Collaboration among Utah Nonprofits: Views of Working Together Through the Executive Director's Prospective

This project will provide Utah nonprofits with a better understanding of how local nonprofits are utilizing relationships to better serve their target population, improve the community, and enhance their own organization. The intent is to assist Utah nonprofits in the collaboration process by researching local nonprofits that are currently collaborating. The final product is a document that the Utah Nonprofit Association will be able to give their members to assist them in their collaboration efforts. The document includes recommendations in the areas of: assessing value, leadership, and organization size, network and funding.

COLLABORATION AMONG UTAH NONPROFITS: VIEWS OF WORKING TOGETHER THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S PROSPECTIVE By Dane Ishihara A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Community Leadership Westminster College Salt Lake City, Utah April 2014APPROVAL of a thesis/project submitted by Author's Name: Dane Ishihara School Department: School of Education Title of Thesis/Project: Collaboration among Utah nonprofits: views of working together through the executive director's prospective The above named master's thesis/project has been read by each member of the supervisory committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Westminster College Library. ______________________ ________________________________________________ Date Thesis Advisor Approved for the School ______________________ ________________________________________________ Date Dean, SchoolSTATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO DUPLICATE THESIS & DEPOSIT/DISPLAY IN THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY Name of Author: Dane Ishihara School/Department: School of Education Title of Thesis: Collaboration among Utah nonprofits: Views of working together through the executive director's prospective With permission from the author(s), on the basis of an occasional and individual request, the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College has the right to make a copy of the above named thesis. The Giovale Library staff also has the right to mail or otherwise disseminate a copy to the requesting party and to be reimbursed by the requesting party for the cost of duplicating and mailing the thesis. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College to duplicate as described the above named thesis. Signature of Author Date With permission from the author(s), the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College has the right to deposit and display an electronic copy of the above named thesis in its Institutional Repository for educational purposes only. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College to deposit and display as described the above named thesis. I retain ownership rights to my work, including the right to use it in future works such as articles or a book. Signature of Author Date The above duplication and deposit rights may be terminated by the author(s) at any time by notifying the Director of the Giovale Library in writing that permission is withdrawn.Abstract This project will provide Utah nonprofits with a better understanding of how local nonprofits are utilizing relationships to better serve their target population, improve the community, and enhance their own organization. The intent is to assist Utah nonprofits in the collaboration process by researching local nonprofits that are currently collaborating. The final product is a document that the Utah Nonprofit Association will be able to give their members to assist them in their collaboration efforts. The document includes recommendations in the areas of: assessing value, leadership, and organization size, network and funding. Dedication For my Mom and Dad, Dana and Darla Ishihara, you have taught me to be accepting and understanding to all things that make up our community. Without your love and support I would not have been able to accomplish any of my goals. To my wife, Lacey Ishihara, thank you for being supportive while this learning experience was taking place. Acknowledgment I would like to thank my participants. Without you taking time out of your busy schedules I could not have completed this project. I learned a great deal from you and I truly enjoyed interacting with you throughout the process. An immeasurable thank you to Chris Bray, my project sponsor. I cannot express how instrumental you were in this process. Your compassion for the Utah nonprofit community is contagious. I will continue to use the skills that I have gained under your tutelage for many years to come. I would like to express my gratitude to the faculty and staff of Westminster College including Peggy Cain, Shelley Erickson, and Jamie Joanou. Your guidance and support has assisted me inside and outside the classroom. I also extend my thanks to the MACL family. As we finish this journey, I hope that we continue to learn and laugh together. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: Topic ...................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER II: Review of Literature Introduction............................................................................. 6 Assessing Value ...................................................................... 6 Leadership............................................................................... 7 Organization Size.................................................................... 9 Organization Network............................................................10 Organization Funding ............................................................11 Conclusion .............................................................................13 CHAPTER III: Methods Context...................................................................................14 Date Collection ......................................................................14 Participants ............................................................................15 Data Analysis .........................................................................16 Validation...............................................................................17 Access to Participants ............................................................17 Concerns ................................................................................17 Subjectivity ............................................................................18 CHAPTER IV: Findings Introduction............................................................................20 Assessing Value .....................................................................20 Leadership..............................................................................23Organization Size...................................................................26 Organization Network............................................................28 Organization Funding ............................................................29 Conclusion .............................................................................30 CHAPTER V: Discussion Introduction............................................................................31 Assessing Value .....................................................................31 Leadership..............................................................................32 Organization Size...................................................................33 Organization Network............................................................34 Organization Funding ............................................................34 Implications............................................................................35 Limitations .............................................................................37 Future Research .....................................................................38 Conclusion .............................................................................39 REFERENCES.............................................................................................40 APPENDICES A. Learning Objectives and Reflection..................................44 B. Consent Form....................................................................46 C. Interview Guide.................................................................47 D. IRB Form ..........................................................................48Running Head: Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 1 Chapter I: Topic During my undergraduate degree studies in Economics, we discussed the concept of scarcity on a regular basis. The theory of scarcity is that our needs are unlimited and resources, goods, and services are limited. In the American economic system, it is the role of the marketplace to handle the allocation of these scarce goods and services. Simply put, we would not fill the needs of everyone if things were given away for free (Marks & Davis, 2007). During my studies in the Master of Arts in Community Leadership program my thoughts kept returning to the concept of scarcity and how it relates to nonprofit organizations. Specifically, how do nonprofits that appear to be competing, work together to benefit their customers and the community if resources are scarce? Initially, I felt that it may be counterintuitive to work with other organizations that you are competing with. However, my thoughts were misguided because the agencies may not be competing, but rather working in concert towards a common purpose or shared goal. There are a variety of roles that agencies may play in serving our community and I decided that I wanted to learn more about how agencies work together. I felt that I could accomplish this objective by interviewing executive directors of Utah nonprofits and asking them about collaboration. On November 13, 2013, I conducted an EBSCO Host database search from 1990 to 2013 using the key terms "nonprofit" and "collaboration." The search returned 6,318 results. This established that there is a plethora of information related to nonprofits and collaboration. Then I began researching the number of nonprofits in Utah and according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics in 2013 there were 7,850 nonprofitCollaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 2 organizations in Utah. As these organizations continue to provide services to the community, I felt that it would be important that individuals working with Utah nonprofits have information from the local community. There are many factors that go into the decision to collaborate and the objective is that by providing information from the Utah nonprofit community the organizations will be able to work better together. In the mid 1990's Bailey and Koney (1996) reported that this paradigm shift, from nonprofits voluntarily working together to mandated collaboration, started to occur because both private and public institutions required collaboration as a condition of funding. This paradigm shift is a root cause that changed the way that nonprofits viewed and implemented collaboration. Thus, understanding collaboration among nonprofits is becoming more important because private founders and government officials are encouraging or mandating nonprofits and public agencies to work together to deliver services (Sowa, 2009). As organizations continue to collaborate because of mandates it will be important that these organizations have the information that they need to make judicious decisions while working together. There are also benefits that cause nonprofits to collaborate. For example, organizations can use collaboration because of the desire to leverage expertise or new ideas for their organization, and to maximize the money available for services (Sowa, 2009). Additionally, when nonprofits collaborate, they are afforded greater organizational flexibility and adaptability to change for participants (Arya & Lin, 2007). As with mandated collaboration, it is important that agencies that choose to collaborate have information that assists them in making choices that will benefit their agency and the community. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 3 This project will provide Utah nonprofits with a better understanding of how local nonprofits are utilizing relationships to better serve their target populations, improve the community, and enhance their own organization. By researching local nonprofits that are currently collaborating the information will be more germane to the Utah nonprofit community. The final product is a document that the Utah Nonprofit Association (UNA) can post to their website and provide their members to assist them in their collaborative efforts. The UNA's mission is to unify, strengthen, and elevate Utah's nonprofits; their 2013-2016 strategic plan includes a unification objective that states that the UNA will be active in creating opportunities for networking and collaborations among nonprofit subgroups. This project will assist the UNA members in unifying because it will provide information that will help agencies in working together. This project and the supporting research will be used to assist the UNA in meeting their mission and objective and the completed endeavor will benefit the UNA members. Overall, this is important because nonprofits need to understand the potential benefits and difficulties they may encounter during the collaboration process in order to make informed decisions and best serve their stated purposes. The following question guided my research and project. How do Utah nonprofit executive directors view different factors in affecting their collaboration efforts? I performed semi-structured interviews with seven executive directors of Utah nonprofits. I chose to interview executive directors because, in most organizations, they are responsible for working with the Board of Directors and the day-to-day management. Thus, interviewing executive directors provided the most information regarding Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 4 collaboration and the daily operations of the organizations. Prior to conducting the interviews I completed a literature review. I used this information to draft my interview guide and to evaluate my interviews and findings that will be discussed in the following chapters. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 5 Chapter II: Review of the Literature Introduction As the federal, state and local community governments struggle to solve complex and overwhelming social problems, more strain is placed on nonprofit agencies to meet the demands of communities (Goldman & Kathweiler, 2000). Also, some problems facing communities may warrant a network response by nonprofit agencies because the issues are inconsistent or change frequently, and the resources, knowledge and solutions needed to deal with the problems are distributed across different organizations (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). These examples establish two of the root causes for the expansion of nonprofit collaboration: governments' struggles to solve complex issues and social issues that warrant a network response. To assist nonprofits in addressing social concerns, collaboration has been steadily touted as the way to find new solutions to complex problems (Selden, Sowa & Sandfort, 2006). Collaborations have been publicized as a potential benefit for several reasons, including: acquiring resources that they may not have been able to acquire independently, and the desire to leverage expertise and ideas from other organizations (Sowa, 2009). Collaboration is also appealing when profit is not a motive because the potential drawbacks of collaboration, such as shared resources and reduced autonomy, are less likely to be seen as a hazard (Provan & Milward, 2001). That is, nonprofits generally do not have to worry about other nonprofits cutting into their bottom line. Thus, collaboration has become an integral part of the nonprofit sector. This literature review is focused on providing information to the Utah Nonprofit Association (UNA) members so that they gain a better understanding of collaboration. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 6 This chapter is organized into six sections. It begins with assessing the value of collaboration. The second section addresses leadership and how leadership can be a factor affecting nonprofit collaboration. The next three sections focus on the organization in the areas of funding, network and size. The final section is the conclusion. The academic research outlines a variety of reasons for and potential benefits of collaboration. However, the literature reviewed did not include information about Utah nonprofits. In order to better understand collaboration among Utah nonprofits new research will be required. Assessing Value To obtain real advantage out of collaboration, it is argued that something has to be achieved that could not have been achieved without the collaboration (Huxham, 2003). The premise behind collaboration is that value is created for both the organization and the clients served. Value in this context may come from improved service technologies to reduced duplication of services (Selden et al., 2006). Value may be achieved through the knowledge and resources accessed through the backgrounds, resources, and predispositions obtained through collaboration (Baker, Kan & Teo, 2011). Also, collaborations may have an effect on the organizations themselves (Sowa, 2009). For example, program effectiveness has been shown to improve employee satisfaction, which may lead to employee retention (Arya & Lin, 2007). Overall, collaborations are most effective when they enhance the capabilities of an organization to solve problems and provide services to their clientele (Provan & Milward, 2001). The accomplishments of collaboration may not always result in tangible outcomes that assessments will be able to measure and evaluate. For example, collaboration may Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 7 result in the development of new relationships or improved standing in the organization's community. An organization's status is a function of with whom it is associated; by affiliating with prominent organizations a nonprofit may gain donation benefits (Galaskiewicz, Bielfield & Dowell, 2006). The value of collaboration can be tangible or intangible. Tangible value is when a nonprofit obtains a benefit that can be calculated or shown on paper. There may also be intangible benefits to collaboration. For example an organization's reputation is improved because they worked well with another organization. Both of these measurements show how collaboration adds value to nonprofits. Leadership A leader's commitment to collaboration is important and the literature indicates that leadership may play a role in influencing an agency's willingness and ability to form collaborations. Baker, Kan, and Teo (2011), found that leadership was the critical factor influencing culture and performance that led to collaboration. Also, in a study of 92 nonprofit executives located in the southeastern United States, Goldman and Kahnweiler (2000) found that leaders that are more likely to collaborate can be identified. Their study found that "directors who are predisposed to perceiving their respective collaborations as successful are extravert, feeling males who have high role ambiguity and low role boundary occupational stress" (p. 435). Thus, gathering information from nonprofit executives, as this project has done, is important because they are a critical factor influencing collaboration. Leaders are important because they build personal connections and trust (Snavley & Tracy, 2000). Bunger (2012) found in a study of 36 children's behavioral health Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 8 organizations that the more competing nonprofit leaders built trust the more likely the organizations would coordinate administrative functions. Furthermore, in order to develop and implement collaboration, individual members need to have legitimate authority and credibility in their own organizations (Bailey & Koney, 1996). These examples further demonstrate how leadership is an important factor affecting collaboration. Power discrepancies between the leaders and organizations may make the negotiation process more difficult, and it is common practice for partners to start with suspicion rather than trust (Huxham, 2003). Wei-Skillern and Silver (2013) assert that nonprofit leaders need to shift their mindset from promoting themselves to promoting others. They argue that the leaders will need to switch from applying extreme control over programs and strategy to focusing on obtaining praise for themselves and their organizations. Overall, a leader's commitment to an organization's mission drives the growth of the organization (Galaskiewicz et al., 2006). Another theme that the academic literature identifies is the idea that collaboration maybe very time consuming. Provan, Veazie, Staten and Teafel-Shone (2005) assert that collaboration may be costly and time consuming when there are many participants. Vangen and Huxham (2003) report that collaboration can be time consuming because individuals associated with organizations, that are reluctant to actively participate in the collaboration, require nurturing. Huxham (2003) goes as far as to say that collaborations should not be entered unless they have to be. The academic research shows that leadership plays a role in collaboration among nonprofits. The current research explores many different organizations and scenarios. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 9 However, the research does not identify leadership and collaboration in Utah. Thus, it is important that Utah nonprofits have information regarding leadership in relationship to collaboration in Utah. Organization Size Smaller organizations with fewer resources may be more likely to give up autonomy and collaborate in order to gain access to critical resources (Guo & Acar, 2005). This may occur more frequently with nonprofits that are in the beginning stages of development because they frequently lack resources and can overcome potential hazards by establishing alliances (Baum, Calabrese & Silverman, 2000). However, younger organizations may find it more challenging to create collaborative relationships because they may have competing priorities that may pull from their resources (Guo & Acar, 2005) as they seek to establish themselves (Foster & Meinhard, 2002). The academic research suggests that smaller organizations are likely to attempt collaboration but may find it difficult to find partner organizations. Despite small organizations' supposed desire to collaborate, Foster and Meinhard (2002) found that small organizations were less likely to do so. They speculated that the limited resources of a small organization are less attractive to potential partners because they had less to share. Another factor may be that different organizational and individual agendas in collaborative situations make it difficult to agree on goals (Huxham, 2003). On the other end of the spectrum, large organizations may be missing out on opportunities that could benefit the organizations because organizations that have large annual budgets might be less likely to collaborate because of resource sufficiency (Guo & Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 10 Acar, 2005). Also, organizations with larger networks enjoy higher benefits compared with organizations that do not have such networks (Arya & Lin, 2007). The academic research does not clearly outline the meaning behind small or large organizations. This makes researching a specific demographic area important because organizational size may differ depending upon the location. For example, an organization that appears to be small in New York City may be considered a larger organization in Utah. Further complicating the size of a nonprofit organization's effect on collaboration is that many national organizations have smaller chapters that are registered as separate organizations such as United Way, Boys and Girls Clubs of America and Big Brothers and Big Sisters. Thus, researching why organizations of different sizes are choosing to collaborate and how the sizes of the organizations affect the collaborative process in Utah is needed. Organization Network Hillman and Dalziel (2003) contend that board capital (the human capital such as experience, reputation and expertise, and relational capital, the networks and external contingencies) can help in obtaining resources from outside the organization. Mwenja and Lewis (2009) also found that the social networks that board members belong to may lead to resources that otherwise could not have been obtained. Guo and Acar (2005) found that organizations with board linkages with other nonprofits gain access to more nonprofits that may become potential partners, leading to additional collaborations. Furthermore, Arya and Lin (2007) found that organizations with larger networks enjoy higher benefits compared with organizations that do not have such networks. These Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 11 examples establish that organizations with larger networks have an advantage over organizations with smaller networks. Through his fieldwork regarding alliances and networks Gualti (1998) observed that organizations that sought to initiate new collaborations turned to their existing relationships for partnerships or asked for referrals for potential partners. This is interesting because many people in Utah claim that Utah's nonprofit community is very small. This observation can mean two things; either that the community is composed of a few members, or that the community is closely-knit. Information will need to be gathered in order to determine if this idea is true or if it has become part of the jargon used among Utah nonprofits. If, in fact, the nonprofit community is small (closely-knit) then it would reason that there are more opportunities to collaborate in Utah based on what the academic research shows. Organization Funding Funding streams also influence an organization's ability to collaborate. The government is the largest funder of the nonprofit sector and also plays an important role because of laws and mandates. Organizations that receive no government funding are less likely to collaborate than those agencies that receive government funding (Guo & Acur, 2005). The government assists in the collaboration process by providing mandates, incentives and leadership guidance (Snavely & Tracy, 2000). The compartmentalization of government grants may be necessary, but it may hinder organizations from building boundary spanning collaborations (Guo & Acar, 2005). Also, organizations entering collaborations may face concerns because of the unpredictability of the collaborators. For example, a partner organization may provide Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 12 limited contributions to the collaboration or act unscrupulously (Gualti, 1998). Simply put, because the relationships are mandated, organizations may defer to outside organizations that exhibit distinct characteristics in order to meet funding requirements rather than seek potentially beneficial partners. Another issue related to funding that influences collaboration is: who within the organization is deciding what organizations to collaborate with? Many collaborations that funders have forced because of their own strategies, have failed because they were forced from the top down, rather than identifying existing relationships (Wei-Skillern, 2013). To have a better chance of succeeding mandated collaborations should be built on existing networks (Snavley & Tracy, 2000). Thus, although as discussed above, leadership is a vital component to collaboration, it is not enough for leaders to force collaboration without organization buy in. A final issue related to funding that has been identified in the academic literature is communication with donors about what donations will be used for. It is important that collaborations be clear to donors; the public may be reluctant to donate because they want the money they donate to be properly allocated and reported (Arshad, Bakar, Thani & Omar, 2013). In summary, the research indicates that mandated collaborations are less likely to succeed than collaborations that are built on existing relationships. The research does not distinguish between the levels of government that provides the funding for specific nonprofits. Further research is needed for Utah nonprofits to determine if funding streams are related to nonprofit collaboration in Utah. It is important to determine if collaboration is being mandated to Utah nonprofits by government and private funders. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 13 Conclusion Organizations seek benefits for their organizations that outweigh the costs of the collaboration, such as impeded autonomy and sharing resources. Organizations that provide a wide range of services enhance their effectiveness through collaboration through resource gains (Arya & Lin, 2007). Organizations with unstable resources view collaboration as a way to improve the likelihood of survival and established nonprofits viewed collaboration as a way to improve their strategic position (Sowa, 2009). Also, Simo (2009) found in a study of a one-stop neighborhood human service center in Louisiana, post Hurricane Katrina, that cross-sector collaborations can provide excellent settings for agencies to expand their capacity and prepare for future events. Interviewing collaborators about factors leading to collaboration will provide a greater understanding of the collaborative process (Goldman & Kahnweiler, 2000). The more scholars understand what organizations believe to be the benefits from entering collaborations, the better at ascertaining whether the benefits are achieved (Sowa, 2009). Specifically, interviewing individuals in Utah will provide a better understanding of the collaboration process and the benefits of collaboration in Utah.Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 14 Chapter III: Methods Context My final product will be a document that members of the Utah Nonprofit Association can use to assist them in understanding collaboration. It will address the factors of collaboration that I have identified through my literature research. The research conducted will assist Utah nonprofits in building and maintaining collaborations. Sharing this knowledge will give nonprofit leaders and nonprofit boards better tools to build collaborations and provide better services to their clients. My intent was to understand the theories behind the people involved in collaboration, along with the perspectives that form their actions to further the knowledge regarding collaboration. In order to gather the information that will be beneficial to the nonprofit community of Utah and to answer my research question, how do Utah nonprofit executive directors view different factors in affecting their collaboration efforts, I interviewed seven executive directors of Utah nonprofits. In this chapter I will describe how I collected that data, the participants, data analysis, validation, my concerns and subjectivity. My research proposal was submitted for expedited institutional board review and was approved quickly (Appendix D). Data Collection I chose semi-structured interviews because I identified themes through my literature research, and interviewing allowed me to put the executive director's behavior in context and it provided access to their actions (Seidman, 1998). The interview guide (Appendix C) that was used was created based on the themes identified in the academic literature. Performing semi-structured interviews allowed me to explore the opinions of Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 15 the executive directors and the interviews helped me probe for information and clarification of the responses (Barriball & While, 1994; Seidman, 1998). Furthermore, Diefenbach (2009) claims that interviews can reveal ideas and deliver insights that no other method of data collection provides. I conducted five of the interviews at the offices of the executive directors and two of the interviews at locations chosen by the participants. To build rapport I briefed the interviewees by providing context for the capstone project while scheduling the interviews (Kvale, 1996). I also built rapport while scheduling the