001 - Interorganizational relationships related to funding in nongovernmental organizations

Prévia do material em texto

INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS 
RELATED TO FUNDING IN NON-
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 
by 
SHARON E. WILLMS 
B.S.W. UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA 197 9 
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF 
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF 
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK 
in 
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES 
(School of Social Work) 
We accept t h i s Thesis as conforming to the required standard. 
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 
AUGUST 1980 
©SHARON E. WILLMS, 1980 
In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of 
the requirements for an advanced degree at The University 
of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the l i b r a r y s h a l l make 
i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further 
agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis 
for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my 
department or by his/her representatives. I t i s understood 
that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l 
gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. 
School of Social Work, 
The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 
2075 Wesbrook Place, 
Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. 
V6T 1W5. 
i i 
A B S T R A C T 
Interorganizational Relationships are defined by Levine and White (1961) 
as 'any voluntary ac t i v i t y between two organizations which has consequences 
actual or anticipated, for the realization of their respective goals or 
objectives'. This model of exchange i s enhanced by the development of 
General Systems Theory, and the contribution of R.L. Warren's model of the 
Interorganizational Fi e l d (1967). In this research the definition of IOR 
i s viewed as a natural consequence for organizations that exist within the 
systems' framework. Exchange exists due to the pre-existing networks i n the 
10 f i e l d . 
The purpose of this research was to examine the nature and structure of 
10 behavior around information exchange related to funding as perceived by 
Executive Directors of Non-governmental Organizations i n the Social Service 
f i e l d , i n the City of Vancouver. It was hypothesized that NGOs must main-
tain a balance of information exchange in the. systems context of input, 
throughput and output i n order to maintain a healthy funding picture. 
A model of collaborative information exchange' was introduced as a viable 
method of ensurinf funding for NGOs. 
Seventy Executive Directors responded to a mailed questionnaire 
which was labelled Factors Related to Organizational Funding. The survey 
included seven demographic items as well as twenty-nine items about infor-
mation needs and p r i o r i t i e s i n organizations. There were nine information 
categories i n which three questions were repeated . They were about in f o r -
mation needs; p r i o r i t y assisgned; and with whom and why the organization 
shared the organization shared information. The remaining two items asked 
the respondents to rank the importance of the constituency groups plus one 
overall item ranking the the purpose of information sharing by constituency 
groups. The study design was Exploratory-Descriptive and explored issues 
related to funding i n the 10 network. Thus the conclusions drawn merely 
suggest what the data indicates rather than providing hard proof about 
the validity of the collaborative exchange model i n the IOR context. 
The findings indicate that cooperation around funding among agencies 
was viewed as the least important constituency with which to share Infor-
mation. Executive Directors were willing to share information with funders 
and the public. Consumers ranked third i n the majority of information 
i i a 
categories. These findings seem to indicate support for a mixed-motive model o 
of IOR rather than the collaborative model presented 'in this report, or 
the resource dependency (conflict) model espoused by some researchers. 
The report includes several recommendations designed to strengthen 
collaboration among social service agencies to Improve funding i n the 
social services system. Chapter Two provides an overview of the IOR 
literature, and the General Systems framework used i n developing the 
collaborative exchange model. 
< 
Acknowledgements 
It i s t r a d i t i o n a l for the writer of any thesis or research 
report to acknowledge i n t e l l e c t u a l , personal and even s p i r i t u a l 
debts. The fact that i t i s t r a d i t i o n a l makes i t no less 
desirable, nor less important to include here. The grat e f u l 
acknowledgements prefacing most theses and papers embodies the 
t r a d i t i o n and essence of the university setting where students 
are encouraged by t h e i r professors to s t r i v e for new knowledge. 
Having said t h i s , I wish to g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge Dr. 
Brian Wharf of the University of V i c t o r i a who introduced me to 
t h i s area of research and encouraged my i n i t i a l c u r i o s i t y . 
Once upon the path I was guided by my committee: Dr. Richard 
Nann, Dr. Christiane McNiven and Dr. John A. Crane. Dr. Nann 
as the chairman of my committee, acted as an advocate to move 
obstacles that r e s i s t e d my attempts. He f a c i l i t a t e d my work 
as a student, by creating an environment that was conducive to 
research. Dr. McNiven was my resource and guide i n developing 
an understanding of the theory underlying t h i s research, and 
i n formulating my own conceptual framework to describe t h i s 
research. Her c r i t i q u e s of my early and subsequent work were 
f a i r , understandable and encouraged me to c l a r i f y , adapt and 
grow. Dr. Crane was at times l i k e a magician, and I his 
neophyte apprentice. He led me into the strange and wonderful 
land of computers and s t a t i s t i c s , and provided me with the 
resources and i n s t r u c t i o n to reap the benefits. Together, 
i v 
these professors shared a commitment to improving the standard 
of s o c i a l work research, which they were able to transmit to 
the i r student. 
