources or for work together on other larger projects. For example, environmental protest groups have increased their sustainability by developing their social networks of volunteers (Sirianni and Friedland 1995). Further, many experts recommend that collaborators define a vision for the future of the project at the beginning stages of the effort (Bergstrom, et. al 1995). Evaluating the program using quantifiable data may also help a program to be sustainable because it can be used to justify further funding for the program (Akerlund 2000).
Network Competition as a Barrier to Collaboration
The presence of certain common characteristics within and between networks can be barriers to effective inter and intra-organizational collaboration. Competition is one such barrier. Where members of the networks have to compete for resources or recognition, they are likely to mistrust each other and continue to have competitive rather than cooperative attitudes towards one another. This is problematic when several agencies have to compete for the same economic resources, for example. This is also a common problem among local governments in metropolitan areas where communities compete for businesses that will supply jobs (Feiock and Park and Reiock n.d.). The networks involved may provide similar services and thus be homogeneous in their goals, but feel concerned about losing their competitive edge. Under these conditions, they may be overly careful not to give away too much information about their organization in collaborative efforts (Lawson 2004).
Jurisdictional concerns. Jurisdictional concerns may be problematic when certain members would prefer that no change occurs because they are apprehensive about losing the resources associated with their current position (Mandell 1999). Social networks often fill special niches in society and tend to have a sense of ownership over that niche. Collaborative management may cause members to worry that they have to compete for jurisdiction over the resources or social standing over which they feel some ownership (Mandell 1999). For example, managers may find that their roles become delegated to the organization’s liaison to the collaborative effort. These organizations are often more focused on maintaining their own standing than they are on serving the greater good of the community (Holley and Krebs 2002; Lawson 2004).
Negative interactions. Competition also sometimes leads to negative interactions between and within social networks which then create a contentious history and poor relationships for collaboration. While collaborative management does not require that everyone affected by the problem work together, negative relationships can be highly problematic for collaborative efforts, especially if the adversarial networks are both centrally involved in the problem. Importantly, histories of unsuccessful collaborative efforts or of disagreements between networks also significantly detract from the levels of trust in collaboration as a tool and in each other as potential partners (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002).
Furthermore, competitive relationships may cause mutual distrust and feelings of superiority among networks; this sometimes lead social networks to become isolated. Similar to highly specialized networks, such isolation does not lend itself to building a history of collaborative management; it discourages other networks from approaching the isolated group and also sometimes prevents the group from attempting, or considering the use of collaboration. Moreover, polarized networks tend to use language in ways that are not commonly understood by outside groups (Myburgh 2003), and discourage innovation (Holley and Krebs 2002).
Collaborative Social Networks
Few, if any communities of social networks have all the characteristics that support collaborative management and do not have any features which obstruct collaboration. There are tools to strengthen and develop social networks’ capacity for collaborative community management. Social networks can be used to promote collaboration by reducing conflict and using pre-existing networks based on social network mapping, and fostering leadership within the community
Reducing conflict. Where a history of conflict appears insurmountable, a neutral facilitator may be hired to help establish dialogue (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002; Lawson 2004). The facilitator may help participants to recognize shared values, and develop a sense of ownership over the problem. When participants genuinely feel that they are respected and influential in the collaborative process they tend to become more involved. They are also more likely to believe that they have some responsibility for the ultimate success of attempts to solve the problem. (Akerlund 2000). This sense of responsibility is derived from an understanding that they personally have some ownership of the solution and collaborative mission. A shared mission, values, and objectives often help participants to overcome their differences and focus instead on the cooperative project (Bergstrom, et. al. 1995; Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani, 2002).
Social network mapping. Social network mapping can also help facilitators to decide where to begin building collaborative capacity among various social networks in the community by identifying current and potential network members (Bergstrom, et. al. 1995). Within a community, social network mapping can help to identify the hub, weaver, and periphery players in several layers of networks. By providing visual evidence of relationships in the community, it becomes much easier to conceptualize which players will influence the most people. For example, in one study, researchers found that the informal network used by employees for collecting the knowledge necessary to complete their tasks and make decisions did not match the company’s organization chart. Moreover, one of the middle managers repeatedly surfaced as a key player; he was not only the person to whom most people posed their questions, but he was also the only line of communication between two of the company’s four departments(Parker, Cross, and Walsh, 2001).