interviews, so that more time could be utilized during the interviews to gather information about the themes. By meeting the participants at their offices or at a place they chose I hoped they would be comfortable with the interview and I could obtain additional information because of their comfort level. Gaining trust and building rapport are important factors when interviewing because it assists the participants in feeling comfortable so that they answer the questions (Noonan, 2013). Participants I felt that interviewing executive directors was important because leadership is a factor that affects collaboration (Wei-Skillern, 2013). I used a convenience sample to locate the participants. I coordinated with my project sponsor, the UNA, to determine which executive directors to interview. I used the organizations' websites to gather the contact information for each participant. The seven participants ranged from organizations with few resources to larger organizations. The largest organization had annual revenues slightly over $2,079,356. The organizations ranged from having one part-time employee to having eight full time staff members. The oldest organization was Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 16 founded in 1966 and the youngest organization was established in 2010. The organizations worked in the following categories based on how they self-reported to the UNA: two organizations worked in children services; two worked in arts, culture and humanities; one worked in public benefit, one worked in environment; and one worked in health. Interviewing participants in different size organizations and different focus areas provided me information that will benefit all Utah nonprofits. Data Analysis I recorded each interview using a digital recorder and I sent the recording electronically to a third party to be transcribed. After I received the transcripts from the third party I loaded the data to dedoose.com. I utilized dedoose's web application to code the information that I had gathered. I created a framework that consisted of predetermined (a priori) codes based on the scholarly literature and the themes within the interview guide (Saldana, 2012). Miles and Huberman (1994) state that "coding is analysis" and define a code as "tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study" (p. 56). Simply put, coding is a way that data with similar characteristics can be grouped into categories (Saldana, 2012). Eleven codes were utilized to highlight the information from the seven interviews. There were four sub-categories that were also highlighted throughout the data analysis process. By using codes in this manner data was identified which supported and refuted the academic literature. This was a critical part of the process because my objective is to provide the UNA information that will be beneficial. By identifying themes I was able to provide the findings and discussion that make up chapter four and five of this project.Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 17 Validation I validated my inquiry by triangulating my interview data in the areas of assessing value, leadership and organization funding, network and size with the literature that I reviewed while preparing for this project. Through triangulation I gained validity by using different and multiple sources to obtain information and further understand the themes that I have identified (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Validation is critical because qualitative researchers have been criticized for providing less than adequate evidence for their conclusions (Kurasaki, 2000). Access to Participants Executive directors are very busy and I was concerned that it was going to be difficult to schedule the interviews. As Dearnley (2005) states time is an important factor for both the researchers are the participants. To assist in combating this concern I scheduled the interviews for an hour. I contacted twelve organizations by email and five did not respond. Of the seven that responded all chose to participate. Access to participants was less laborious than I anticipated. This was most likely a result of my affiliation with my project sponsor the UNA and Chris Bray. All of the participants' organizations were members of the UNA. Concerns Going into the interviews I had concerns about the confidentiality of the participants and the organizations that they work for and collaborate with. Marshal and Rossman (2006) report that based on the level of confidentiality, the interviewees might be unwilling and uncomfortable sharing information. To overcome this concern I had each participant sign a consent form (Appendix B) so that the each participant understood Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 18 the level of confidentially. Also, I assigned each participant a pseudonym so that their identity would remain confidential throughout my project. My data was also securely stored in my home office. Overall, I feel that the participants were willing and comfortable sharing information. There were also concerns with interviewing individuals in power positions and expertise in a particular area. The individuals that I interviewed would be considered "elites" because they are executive directors that are influential, prominent and well-informed in their organizations (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). They were selected for their expertise relevant to the research of the project and because of their experiences in collaborating. Interviewing "elites" may be problematic because their wishes and intent may steer the interview (Marhsall & Rossman, 2006). This was also a concern because Seidman (1998) reports that when using interview techniques with people in power positions the imbalance between the interviewer and participant may become difficult. I made sure that I was aware of this potential imbalance during the interviews and I do not feel that it affected the interviews. Subjectivity Nonprofit collaboration was discussed a considerable amount during the MACL program. I went into my capstone project assuming that collaboration was a positive and beneficial process. This may have affected by subjectivity during my project. Deifenbach (2008) asserts that researchers look at topics that are close to their daily lives and experiences and this may lead to concerns with subjectivity. Also, researchers bring certain frames of reference, goals, biases and abilities to research and this can influence the questions chosen by researchers (Collins, p. 182). This academic literature asserts Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 19 that my approach to the project may have affected the participants' responses. To manage this potential downside I made my own interests, assumptions and objectives as explicit as possible as recommended by Pyett (2003). I made it clear to the participants that my objective is to provide a document to the UNA that will assist their members in collaboration. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 20 Chapter IV - Findings Introduction The question that drove my research and project was: How do Utah nonprofit executive directors view different factors in affecting their collaboration efforts? In this section I categorize and analyze the themes that the participants discussed during their interviews related to this question. The chapter is organized in six sections. The first section reviews how the value of collaboration is assessed. The following four sections consider leadership and organization size, network and funding. The final section is the conclusion. Assessing Value One of the concepts that came up in multiple interviews was organizations that are competitors working together because of demand. For example, Cindy reported that her agency began working with another agency because they were having their annual dinner a few weeks apart from a similar organization. She stated that instead of stepping on each other's toes they were able to work really well together. She also reported that it can be really healthy to compete and compliment another agency. Cindy's example shows how competitors may work together to add value to their organizations. Gina expressed how collaboration does not always benefit her organization and she explained how her organization is in a competitive industry. Gina explained that money is a limited resource that restricts the number of organizations available for collaboration. She explained how being better and not helping the other organization can make your organization stronger. She expressed this is important because in some cases you have to establish that you are better than you competitors. Cathy also expressed that Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 21 her organization has worked with another organization to build the size of her organization. Her organization also started working with another organization to be less competitive but still fulfilling the needs of her organization. Cathy stated, "this year we're actually combining them together [program provided], which is great 'cause and it's less competition for us both. We're both fulfilling the needs that our constituents needed by working together on these things." Cindy's, Gina's and Cathy's explanations about reasons and purpose of collaboration add to the growing literature concerning "co-opetition." There is limited research regarding nonprofits and "co-opetition." "Co-opetition" in this context is competing organizations coordinating administrative costs (Bunger, 2012). Bunger's (2012) study of children's behavioral health agencies suggested that "co-opetition" is applicable to the nonprofit sector. Bunger's inquiry studied how nonprofit organizations balance the pressures to coordinate and compete. Also, Cindy, Gina and Cathy's descriptions of their experiences are examples of how Provan and Milward (2001) assert that collaboration is appealing when profit, as a motive, is absent because the potential drawbacks of collaboration, such as shared resources and reduced autonomy, are less likely to be seen as a hazard. Cindy, Gina and Cathy all explained how organizations looked past potential hazards and were able to successfully work together. Through the process of collaboration value may also be added to an organization. When describing the potential benefits of collaboration Doug stated: Let's invite a lotta friends who might have a similar goal and might wanna do something similar to the party, everybody bring something, collaborate, people Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 22 add something in, make some suggestions, improve the process. And maybe you get even better than what you would've when you first came up with the goal. Maybe the end product is something far beyond your wildest dreams. Brianna also expressed that the benefits of collaboration may go beyond the measurable outcomes. Brianna added that credibility will be built through collaboration because there are more voices and witnesses of your ability to do what you say you are doing. These examples are consistent with Huxham's (2003) claim that advantages may come out of the process of collaboration. In these examples achievement was not what the executive directors valued. The focus was on the act of collaboration itself and the value added by collaborating. Another area that value can be added is by sharing an organization's expertise. Amber stated, "by working with other people and capitalizing on strengths that each organization has, you have a better product." She described that benefit of collaboration as that it makes the most of people's expertise. Amber used an example of her organization working with another organization that had a different proficiency. The organizations worked together to create a program that furthered both of their missions and also served their target populations. Amber's statements are consistent with Baker, Kan, and Tow (2011). Baker, Kan, and Tow (2011) state that value maybe achieved through the knowledge and resources accessed through the backgrounds. Amber stated that her organization collaborates with other agencies because they have an expertise and they share that expertise with other agencies. In Amber's case value is added by organizations providing expertise to one another.Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 23 This section identified three areas of assessing value: competing agencies working together, the collaboration process adding value and sharing expertise. The first section covered how competing agencies worked together in order to add value to their agencies. The participants used examples that showed how this was accomplished. This was also thought-provoking because scarcity was discussed in Chapter one and understanding why nonprofits, which were competing for resources, collaborated was how this project began. The second topic addressed how nonprofits can add value to an organization by the process itself. The participants felt that value was added by adding credibility to an organization and that the end result can be greater than the anticipated outcome. The third topic was reviewing how organizations share their expertise to add value to their organization and the organizations that they are working with. Overall, assessing value is up to the individuals that are looking for the results and value can be added in multiple ways. Leadership A subject that came up multiple times during the interviews was the amount of time that collaboration took for these executive directors. Doug explained the day of his interview that he was in meetings, the entire day, discussing working with other organizations. One of the collaborations that he described took him six months to cultivate. Doug described how he spent a lot of time with other groups explaining how the different agency's goals all aligned. Doug's experience echoes Vangen and Huxham's (2003) claim that some collaborators need nurturing. Doug spent months cultivating the relationships in order to make the collaboration work.Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 24 Brianna also expressed how much time it took to collaborate. Brianna expressed that it felt like she was going to meetings and going over the same things over and over. Brianna summarized by stating that collaboration is hard and takes a lot of time. Gina told a joke about collaboration and the time that can be consumed: There used to be a little joke that we would go to a collaborative meeting, 'cause we all had funding that we needed to demonstrate we were collaborating, we'd go to the meeting, and then we'd stand up and get in our cars and drive across town to go to another collaboration meeting, and eight of the ten people that were in this meeting are also here, but there's three others. And then you get up and go to another one. And in order to demonstrate collaboration they created entities that didn't need to exist and were really inefficient. The information the participants provided adds to the existing academic literature regarding the time that collaboration may take. Huxham (2003) states "that making collaboration work effectively is highly resource consuming and often painful" (p. 420). Doug, Brianna and Gina reaffirmed that, as executive directors, collaboration is time consuming. Doug succinctly stated, "sometimes you spend so much time collaborating it's difficult." I did not ask if the benefits outweighed the costs of collaboration. However, none of the participants stated that the time consumed outweighed the benefits of potentially collaborating. Amber talked about how her organization has entered into collaborations with the wrong person in partner organizations, which caused problems because the person they had to work with was not as committed as other members of the partner organization who wanted to enter into the agreement. In Amber's example, she stated that the leadership of Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 25 an organization may want to enter into an agreement but the work is being done at the programmatic level. This may lead to problems because the person at the programmatic level may not have the authority to actually make decisions. Amber stated that one way to avoid the issues that may arise to collaborating with larger organizations is to make sure that you have the right people involved in the collaboration. Brianna also reiterated that the identity and personality of the individuals involved in the collaboration are important. She explained how when there is turnover in agencies the collaboration has to be redeveloped and everybody has to recommit to the collaboration. She felt that collaboration is more sustainable if the leadership in an organization, at least at the operational level, is committed to the collaboration. Cathy confirmed this when she stated "it really has to do with who's in a position at a certain time." Bailey and Koney (1996) detailed that to develop and implement collaboration, individual members need to have legitimate authority and credibility in their own organizations. Amber and Brianna's descriptions echo Bailey and Koney (1996). Amber and Brianna both articulate how important it is to have the right person involved in collaboration. Having the right people involved is necessary to develop trust between collaborators. In Bunger's (2012) study it was found that trust was the crucial instrument in facilitating cooperating behavior in risky conditions and the leaders that built trust were more likely to coordinate. Doug reiterated this concept when he stated: Without trust, nothing happens, everything grinds to a halt, everybody's defensive. With trust, you can solve things with a phone call that might've taken six months of intractable negotiations. So I think building a relationship of trust is Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 26 really the key to successful negotiations. And also they're the key to successful collaboration. Doug's statement enhances Bunger's (2012) finding and Snavley and Tracy's assertion that leaders are important because they build personal connections and trust. Doug identified trust as a primary factor in working with other organizations. When discussing leadership with the participants three topics were identified. These topics were time, having the right individuals involved, and trust. The participants felt that successful collaboration could be time consuming and none of the participants stated that the costs outweighed the benefits. The next topic was having the right people involved to successfully collaborate. The participants felt that having the correct people involved in the collaboration would make the collaboration much more successful. The final topic was discussing how collaboration takes trust and how trust can be a critical factor when collaborating. These findings will assist nonprofits collaborate in the future because it provides insight into concepts leaders need to understand when collaborating. Organization Size Brenda, who helped start her organization, reiterated how size can affect an organization. Brenda's organization is small with very limited staff. Brenda expressed that a new nonprofit will fail unless they learn how to find collaboration. Brenda stated, "I think it makes us more approachable in some ways because they know what they're getting into." Brenda's statements are consistent with Baum, Calabrese and Silverman's (2000) claim that smaller organizations may be more likely to collaborate because they frequently lack resources and can overcome potential hazards by establishing alliances.Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 27 Gina thought that smaller organizations are more nimble and that the flexibility makes it easier to collaborate. Doug also expressed that smaller organizations are more nimble and have innovation and flexibility. Doug currently works for a medium sized nonprofit and has experience working with a very large nonprofit. Gina and Doug's description of organizations being nimble adds to the academic literature. They both describe how smaller organizations can collaborate because they have the flexibility within the organizations themselves. A few of the participants spoke about larger organizations having more bureaucracy to deal with when collaborating. Gina expressed that it can be more difficult in large organizations to move information up the chain, making working with other agencies less efficient. Gina gave an example of an organization under her administrative umbrella needing to pass the information along so that decisions can be made. Cindy explained that working with national organizations can also be difficult because things may need to be approved by the national office. Doug also stated that the bureaucracy of larger organizations may make it harder to collaborate with them. Gina, Cindy and Doug's examples exhibit how large organizations may have a more difficult time collaborating. This adds to the research of Guo and Acar (2005) who report that large organizations may be missing out on opportunities that could benefit the organizations. Organization size is the area where there are the most discrepancies in the academic literature. In this study the participants expressed that small organizations may have an easier time collaborating because they are nimble, flexible and more approachable and that larger organizations have a more difficult time collaborating because of the bureaucracy either within their own organization or because they are part Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 28 of a larger group. Overall, the participants felt that it was easier for small organizations to collaborate. Organization Network Doug and Cindy both had very specific examples of using past connections to build collaborations. Doug used an example of utilizing connections with his past employer to build collaboration with his current organization. He expressed how his relationship made it easier create the partnership. Cindy also used an example of her past experience as an executive director of another organization and using her knowledge to connect her past organization to her current organization. Amber simply stated, "[I]t happens is because you know people." These examples reaffirm Gualti's (1998) study that found that organizations that sought to initiate new collaborations turned to their existing relationships for partnerships or asked for referrals for potential partners. Doug and Cindy's narrative and Gualti's study clearly establish that organizations use their existing networks to create new collaborative efforts. Cindy also had an example of how she utilizes board members to resolve conflict with other agencies. She goes to her board and asks if anyone on her board knows anybody on the agency's board that they are having issues with. Amber also stated that through word of mouth her board has created partnerships. Hillman and Dalziel (2003) contend that board capital (the human capital such as experience, reputation and expertise, and relational capital, the networks and external contingencies) can help in obtaining resources from outside the organization. Cindy and Amber's example augment Hillman and Dalziel's claim that board capital can be utilized in order to acquire resources outside of the organization.Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 29 When discussing the network of an organization two topics were identified. The first is that the executive director's network affects the ability of an organization to collaborate. The second is that the board network also influences an agency's ability to collaborate. In both instances the leader's and the board's network were shown to have a positive impact on an organizations ability to collaborate. Organization Funding Gina expressed that forced collaborations are largely hollow. Gina also detailed that dragging people in because of money does not appear to be sustainable and that program services can be merged for funding. Gina stated, "I love a good collaboration, I just don't like collaboration because you have to." This is consistent with Wei-Skillern's claim (2013) that many collaborations have failed because they were forced from the top down and rather than identifying existing relationships funders coordinate their own collaborations. Amber stated that re-wording may be used to signify that collaboration is taking place so that the funding requests meet the mandatory criteria. Cathy stated, "there's actually some grant applications and foundations that will have questions like, tell us how you collaborate with other organizations." Cathy went on to say that the collaboration didn't work well but it may be worth it because it looked good on a grant. Cathy's example was collaborating with a similar nonprofit to increase sales. Amber and Cathy's examples match Guo and Acar's (2005) claim that in order to meet regulatory requirements organizations create linkages. Amber and Cathy both used examples of collaborating so that it look better on funding requests. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 30 Guo and Acar (2005) also argue that the compartmentalization of government grants may hinder organizations from building boundary spanning collaborations. Simply put, organizations may need to meet separate requirements for each government grant that they receive and this may hinder organizations from building intensive collaborations. Amber claims that collaboration for the sake of collaboration spurs organizations to think outside of the box. Doug expressed that bringing a lot of people with similar goals can have an outcome better than anything anticipated. Doug is less worried about the outcome being exactly what is was supposed to be. Amber and Doug's statements are inconsistent with what Guo and Acar (2005) argument about government grants hindering boundary spanning collaborations. There are two concepts that were identified regarding organization funding. The first is that funding sources that require collaboration my lead to collaborations that are hollow. Three of the participants expressed how they had participated in collaborations that were not ideal because it looked good or helped them receive funding. The second concept disputed the academic literature. Guo and Acar (2005) argue that government requirements may hinder organizations to build boundary spanning collaborations. Two of the participants expressed that collaboration is beneficial regardless of the cause. Conclusion This chapter focused on the findings of the semi-structured interviews that I conducted related to my research question: How do Utah nonprofit executive directors view different factors in affecting their collaboration efforts? The findings articulate how the participants felt that the different themes affect their collaboration efforts and are very important because they lead to my recommendations in Chapter five. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 31 Chapter V - Discussion Introduction As private founders and government officials encourage or mandate nonprofits and public agencies to work together to deliver services (Sowa, 2009) and more strain is being placed on nonprofits as governments struggle to solve complex and overwhelming social problems (Goldman & Kathweiler, 2000) it is becoming more important the organizations understand collaboration as collaboration is being encouraged and mandated. In this chapter I provide my recommendations based on the research I have conducted. My recommendations will alleviate some of the strain placed on nonprofits by providing them with information that assists them in their collaboration efforts. The recommendations are organized by discussing the assessing value, leadership, and organization size, network and funding. The final three sections of this chapter are implications, limitations and future research. Assessing Value Cindy, Gina and Cathy all described scenarios where they worked with competitors to fulfill the needs of their organizations. Doug and Brianna described how the benefits of collaboration can go beyond the measurable outcomes and objectives of the partnerships. Amber focused on her agency's expertise and working with other agencies to create a better product. Huxham (2003) argues that to get real advantage from collaboration something has to be achieved that could not have to be achieved otherwise. My findings do not follow this strict requirement of collaboration. It is important to remember that collaboration may also have intangible benefits such as employee satisfaction (Arya & Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 32 Lin, 2007) and organizations standing within the community (Galaskiewicz, Bielfield & Dowell, 2006). My recommendation is that organizations clearly communicate from the beginning what they are going to commit to the collaboration and what they would like to get in return. As Amber stated, "what would you bring to the table?" It is also important to outline the expectations of the organizations entering the collaboration. Most of the participants expressed frustration about working with another organization that did not complete tasks that were promised. Leadership An important factor to be aware of is how much time collaboration can take. During the interviews, time was discussed and it became evident after a few interviews that, as executive directors, time was a concern. In my first three interviews I did not ask a specific question about time. The participants broached the notion on their own. My last four interviews I asked about time. Coinciding with time is having the right individuals involved and ensuring that those individuals have the authority to be actively involved in the collaboration. As reported in Chapters two and four, individual members of the collaboration have to have legitimate authority and credibility in their own organizations to implement collaboration (Bailey & Koney, 1996). The interviews also made it clear that it is important to have the right people involved from the beginning of the collaboration to make the collaboration sustainable. This can either be the organization's leadership or who the leaders chose to represent the organization. My research added to these concepts and reaffirmed that authority is an important factor when collaborating. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 33 I recommend that in order to sustain collaboration the organizations should develop an infrastructure that will withstand individuals leaving organizations. If the collaboration is going to sustain personnel changes infrastructure will be critical to create and maintain. Provan et al. (2005) state that personal relationships can enhance the commitment by organizations and the connection may not be sustainable if the individuals involved leave. Also, this infrastructure should include the individuals with the time and authority to successfully collaborate (Bailey & Koney, 1996). The leaders of the organizations will need to remember that they are the driving force behind collaboration and they have the authority to make sure that the forgoing factors are taken into account prior to collaborations being entered. Organization Size Organization size is where there are the most discrepancies in the academic literature. The academic literature I reviewed was inconsistent in determining if it was more beneficial and easier for small or larger organizations to collaborate. My research added to this discussion because my participants spoke about the abilities of small organizations and the barriers for larger organizations to collaborate. My participants spoke about smaller organizations having an easier time collaborating because they were more nimble, innovative and flexible. Brenda stated, "I kinda think smaller, more nimble organizations do better at collaborations." Multiple participants expressed how larger organizations had more bureaucracy which made it more difficult time in collaborating. Doug stated, "big companies have systems that are kinda bureaucratic." Cathy stated," in terms of having worked for large organizations, when it comes to partnerships and collaborations there's more steps you have to approve it through." Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 34 My recommendation regarding collaboration and the size of the organization is similar to my leadership recommendation. It is critical to have the right people involved during the collaboration process. In the case of a large organization it may be difficult to get the exact individual with the right amount of authority involved. It is important to understand what the process will be to ensure that the information is getting passed to correct person with the right amount of authority. Organization Network The literature identifies that individuals turn to existing relationships to create collaboration. My research reaffirms that individuals utilize existing relationships in order to form new collaborations. Doug and Brianna used examples of using connections from a previous job to create a new partnership. Amber stated when speaking about collaboration, "the most frequent way it happens is because you know people." My recommendation is that in order to form collaborations individuals should look to organizations that they have existing relationships with. It is important the nonprofit leaders remember to continually grow their network so that they can rely on their network to create collaborations. Also, the network of an organization's board can also be very important when creating collaborations. The academic research and my data confirm that organizations may utilize their boards when creating collaborations and finding new partners. Organization Funding A few of the participants expressed that collaborations that were created because of funding were not ideal. This is consistent with the academic literature about collaborations that are forced by funding. Counter to this argument were Amber and Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 35 Doug. They claimed that regardless of the reasoning for the collaboration positive things may result. They felt that bringing people together spurred creativity and better outcomes. Cathy expressed that they have entered a collaboration that was mediocre because it looked good on a grant. There are inconsistencies with how funding may affect collaborations. The difference is what is being measured as adding value to the organizations collaborating. My recommendation is that the organizations clearly communicate the reasons for the collaboration from the beginning. If the organizations working together understand what the other organizations are working towards it will provide a better platform for the organizations to accomplish their desired outcomes. Implications Data already existed regarding nonprofits and collaboration. However, none of the academic research I reviewed included research specific to Utah. My project added to this research because it provides information specific to Utah. The intent is that research explicit to Utah will have extra benefit to Utah nonprofits. The Utah Nonprofits Association's (UNA) mission is to unify, strengthen and elevate Utah's nonprofits. My project will assist the UNA in fulfilling their mission. The new information assists the UNA members, so that they can unify by providing them information about working together from their own community. My project will help the UNA meet their objectives because the information assists in creating opportunities for networking and collaborations. Also, there is an objective in their strategic plan that states that the UNA will be active in creating opportunities for networking and Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 36 collaborations among nonprofit subgroups. This project will assist in collaborations among nonprofits. By interviewing leaders of Utah nonprofits I was able to gather information on the themes that I identified through the academic research. I was very pleased with the participants and the information that they provided. From a majority of the participants I felt that there was a symbiotic relationship between my research and their interest in my findings. Overall, a majority of the new information reiterated what the literature was claiming. The participants, and their counterparts, are the individuals that I hope will benefit the most from my project. Hopefully, the leaders of Utah nonprofits will utilize the information that I have gathered when forming collaborations. Collaboration has become an integral part of the nonprofit sector. As stated in Chapter two, collaboration has been touted as a way to assist nonprofits in addressing social concerns and a way to find new solutions to complex problems (Selden, Sowa & Sandfort, 2006). Simply put, the more information that nonprofits have about collaboration the more beneficial the collaborations can become. Moving forward my project will be a tool that Utah nonprofits can utilize in order to enter partnerships in a more productive way. The information provides a foundation that can be built on when an organization choses to collaborate. In summary, this project is an attempt to bridge the gap between academic theory and what actually happens in Utah nonprofits. This is an important idea as Gualti (1998) states, "the challenge for scholars studying networks and alliances is to bridge the chasm between theory and practice and translate some of their important insights for managers of the alliances we study" (p. 313). This project utilized the academic research that I Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 37 gathered and linked the academic literature to the concepts that Utah nonprofit executive directors felt affected their collaboration efforts in order to answer my research question: How do Utah nonprofit executive directors view different factors in affecting their collaboration efforts? Limitations There are various limitations to this project. I took multiple themes from the academic literature and asked the participants questions about the specific themes. It was a large amount of information to cover in less than an hour. This limited the amount of information the participants could provide about a specific topic. The time to conduct the project was limited to a semester so I interviewed seven participants. This is a limitation because there are thousands of nonprofit leaders in the Utah nonprofit sector. For future research interviewing a larger population about a specific theme may provide more detail and vivid information. Another limitation in my research was the lack of diversity; my interviews included one male and six females. Foster and Meinhard (2002) found that organizations that were run by women were more likely to collaborate and Goldman and Kahnweiler (2000) found that organizations that were run by men were more likely to collaborate. Gender may be a factor in leadership among nonprofits that engage in collaboration but the literature is inconsistent. My research did not add to this area of research. In the area of funding there appears to be a shift in how some foundations are choosing to fund nonprofits. For example, I attended the Utah Community Foundation Investment Forum. During the forum the finalist had ten minutes to present their request for funding. This may be a limited concept but it appears to have been successful for the Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 38 Foundation. If the landscape for funding changes additional research about funding and its effects on collaboration will need to be readdressed. New research will need to be conducted because this funding concept is different from the traditional grant request process where the participants are asked who they are collaborating with. Future Research During the interviews multiple themes stood out as potential areas for future research. The first was how boards affected nonprofits. The participants shared many different feelings about how the boards of the various nonprofits impacted their organizations. The information was not explicit to collaboration. I feel that research about boards and their relationship to Utah nonprofits needs further research. Gender is another factor that needs further exploration. Utah Valley University recently completed a study and found that out of the 663 Utah nonprofits surveyed 57.8% were led by women and that this percentage is significantly higher than women in formal leadership roles in other sectors. Their study also found that organizations led by women have more female board members (Madsen, Backus, & Jones, 2014). Additional research will be required to understand what these numbers mean for Utah nonprofits. The third area is how Utah nonprofits obtain their funding. This project asked specific question about funding and how it affected collaboration. There is more information that can be gathered about funding in the Utah nonprofit sector. Research in this area could assist Utah nonprofits moving forward. Additional areas that could assist Utah nonprofits in the future are "co-opetition" and coordinating. There is a growing body of research in the for-profit sector regarding this "co-opetition." Bunger (2012) found that this ‘co-opetition" is relevant in the Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 39 nonprofit sector. Another concept is the idea of coordinating. Schlossberg (2004) reports that coordinating is an approach that nonprofits can utilize in order to efficiently provide services and resist duplicating services. Gathering more information about these concepts will assist the Utah nonprofit sector. Conclusion The overall goal of this process was to provide the Utah Nonprofit Association a document that their members can utilize to enhance their collaborative efforts. This chapter was the synopsis of my research efforts. The beginning of this chapter focused on my recommendations regarding assessing value, leadership, and organization size, network, and funding. The next section focused on the implications of my research. The final two sections focused on the limitations of my research and future research that may assist the Utah nonprofit community. The majority of my information reiterated the existing academic literature. I feel that my research added to these areas and the future research about Utah nonprofits will be beneficial to the Utah nonprofit community. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 40 References Arshad, R., Bakar, N. A., Thani, N., & Omar, N. (2013). Board composition and accountability of non-profit organizations. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(4), 1021-1030. Arya, B., & Lin, Z. (2007). Understanding collaboration outcomes from an extended resource-based view perspective: The roles of organizational characteristics, partner attributes, and network structures. Journal of Management, 33(5), 691-723. Bailey, D., & Koney, K. M. (1996). Interoganizational community-based collaborative: A strategic response to shape the social work agenda. Social Work, 41(6), 602-611. Baker, E., Kan, M., & Stephen T. Teo. (2011). Developing a collaborative network organization: Leadership challenges at multiple levels. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(6), 853-875. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534811111175797 Baum, J. A., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 267-294. Bunger, A. C. (2012). Administrative coordination in nonprofit human service delivery networks: The role of competition and trust. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(6), 115-1175. Collins, E. C. (1992). Qualitative research as art: Toward a holistic process. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 181-186. Connor, J. A., & Kadel-Taras, S. (1999). The role of nonprofit management support organizations in sustaining community collaborations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(2), 127 Dawes, S., & Préfontaine, L. (2003). Understanding new models of collaboration for delivering government services. Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 40-42 Diefenbach, T. (2009). Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?: Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality & Quantity, 43(6), 875-894. doi:10.1007/s11135-008-9164-0 Eisenhardt, K. M., & Gahmic, D. (2000). Coevolving. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 91-101.Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 41 Foster, M., & Meinhard, A. (2002). A regression model explaining redisposition to collaborate. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(4), 549-564. Galaskiewicz, J., Bielfeld, W., & Dowell, M. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 337-380. Goldman, S., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (2000). A collaborator profile for executives of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(4), 435-450. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510. Gualti, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317. Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: combining resource dependency, institutional and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340-361. Hamlin, R. G., Sawyer, J., & Sage, L. (2011). Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness in a non-profit organization: An exploratory and cross-sector comparative study. Human Resource Development International, 14(2), 217-234. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.558318 Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: integrating agency and resource dependence perspective. Academy Of Management Review, 28(3), 383-396. doi:10.5465/AMR.2003.10196729 Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review, 5(3), 401-423. Huxham, C., & Beech, N. (2002). Points of power in interoganizational forms: learning from a learning network. Academy Of Management Proceedings & Membership Directory, B1-B6. doi:10.5465/APBPP.2002.7517599 Kurasaki, K. S. (2000). Intercoder reliability for validating conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data. Field Methods, 12(3), 179-194. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Madsen, S., Backus, C., & Jones, G. (2014). The status of women leaders in Utah nonprofits. Utah Woman and Leadership, 2, 1-4.Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 42 Marks, M., & Davis, C. (2006). Making the economic concept of scarcity oh-so-sweet. Social Studies, 97(6), 239-244. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mwenja, D., & Lewis, A. (2009). Exploring the impact of the board of directors on the performance of not-for-profit organizations. Business Strategy Series, 10(6), 359-365. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17515630911005646 Provan, K. G., & Lemaire, R. H. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organizational networks: using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 638-648. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02595.x Provan, K., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423. Provan, K., Veazie, M., Staten, L., & Teafel-Shone, N. (2005). The use of network analysis to strengthen community partnerships. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 603-613 Pyett, P. (2003). Validation of qualitative research in the "real world". Qualitative Health Research, 13, 1170-1179. Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Chapter 1) Schlossberg, M. (2004). Coordination as a strategy for serving the transportation disadvantaged. Public Works Management and policy, 9(2), 132-144. Selden, S., Sowa, J. E., & Sandfort, J. (2006). The impact of nonprofit collaboration in early child care and education on management and program outcomes. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 412-425. Simo, G. (2009). Sustaining cross-sector collaborations: lessons from new orleans. Public Organization Review, 9, 367-384. Snavley, K., & Tracy, M. (2000). Collaboration among rural nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(2), 145-165. Sowa, J. (2009). The collaboration decision in nonprofit organizations: views from the front lines. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 1003-1025Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 43 Tsasis, P. (2009). The social processes of interoganizational collaboration and conflict in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 5-21. Vagen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Enacting Leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemma of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management, 14, S61-S76. Wei-Skillern, J., & Silver, N. (2013). Four network principles for collaboration success. Foundation Review, 5(1), 121-129. doi:10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-12-00018.1Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 44 APPENDIX A: Learning Objectives and Reflection When it came time to pick a capstone project it was difficult. I had changed my topic multiple times during the program. Throughout my studies during the MACL program I felt that I gained knowledge about all of the learning objectives of the program. However, I felt that I did not learn enough about leadership. When I began the program I felt that learning about leadership would be very important. I chose to interview leaders of nonprofits because I felt that I could assist the nonprofit community by gathering information about collaboration and I could personally learn about leadership. Through my work experience and studies I have learned a lot about how to individually collaborate and during my studies I felt that learning more about organizational collaboration would be beneficial. As I strive to become a community leader I feel that my capstone has helped me learn about how leaders view working with other organizations and how organizations work together. I feel that this is important because collaboration has become part of the nonprofit sector and business in general. My capstone has also taught me about communicating with executives of nonprofits. My project sponsor, Chris Bray, taught me a lot about communicating with nonprofit executives. Her connections were also an integral in making my project a success. Her experience along with the experiences of the participants taught me a great deal about leadership. I feel that my work experience and my education have provided me a foundation to lead an organization. I currently manage three programs and I feel that my MACL compliments my experiences as a manager. I can go into new situations with confidence and credibility. I feel that this is important because they are concepts that I look for when Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 45 I am hiring staff. Through my new connections while conducting my interviews and other connections I have made throughout the program I feel that I can find a good career fit for myself. I am still undecided what direction I would like to go but I feel that this experience has given me additional tools to put in my toolbox. Moving forward I plan to take what I have learned and apply it to my continually improving leadership skills. This learning process has continued to help me become a better leader and I hope that it will continue to assist me in my leadership skills. Leadership can be difficult at times. While leading three teams I need to be able to adapt and understand my personal leadership style and how it affects other people. Collaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 46 APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM You have been invited to participate in the research investigation entitled: collaboration: views of working together through the executive director's perspective in Utah, conducted by or under the supervision of Dane Ishihara. Involvement will include participating in a semi-structured interview that should last under one hour. The interviews will focus on your role as the executive director of your organization and how you view leadership, organization size, networks and funding in affecting your collaboration efforts. Thank you for your participation. The hope is that the information gathered will assist nonprofits in Utah build and maintain collaborations. The nature and general purpose of the research procedure, as well as known risks and benefits, have been explained to you by: Dane Ishihara You do not have to participate if you don't want to, and you can stop participating at any time. Your identity will be kept confidential. If you feel that you understand the risks and benefits of this study, as well as your rights as a participant, and you would like to participate, please sign and date below. Signature of Participant Date Signature of Investigator DateCollaboration Among Utah Nonprofits 47 APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE Introduction questions: A. What is your name, your position, your organizations name and mission of your organization? B. How long have you been in your position and how did you get to this position? C. How do you define collaboration? D. How do you feel about your experiences working with other organizations? Questions to prompt ideas about organization's leadership: A. How would you describe your leadership style? B. How would you describe how you developed your leadership style? C. How would you describe other leaders with whom you collaborate? Questions to prompt ideas about organization's purpose: A. What other organizations are you working with? B. What do you understand to be their missions? C. How do you feel that this affects collaborating? Questions to prompt ideas about organization's network: A. How would you describe your organization's network? B. How do you work on improving your organizations network? C. What role does your board play in your organization's network? Questions to prompt ideas about organization's size: A. How would you describe the size of your organization? B. How would you describe the size of the organizations that you collaborate with? C. How do you feel that this affects collaborating? Questions to prompt ideas about organization's funding: A. How is your organization funded? B. How does your funding sources view collaboration? C. Does funding effect how you or your organization's view collaboration?