Partnership implementation encompasses the processes and interactions undertaken during the design and operationalisation of a relationship (Seitanidi 2010). During this partnership phase, decisions are made regarding how the relationship will be organised and governed, as well as the role that culture and communication will take within the operation and development of the relationship (Selsky & Parker 2005). Elements of partnership design, such as setting the structures and processes through which the relationship will operate are also determined, and provide the framework by which partners interact, resources are exchanged and joint value is created (Austin & Seitanidi 2012b).
The way in which relationships are implemented has important implications for the overall success of the relationship and the generation of positive outcomes for the partners
involved (Seitanidi & Ryan 2007). A number of dynamics may arise during the
implementation of partnership, some of which may affect the communication that occurs between partners (Selsky & Parker 2005) and the trust that is built overall. Effective communication between partners is vital to processes of clarifying relationship goals, generating new ideas and opportunities, as well as engaging in joint problem solving (Sagawa & Segal 2000). Furthermore, communication helps to develop a common culture between partners, one that is built upon shared values and common interests (Selsky & Parker 2005).
-51-
Positive relationship dynamics, including effective communication and reciprocated trust between partners, can, however, be impeded by contrasting partner logics (Bryson et al. 2006). This is particularly the case within cross-sector partnerships, in which partner actions are guided by, and legitimised by, the logics that exist within different institutional fields (Greenwood et al. 2010). These logics affect how partners design and operate partnership (Lawrence et al. 2002), which means that partner organisations with contrasting logics may have difficulties cooperating effectively when negotiating key aspects of partnership such as processes, structures, governance and desired outcomes (Bryson et al. 2006; Lawrence et al. 2002). For example, clashes may arise between the values of self-interest and altruism (Gray & Purdy 2013), which can lead to priority being given to shareholder interests, as opposed to the needs of social stakeholders (Seitanidi & Ryan 2007). Relationship processes and outcomes may be further influenced by the power dynamics that develop, with partners that control critical resources often dictating terms and exercising control (Phillips et al. 2000).
3.7.4.1 Social enterprise partnership literature and partnership implementation
Partnerships between social enterprises and businesses are complex arrangements, shaped by the exchange capabilities and value of each partner, as well as a combination of a number of competing practices and priorities that reflect the logic frameworks within which each organisation operates (Di Domenico et al. 2009). Existing scholarship into social enterprise partnership has predominantly applied functionalist perspectives to explore the motivations for and outcomes of partnership with business (Huybrechts & Nicholls 2013; Meyskens et al. 2010b; Sakarya et al. 2012). As a result, the processes undertaken to build, implement and maintain these partnerships, as well as the role of institutional logics in these processes, has been largely overlooked within the literature (Clarke & Fuller 2010; Seelos & Mair 2007). The following discussion outlines the key themes that exist in relation to the implementation of SE-BUS partnerships, including resource contributions between partners and relationship dynamics that may develop.
-52-
3.7.4.2 Resource contributions
As an emergent form of hybrid organisation, social enterprises often struggle to access resources required for their operation (Di Domenico et al. 2010). Partnership may therefore be utilised as a strategy for social enterprises to gain needed resources, and overcome resource limitations that inhibit their viability and growth. The exchange capabilities of partners are one aspect of partnership that may affect the dynamics that develop and the spread of power between partners (Di Domenico et al. 2009). Business organisations, due to their strong commercial orientation (and stability associated with operating within a mature institutional field) tend to experience greater resource
superiority when compared to their social enterprise partners. This can lead to the sway of power within SE-BUS partnerships in the favour of the business partner (Kolk et al. 2010; Nicholls & Huybrechts 2014; Seitanidi & Ryan 2007; Wymer & Samu 2003), which in turn can create tensions within these relationships.
A number of resources may be contributed by partners within SE-BUS partnerships, often related to the core assets of the partners involved. Di Domenico et al. (2009) propose that collaboration objectives will most closely align with the organisational objectives of the partner whose contributions are most valued by the partner organisation. In other words, the value placed upon the contribution of each partner is the basis upon which their position within the relationship is established. Consequently, partnership processes and objectives will reflect the logic of the partner with the greatest exchange value within the relationship. The exchange value of partners is linked to their core activities, which are guided by institutional logics that determine an organisation’s actions and objectives. For example, Di Domenico et al. (2009) propose that the exchange value of social enterprise for businesses is based upon the embeddedness within communities, the connection with local issues, and the sense of legitimacy that arises from their attempts to generate positive social outcomes. For a business partner, these connections provide the means through which they can develop associational legitimacy, which may have a positive effect on both the reputation and legitimacy of the business with social stakeholders. This exchange value was demonstrated in research undertaken by Meyskens et al. (2010b) into the resource capabilities of micro-finance social enterprises in partnership with businesses, in which social enterprises provided their business partners with enhanced legitimacy and for retail banks particularly, access to clients. Social enterprises have also been found to provide the
-53-
organisational infrastructure, knowledge, expertise and network connections necessary to carry out specific projects (Sakarya et al. 2012). However, it has been suggested that social enterprises, as organisations that operate a business, may also contribute commercial value to business partners, providing partners with enhanced efficiencies in the allocation of resources to help ensure longer-term success and sustainability of projects (Husted 2003). From a social enterprise perspective, the exchange value of their business partners is proposed to be based upon their wealth generation abilities, particularly their access to commercial and financial resources (Di Domenico et al. 2009). Furthermore, businesses may offer value based upon their knowledge and infrastructure capabilities, as well as their ability to enhance the ‘business’ legitimacy of social enterprises within the market (Di Domenico et al. 2009). Support for these propositions is found in extant research. For example, research by Meyskens et al. (2010b) found that in partnerships with micro- finance social enterprises, business partners provided access to financial support in the form of grants, lending capital and clients, and human capital through the form of access to volunteers with knowledge and skills within the finance industry. Similarly, Sakarya et al. (2012) found that within social alliances targeting the disadvantaged individuals at the bottom of the pyramid, business partners were the key providers of financial resources. Extant theorising has suggested that social enterprises, as a result of their institutional complexity and associated resource scarcities, are more likely to depend on their business partners for key resources (Battilana & Lee 2014; Nicholls & Huybrechts 2014). As the above literature suggests, these resources are highly likely to be financial in nature, a result of the commercial exchange capabilities of businesses operating according to a
commercial logic. In fact, partnership with businesses has been associated with the ‘business-like’ evolution of social enterprise (Huybrechts & Nicholls 2013). However, given the nascency of literature on social enterprises, there is much yet to learn about how these organisations utilise resources within partnership, and the resource capabilities that determine their exchange value within partnerships. Further research is needed into the types of resources contributed within SE-BUS partnerships, how these resources may reflect their social and commercial objectives and capabilities, and how they influence the power dynamics developed between social enterprises and their business partners.