Leadership. The leader is a very important player because he or she is usually the player who determines who the hubs and peripheries are, and what the different and similar values among networks are. These network leaders tend to have certain traits which lend themselves to collaborative community management. Such leaders are trusted by participants and are good communicators. They may be a neutral or respected community member, a pre-existing advocacy coalition leader, or a professional facilitator hired from outside the community. They also are able to identify and focus on each network’s shared goals and individual contributions to the larger goal of the collaborative project. Additionally, these leaders communicate tactfully, while strategically choosing members of the collaborative project (Bergstrom, et., al. 1995).
Equitable Participation
Equitable participation is the basis of successful collaborative management. Equitable participation means that stakeholders in a community’s social network have meaningful involvement in the collaborative process (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). The benefits of this approach to collaborative community management are significant as are the issues which arise when it is absent. Facilitating collaborative management through equitable participation of diverse social networks promotes the norm of civic engagement as public work.
The Value of Equitable Participation
Equitable participation is important to successful community management throughout the planning process and ultimately, during and after the implementation of the project. In fact, the act of successful dialogue between social networks as a step towards working cooperatively may be one goal (Mandell 1999; Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). Supportive characteristics can be fostered through the inclusion of such stakeholders and the development of individual skills and internal leadership for effective management (Bergstrom, et., al. 1995; Sirianni and Friedland 1995). This involves a shift away from thinking that only experts or professionals know what the less represented groups need. Instead, the disenfranchised groups are seen as having valuable information about their needs, and shared ownership of the solution (Lawson 2004).
Civic Engagement as Public Work. Creating cultural norms of civic engagement among all network members in a community creates an expectation of equitable participation (Putnam, 1995). Civic engagement includes a combination of political and community participation. If players believe that involvement in the community is a natural and expected part of being a community member, they are more likely to participate in collaborative problem solving. Additionally, when community members consider themselves to be a part of changing communities, they are also more likely to take ownership and responsibility for issues that arise within their community (Sirianni and Friedland 1995). This is even a stronger case in general exchange networks, where people feel directly responsible to another specific group in the effort (Yamigishi and Cook 1993). An important factor when considering civic engagement as public work is that the cultural norm should apply to networks that typically do not engage in civic participation (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). On this premise, a sense of ownership, combined with a cultural norm of civic engagement, can help to facilitate equitable participation.
Reducing Exclusion
Exclusion of some community members often occurs because of competing cultural values. These values might dictate that certain types of people or social networks do not participate in community collaboration. Some ethnic and religious cultures, for example, condemn or discourage public participation for women. If the problem primarily affects women then a significant group of stakeholders may not be adequately represented (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). Exclusion, however, does not always come from within the stakeholder’s network, but may also be generated from more formal social networks. Exclusion is a powerful tool for those who want to maintain their current status; research shows that limiting opportunities for less powerful players decreases the risk that the weaker players will gain power (Markovsky, Erger, Lovaglia, et. al., 1993). Community members who traditionally have powerful roles politically or otherwise, may not invite certain members of society to join cooperative projects. Participation in collaborative efforts which are dominated by exclusionary groups may be overwhelming to those who are not typically invited to join. In these cases, many invaluable stakeholders may choose to avoid the process and continue to remain in their less intimidating role of victim.
This problem is further exacerbated by the distance between decision makers and those affected by the problem. Leaders who are focused on problems at a national level, for example, may not understand the unintended consequences of their decisions (Sirianni and Friedland 1997). Furthermore, managers in high level positions within a hierarchy are less often consulted by front line employees, and less aware of the details of activities at these low levels (Parker, Cross and Walsh 2001).
Furthermore, when underrepresented stakeholders are included, their participation may be seen as less valuable than that of the experts and other members. These attitudes, combined with a tradition of exclusionary practice and previous unfulfilled promises, often leads only to token participation by underrepresented players, because the opinions of those experiencing the problem are not given the same weight as the opinions of experts and other members. In these situations, elite members of collaborative groups working for social change may unintentionally increase isolation among some social networks. Underrepresented members often leave the collaborative experience feeling frustrated demoralized (McAfee 1993).
Finally, technology is sometimes a barrier to equitable participation as well, both through a lack of technology and too much technology. Because so much of collaboration is dependent on shared knowledge to build a comprehensive understanding of the problem, a lack of access to the most current and complete information may be an exclusionary barrier for some stakeholders (Myburgh 2003). For example, people with low income and less education are not likely to have simple access to the internet for collaborative information sharing (Preece 2002). Thus, the cost of technology may be one concern for poor stakeholders who have difficulty affording access to high speed internet.