There are many other people who have played a role i n 
th i s research. I am gratef u l to a l l of the Executive Directors 
of Non-Governmental Organizations who responded to the ques-
tionnaire. Without t h e i r e f f o r t , t h i s report never would have 
been completed. To E l s i e deBruijn, and the s t a f f of the 
Social Work Library, I am indebted for th e i r patient and ever 
pleasant attitude while completing t h i s work. I also wish to 
acknowledge the encouragement that I received from colleagues 
i n the School. F i n a l l y , to Mrs. Doreen Greig who typed th i s 
manuscript, from longhand notes, my appreciation and thanks. 
As always, the errors and omissions found i n t h i s thesis 
are e n t i r e l y my own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 
Sharon Willms, 
Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. 
1980. 
V 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Chapter I - Introduction 1 
A. Summary Statement of the Problem Creating a 
Need for Research 1 
B. Population Affected by the Problem 2 
C. Limitation and Biases 5 
D. Organization of the Research Report. . . . . . . . 6 
Chapter II - Literature Review 8 
A. Conceptual Foundations 8 
B. H i s t o r i c a l Development 14 
C. Relevance to Social Work Practice 19 
D. Current State of the Art 2 8 
Chapter III - Study Design 38 
A. Theoretical Framework 38 
B. Hypotheses and Assumptions of the Study 44 
1) Hypotheses . . . » 44 
2) Operational Definitions of Dependent and 
Independent Variables 47 
3) Assumptions 50 
C. Level of Research Design 52 
1) Plan of Data Analysis 54 
D. Sampling Procedures 56 
E. Method of Gathering Data 58 
1) Sources 58 
2) R e l i a b i l i t y / V a l i d i t y of Instrument 58 
3) Questionnaire 60 
v i 
4) P r e t e s t 63 
5) P i l o t Study 64 
Chapter IV - Study F i n d i n g s 6 8 
A. Problems Encountered 68 
1) Sampling 6 8 
2) Data C o l l e c t i o n and A n a l y s i s 70 
B. Demographic R e s u l ts 71 
C. F i n d i n g s i n Study Questions 88 
Chapter V - C o n c l u s i o n s and P r o p o s a l s f o r F u r t h e r 
Research .126 
A. . C o n c l u s i o n s and Recommendations .12 6 
B. P r o p o s a l s f o r F u r t h e r Research .136 
References .139 
Appendices: 
I - Survey Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and Covering L e t t e r . . . . 148 
I I - P i l o t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , R e s u l t s and Covering Letter.159 
I I I - SPARC-SPAR Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and Covering L e t t e r . . 1 69 
v i i 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 
I - Type of Organization 73 
II - Age of Organization 74 
III - Staff i n Organization 76 
IV - Volunteers i n Organization 77 
V - Board Members of Organization 7 8 
VI - Members of Organization 79 
VII - Percentage of Funds Received by Source 81 
VIII - Rank Order of Source of Funds 82 
IX - Total Amount of Funds Received 8 4 
X - Percentage of Request for Funds Met 86 
XI - Negative Correlations 91 
XII - Importance of Information Sharing A c t i v i t y by 
P r i o r i t y Assigned 94 
XIII - Rank Order of Information Categories 96 
XIV - Rank Order of Constituency Groups 100 
XV - Rank Order of Links With Constituency . . 101 
XVI - Rank Order of Purpose 103 
XVII - Need for Services 109 
XVIII - Problem D e f i n i t i o n 110 
XIX - Goals and Objectives 112 
XX - Description of Programs 114 
XXI - Budget 115 
XXII - Management Structure 116 
XXIII- P u b l i c i z e Organizational A c t i v i t i e s 119 
v i i i 
Table 
XXIV - Annual Report 120 
XXV - Evaluation Report 122 
XXVI - Rank Order Overall of Constituency Groups and 
Purpose - 12 3 
i x 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
Figure 
1. Open System Model 10 
2. Types of Inclusive Context 2 3 
1 
Chapter I - Introduction 
A. Summary Statement of the Problem Creating a Need for 
Research 
There i s an increasing concern about the a b i l i t y of 
organizations to form and maintain interorganizational r e l a t i o n -
ships (IOR) i n the turbulent environment that characterizes 
human service agencies. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) 
are of in t e r e s t because they appear to face continual problems 
i n securing funding. As competition for funds becomes f i e r c e 
in t h i s era of r e s t r a i n t , there i s a growing pressure on 
voluntary organizations to demonstrate accountability for t h e i r 
programs. Exchange of information appears to play a v i t a l r o l e 
in creating awareness i n the interorganizational (10) f i e l d , 
gaining cooperation from constituencies i n the environment and 
f i n a l l y i n e l i c i t i n g support to accompany funding requests. 
