Cross-Sector Collaboration In Cities: Learning Journey Or Blame Game?

IF 5.2 1区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Pub Date : 2025-01-07 DOI:10.1093/jopart/muae026
Santiago Pulido-Gómez, Jorrit de Jong, Jan W Rivkin
{"title":"Cross-Sector Collaboration In Cities: Learning Journey Or Blame Game?","authors":"Santiago Pulido-Gómez, Jorrit de Jong, Jan W Rivkin","doi":"10.1093/jopart/muae026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The success of cross-sector collaborations (CSCs) in cities is mixed, and important questions remain about what distinguishes effective from ineffective collaborations. This comparative case study examined nine CSCs in three U.S. cities covering three public policy areas: education, economic development, and public safety. Nine group interviews, 110 individual interviews, and analysis of archival documents revealed common patterns, allowing us to build grounded theory about the roots of CSC success. We propose that how a collaboration responds to setbacks plays a crucial role. Success arises in collaborations that respond to setbacks with a process of mutual learning, in which participants come to anticipate each other’s actions, devise new ways of apportioning labor, and approach problems collectively. In contrast, failure follows when setbacks lead collaborations into a process of mutual blaming. No single mode of network governance is especially associated with success, but more successful collaborations tend to be characterized by adaptability concerning governance mode. Mutual learning appears to be facilitated by a few key actions: building on prior relationships, relying on trusted key participants, engaging with the community, using data to advantage, and investing in joint problem-solving. Our findings suggest that collaborative leaders in public, private, and nonprofit organizations should emphasize these key actions to enable collaboration and facilitate mutual learning.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae026","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The success of cross-sector collaborations (CSCs) in cities is mixed, and important questions remain about what distinguishes effective from ineffective collaborations. This comparative case study examined nine CSCs in three U.S. cities covering three public policy areas: education, economic development, and public safety. Nine group interviews, 110 individual interviews, and analysis of archival documents revealed common patterns, allowing us to build grounded theory about the roots of CSC success. We propose that how a collaboration responds to setbacks plays a crucial role. Success arises in collaborations that respond to setbacks with a process of mutual learning, in which participants come to anticipate each other’s actions, devise new ways of apportioning labor, and approach problems collectively. In contrast, failure follows when setbacks lead collaborations into a process of mutual blaming. No single mode of network governance is especially associated with success, but more successful collaborations tend to be characterized by adaptability concerning governance mode. Mutual learning appears to be facilitated by a few key actions: building on prior relationships, relying on trusted key participants, engaging with the community, using data to advantage, and investing in joint problem-solving. Our findings suggest that collaborative leaders in public, private, and nonprofit organizations should emphasize these key actions to enable collaboration and facilitate mutual learning.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
城市跨部门合作:学习之旅还是指责游戏?
城市中跨部门合作(CSCs)的成功参差不齐,区分有效合作与无效合作的重要问题仍然存在。本比较案例研究考察了美国三个城市的九个社区服务中心,涵盖三个公共政策领域:教育、经济发展和公共安全。9个小组访谈,110个个人访谈,以及对档案文件的分析揭示了共同的模式,使我们能够建立关于CSC成功根源的基础理论。我们认为,合作如何应对挫折起着至关重要的作用。成功产生于通过相互学习的过程来应对挫折的合作,在这个过程中,参与者开始预测彼此的行动,设计分配劳动力的新方法,并集体解决问题。相反,当挫折导致合作陷入相互指责的过程时,失败就随之而来了。没有一种网络治理模式与成功特别相关,但更成功的协作往往具有治理模式的适应性。相互学习似乎可以通过一些关键行动来促进:建立先前的关系,依赖可信任的关键参与者,与社区互动,利用数据优势,以及投资共同解决问题。我们的研究结果表明,公共、私人和非营利组织的合作领导者应该强调这些关键行动,以实现合作和促进相互学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory serves as a bridge between public administration or public management scholarship and public policy studies. The Journal aims to provide in-depth analysis of developments in the organizational, administrative, and policy sciences as they apply to government and governance. Each issue brings you critical perspectives and cogent analyses, serving as an outlet for the best theoretical and research work in the field. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory is the official journal of the Public Management Research Association.
期刊最新文献
How to organize in turbulence: Arrangements and pathways for robust governance Inside the Digital State: Frontline Work in the Context of Digital Layering Cross-Sector Collaboration In Cities: Learning Journey Or Blame Game? Compliance under distrust: Do people comply less when they feel distrusted? The professional profile, competence, and responsiveness of senior bureaucrats: a paired survey experiment with citizens and elite respondents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1