Strategies for Facilitating Equitable Participation
Valuable analytical strategies are available to aid managers in decision making processes. These are social network mapping and cost benefit analyses. Social network mapping provides a visual and quantitative representation of networks in the community, and as such can show which networks may be excluded from collaborative community processes. Additionally, these maps offer insight into which players may be especially useful allies. As such, social network mapping may help managers to determine where to spend resources on recruiting and which connections need to be strengthened. Similarly, cost benefit analyses help with decision making by identifying the costs and benefits associated with a collaborative project. Leaders can then weigh these transactional costs and benefits to determine where to focus resources. This combination of tools provides facilitators with methods for objectively analyzing the situation so they can use their resources in ways that are cost efficient and maximize results.
Social Network Mapping. As with social networking, utilizing social network mapping to better understand who the key players are and who is not being included in the collaborative effort may prove helpful in the quest for equitable participation. There may be entire networks that have been excluded from collaborative processes and from interactions with other networks (Figueroa, Kincaid, Lewis, and Rani 2002). Alternatively, there may be particular players who have the potential to be very influential and beneficial to meeting the overall goal. Understanding these relationships can allow a collaborative facilitator to decide where to focus limited time and resources in developing and building connections. This is also a valuable tool for visualizing relationships and patterns of knowledge sharing, so that the transfer of information can be maximized for effectiveness (Parker, Cross and Walsh 2001).
Cost-benefit analysis. Similarly, a cost-benefit analysis may be helpful in making choices about where to focus one’s resources for the purposes of improving equitable participation in collaborative community management. To complete such an analysis, facilitators can assess the various transaction costs and benefits associated with their community’s particular circumstance. In fact, many theorists have concluded that participants will only engage in collaborative efforts if the costs are worth the benefits. These costs and benefits can impact organizations both structurally and in terms of their relationships with other networks (Park and Reiock n.d.) Some common costs to consider for include concrete resources such as financial contributions or time spent in communicating with other participants (Lawson, 2004). Establishing and sustaining collaborative relationships also requires a significant amount of a facilitator’s time. In fact, time has been cited by many city managers as a cost (Agranoff and McGuire 1999). Other, less concrete losses may include those related to power and turf (Mandell 1999; Myburgh 2003). In some cases, for example, the delegate to the collaborative body may become more influential than the delegate’s supervisor (Kanter 1989).
Though these costs are important considerations for many managers, the benefits of collaboration are also noteworthy. Despite the costs of time and resources needed to be conscientiously inclusive when designing or participating in collaborative efforts, this inclusion may actually be more efficient than solving the problem alone. Participants may benefit, for example, from economies of scale and economies of specialization (Ahuja 2000; Dissel and Kumar 2001; Lawson 2004). Additionally, this applies to the benefits of shared information. For example, organizations may learn that certain approaches to a problem do not work, thus saving the partners the expense of attempting an unworkable method (Ahuja 2000).
The inclusion of those who may be typically underrepresented is likely to be economically beneficial in the long run. The input of each member can be used to avoid some of the unintended consequences which would otherwise be accrued by a failed or mediocre attempt at problem solving. For example, some stakeholders may purposely sabotage a project because they resent being excluded (Lawson 2004). Additionally, many of the problems to be solved are those that address expensive issues, such as poverty, education, and homelessness. When one considers the cost-savings derived from successful collaborative efforts, the expenses associated with inclusion may be less of a burden than the costs generated by the problem if the effort is unsuccessful.
Besides the potential economic benefits of equitable participation, organizations may also find that the public image they create through collaboration is advantageous. As such, many funders require the inclusion of all the stakeholders. Therefore, the benefit of meeting federal laws for receiving funding is a powerful incentive for organizations involved in some collaborative processes.
Using a combination of social network mapping, and a cost-benefit analysis, collaborative community managers can determine where to spend resources in order to maximize equitable participation. Resources may be used to develop new connections between social networks, or to modify the managerial structure so that it facilitates cooperative problem solving. Structurally, fiscal and regulatory policies can be addressed, as well as mechanisms for communication and the flattening of vertical hierarchies.
Resources can also be dedicated to strengthening social networks by connecting key players and ensuring a balance of homogeneity and diversity. Social network mapping is a useful tool for identifying which groups may be excluded and which groups are important stakeholders. Additionally, building a history of successful collaboration can create cultural norms of cooperative problem solving within the community. These norms lead to the development of participatory skills and improved overall capacity for collaborative community management.
Conclusion
Successful collaborative community management includes as many stakeholders as possible, and as such promotes equitable participation. Facilitators determine where to dedicate community resources so that they are most effective and can be aided in this endeavor by using analytical strategies. Existing social networks and positive community characteristics may be highlighted through such analysis. Building a history of successful collaboration can create cultural norms of cooperative problem solving within the community. These norms lead to the development of participatory skills and an increase in the overall capacity for collaborative community management.