Very l i t t l e has been written about the nature and structure of 
IORs i n NGOs i n the human services arena as i t relates to 
funding. 
The purpose of t h i s research i s to examine the nature 
and structure of 10 behaviour around information exchange related 
to funding as perceived by Executive Directors of NGOs i n the 
Cit y of Vancouver. The conceptual framework of the study i s 
derived from General System Theory (GST) and the Open System 
Model of Input, Throughput, Output and Information Feedback. 
It i s hypothesized that NGOs must maintain a balance of i n f o r -
2 
mation exchange i n each of these categories i n order to survive 
i n the s o c i a l service delivery system. A model of collabora-
t i v e information exchange i s introduced as a viable method of 
ensuring the continuation of NGO's. The collaborative exchange 
model i s derived from the early work of Levine & White (1961) 
who characterized IOR as "any voluntary exchange of resources". 
This research i s based on that i n i t i a l i n t erpretation and sub-
sequent modifications found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . 
The collaborative IOR exchange model then has i t s roots 
in GST, i s deduced from the l i t e r a t u r e on IOR, and i s shaped 
by t h i s researcher's experience i n the f i e l d . The model i s 
proposed as a vehicle for strengthening the network of exchange 
among NGO's, thus strengthening the i n d i v i d u a l organizations 
and improving the s o c i a l service delivery system o v e r a l l . 
B. Population Affected by the Problem 
There are four main constituencies affected by the 
problem: Consumers, Non-Governmental Organizations, the 
"Public", and Funders. Social Workers and Soc i a l Work Admini-
strators are concerned with each of these groups as they are 
affected by, and a f f e c t the s o c i a l service delivery system 
d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y . 
Consumers and d i r e c t l y affected when s o c i a l service 
agencies are forced to eliminate or cut back services to the 
community due to lack of funding. When s o c i a l agencies neglect 
3 
to share information with one another, they may be unable to 
refer c l i e n t s to other more appropriate services. Also, the 
wide variety of NGO's that currently e x i s t i s an advantage 
for the consumer. Individual agencies (rather than govern-
ment organizations) may be able to be more responsive to the 
ind i v i d u a l concerns of c l i e n t s , be more accessible and 
amenable to changes according to c l i e n t needs. NGO's are 
usually able to avoid becoming "super agencies" or monolithic 
bureaucracies that f a i l to meet the needs of the goup(s) they 
are attempting to serve. 
Non-Governmental Organizations are c e r t a i n l y affected, 
as lack of secure funding threatens t h e i r continued 
v i a b i l i t y . Arbitrary decisions about the a l l o c a t i o n and d i s -
t r i b u t i o n of funding precludes r a t i o n a l planning for most 
service agencies. I f one conceives of NGO's as part of a 
so c i a l service network, then the reduction of members of the 
agency network through inadequate funding reduces the potency 
of the f i e l d . NGO's should be concerned not only about t h e i r 
own funding position, but also that of other NGO's i n the net-
work of agencies. In system's terms, the i n d i v i d u a l strength 
of the sub-systems contributes to the o v e r a l l vigour of the 
s o c i a l service delivery system. 
The public as a general constituency may have the most 
to lose i f NGO's are forced out of existence. The public has 
4 
an inte r e s t i n having adequate s o c i a l services that work to 
solve s o c i a l problems. The public also has an i n t e r e s t i n 
having t h e i r views heard and heeded through c i t i z e n p a r t i c i -
pation on the Boards of Directors of NGO's. Mechanisms for 
c i t i z e n input i n government agencies are usually cumbersome 
and/or non-existent. 
Funders who must contend with organizations that com-
pete (knowingly and unknowingly) for l i m i t e d funds would 
benefit from a more coordinated and informed approach. NGO's 
that understand the whole network of services would make more 
knowledgeable demands on the funding bodies. 