-54-
3.7.4.3 Relationship dynamics
Theoretical analyses from the wider partnership literature suggest that in order for relationships to develop successfully and endure, partnerships must operate under
conditions of balance and commonality (Nicholls & Huybrechts 2014). This literature has traditionally analysed partnerships occurring between same sector organisations operating within similar institutional frameworks (see for example Barringer & Harrison 2000; Koza & Lewin 1998; Sheth & Parvatiyar 1992). In comparison, the dynamics of relationships between organisations with contrasting institutional logics has received less attention. It is widely argued that the contrast in institutional logics between social enterprises and businesses creates conditions of conflict when these organisations partner (Battilana & Lee 2014; Haugh 2005; Herlin 2013; Huybrechts & Nicholls 2013; Nicholls & Huybrechts 2014; Seitanidi & Ryan 2007). Each partner is thought to bring different perspectives and approaches to the management of the partnership (Di Domenico et al. 2010; Seitanidi 2010), engaging in sense-making and communication according to narratives provided by the logics from within their institutional fields. These logics help to shape the way in which partnership actors think, communicate and generate practices (Lammers 2011; Ocasio et al. 2014; Thornton et al. 2012). A lack of alignment between narrative
frameworks can therefore create communication challenges between partners, who may struggle to find common ground from which to undertake partnership negotiations and management. According to theorising undertaken by Di Domenico et al. (2009, p. 896), periods of tension arising from differences between the goals and logics, ownership, governance and accountabilities of partners are most likely to arise once the partnership is actioned and requires management, such as during the implementation of partnerships. In order for relationships to continue and develop into more institutionalised arrangements, partners must effectively communicate to reconcile differences, which may involve
compromising aspects of their core mission to act according to a set of values that may be different to those guiding their behaviour outside of the partnership context (Di Domenico et al. 2009). Successful compromise and negotiation between partners requires the
development of mechanisms that promote effective communication within partnerships. Research has indicated that successful communication between key individuals within the social enterprise and their business partner is one such mechanism that influences the
-55-
length and strength of relationships (Meyskens et al. 2010a). This aligns with research into non-profit/business partnerships that found the development of personal relationships between individuals in the partnering organisations are vital to the process of partnership implementation, as these relationships establish a communication flow between partner organisations (Simpson et al. 2011; Walter 2003).
Compromise within SE-BUS partnerships may, however, be affected by the power dynamics that develop between partners. Social enterprises are thought to be dependent upon their business partners for key resources, which can lead to the development of power asymmetries within the relationship that result in the subordination of the social goals of the enterprise in favour of the commercial objectives of the business partner (Battilana & Lee 2014; Herlin 2013; Huybrechts & Nicholls 2013; Nicholls & Huybrechts 2014; Seitanidi & Ryan 2007). However, in light of the paucity of research into the
successful management of contrasting logics within unbalanced inter-organisational relationships (Nicholls & Huybrechts 2014), the power dynamics that exist between social enterprises and their business partners are yet to be fully understood.
In conclusion, it has been suggested that differences in social enterprise and business partner logics lead to the application of contradictory approaches to the management of partnerships, which is likely to create dynamics of conflict and power imbalances within such arrangements (Di Domenico et al. 2009). However, the overall lack of research into the actions undertaken during the implementation phase of SE-BUS partnerships means that a limited understanding currently exists regarding the influence of institutional complexity upon the dynamics that exist within these relationships, the degree to which conflict arises between partners, and how the partners interact to develop the relationship over time. Recognising the importance of developing a greater understanding of the processes involved in the implementation of SE-BUS partnership, research sub-question three seeks to develop this knowledge by asking:
How does the combination of social enterprise and business partner institutional logics affect partnership implementation processes such as the sharing of
-56-
Having outlined the literature relating to social enterprise partnership formation decision- making, the literature relating to partnership outcomes will now be presented.