Characteristics which are supportive of collaborative community management include shared values and goals, limited diversity, trust and reciprocity, open communication and knowledge sharing, and inclusion of important stakeholders. Structurally, horizontal management is usually more conducive to collaboration than vertical management because it has fewer layers of hierarchy. Flat hierarchies often offer more opportunity for participation, knowledge sharing, flexibility, and innovation than do vertical management structures. The leader in a collaborative effort is a very important player because he or she promotes relationships and helps to modify structural deficits.
Leaders also make important decisions about where to focus resources for the purpose of facilitating collaboration by connecting key players and ensuring a balance of homogeneity and diversity. Social network mapping is a useful tool for identifying groups which may be excluded but are important stakeholders. This, in conjunction with a cost benefit analysis offers an analytical perspective that can support decision making. Collaborative efforts that balance supportive structures and community characteristics while promoting full inclusion in the process build community capacity for collaboration.
References
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 1999. Managing in network settings. Policy Studies Review. 16(1):18-41.
Ahuja, Gautam. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holds, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative
Science Quarterly. 45(3): 425-455.
Akerlund, Kathryn M. 2000. Prevention program sustainability: The state’s perspective. Journal of Community Psychology.
28(3):353-362.
Bergstrom, Arno, Richard Clark, Teresa Hogue, Ted Iyechad, Jeff Miller, Steve Mullen, Daniel Perkins, Ellen Rowe,
Juanita Russell, Viviane Simon-Brown, Margaret Slinski, Alan B. Snider, and Flossie Thurston. 1995.
Collaboration framework- addressing community capacity. National Network for Collaboration.
http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab/framework.html.
Boyte, Harry C. 1995. Beyond deliberation: Citizenship as public work. Delivered at the PEGS Conference,
February 11-12.
Figueroa, Maria Elena, D. Lawrence Kincaid, Manju Rani, and Gary Lewis. 2002. Communication for social change:
An integrated model for measuring the process and its outcomes. The Communication for Social Change Working
Paper Series: No 1. http://www.communicationforsocialchange.org/pdf/socialchange.pdf.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1989. When giants learn to dance: Mastering the challenges of strategy, management, and careers
in the 1990s. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Kumar, Kuldeep. 1996. Sustainable collaboration: Managing conflict and cooperation in interorganizational systems.
MIS Quarterly. September: 279-300.
Lawson, Hal A. 2004. The logic of collaboration in education and the human services. Journal of Interprofessional Care.
18(3): 225-237.
Mandell, Myrna P. 1999. Community collaborations: Working through network structures. Policy Studies Review.
16(1):43-64.
Markovsky, Barry, John Skvoretz, David Willer, Jeffrey Erger, and Michael Lovaglia. 1993. The seeds of weak power:
An extension of network exchange theory. American Sociological Review. 58(2): 197-209.
McAfee, Noelle. 1993. Relationship and power an interview with Ernesto Cortes, Jr. Kettering Review.
http://www.cpn.org/crm/essays/cortes.html.
Myburgh, Sue. 2003. Collaboration and competition: The paradox of knowledge management. Innovation. 27: 37-48.
Park, Hyung Jun, and Richard C. Reiock. n.d. Collaborative approaches to economic development: regional development
partnerships and social capital. Florida State University Working Paper Archive.
http://www.fsu.edu/~spap/feiock/papers/Regional_partnerships.pdf.
Parker, Andrew, Rob Cross, and Dean Walsh. 2001. Improving collaboration with social network analysis leveraging knowledge
in the informal organization. Knowledge Management Review. 4(2): 24-28.
Preece, Jenny. 2002. Supporting community and building social capital. Communications of the ACM. 45(4): 37-39.
Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science
and Politics. (28)4: 664-683.
Rulke, Diane L., and Joseph Galaskiewiez. 2000. Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance.
Management Science. 46(5): 612-625
Rural Sociological Society. 2006. Catalytic community development. Issue Brief Challenges for Rural America in the
Twenty-First Century. 6:1-3. http://ruralsociology.org/briefs/brief6.pdf.
Sirianni, Carmen and Lewis Friedland. 1995. Social capital and civic innovation learning and capacity building from the 1960s
to the 1990s. Presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, August 20, 1995. Washington, D.C.
Thompson, Bonnie. 2006. Do the right thing? Not with a rival’s inside info. Advertising Age. 77(29).
http://mantis.csuchico.edu:3095/ehost/detail?vid=120&hid=105.....
Yamagishi, Toshio, and Karen S. Cook. 1993. Generalized exchange and social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly.
56(4): 235-248. |