Funders may stand to lose power i f a collaborative 
model of information exchange related to funding was adopted 
by NGO's. I t may be much more d i f f i c u l t to o f f e r reduced 
funding i n the s o c i a l services sector to a u n i f i e d body of 
s o c i a l service agencies than to the current fragmented and 
bickering body. Instead of the funders making the f i n a l 
decisions about funding, there would be a coordinated demand 
to share the power with NGO's. 
Overall, s o c i a l workers need to understand the i m p l i -
cations of IOR i n the human service arena, e s p e c i a l l y as i t 
relates to funding. IOR will become the new community develop-
ment model of the 1980's, where organizations group together to 
preserve and enhance the s o c i a l service delivery systems 
5 
that were conceived i n the 1960's and established i n the 
1970's. 
C. Limitations and Biases 
The research report i s limited by the state of the art 
of IOR theory. Presentlythere are c o n f l i c t i n g paradigms about 
the nature of IOR among organizations. The research on IOR 
does not have a s o l i d t h e o r e t i c a l model on which to accumulate 
propositions to describe an area of behaviour. Instead, the 
research must take an exploratory form that searches for 
propositions which might contribute to theory building. 
This researcher admits to four general biases which may 
have affected t h i s study. F i r s t , General System Theory i s 
accepted as a useful a n a l y t i c a l t o o l for describing and under-
standing the nature and process of IOR in human service 
agencies. Second, collaboration i s a preferred strategy of 
change as i t i s believed to o f f e r more alternatives than con-
f l i c t s trategies. I t also appeals on some l e v e l to profes-
sional s o c i a l work ethics that s t r i v e to protect the interests 
and position of affected p a r t i e s . Third, t h i s researcher 
expresses a commitment to the concept and continuance of NGO's 
as a vehicle for d e l i v e r i n g s o c i a l services. NGO's are believed 
to be more accessible to consumers, and have greater opportuni-
t i e s for the c i t i z e n input and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The fourth and 
f i n a l bias i s a general b e l i e f about the importance of studying 
6 
problems i n s o c i a l service delivery systems i n an e f f o r t to 
understand and correct them. Soc i a l workers must be concerned 
with how we d e l i v e r services, not only with what we d e l i v e r , 
because inevitably "the how" a f f e c t s "the what". 
D. Organization of the Research Report 
Chapter I - Introduction. This section contains a 
summary statement of the problem, a description of the 
population affected by the problem, and a statement of 
l i m i t a t i o n s and biases a f f e c t i n g the research. 
Chapter II - Literature Review. This chapter contains 
a complete review of the development of IOR theory, and 
describes i t s underlying conceptual foundations. The relevance 
to s o c i a l work practice, as well as the current state of the a r t , 
are discussed. 
Chapter III - Study Design. This chapter includes the 
t h e o r e t i c a l framework that guided t h i s enquiry, l i s t s the 
questions that were asked, provides d e f i n i t i o n s of the variables 
and states assumptions. The f i n a l sections describe the l e v e l 
of research design, the sampling procedures and method of 
gathering data. 
Chapter IV - Study Findings. This chapter describes 
the problems encountered i n sampling and data c o l l e c t i o n and 
analysis. The results to the demographic section of the 
7 
questionnaire, and the study questions make up the l a s t portion 
of t h i s chapter. 
Chapter V - Conclusions and Proposals for Further 
Research. This chapter b r i e f l y highlights some of the more 
s i g n i f i c a n t findings, both p o s i t i v e and negative; draws some 
conclusions about the nature of IOR behaviour related to funding; 
and makes some recommendations based on the data received. The 
f i n a l section makes some proposals for further research. 
8 
Chapter II - Literature Review 
The purposes of t h i s chapter are to provide an overview 
and review of the l i t e r a t u r e on Interorganizational Relation-
ships (IOR). The chapter has four sections: Conceptual 
Foundations of IOR; H i s t o r i c a l Development; Relevance to 
Social Work Practice; and Current State of the Art. 
This introduction to the f i e l d of IOR should a l e r t the 
reader to some of the problems and prospects currently facing 
organizational theorists at t h i s time. I t should also demon-
strate that the c o n f l i c t i n g paradigms extant presently l i m i t 
the l e v e l s of enquiry possible. Research i n t h i s area must 
continue to serve an exploratory function, e s p e c i a l l y when 
directed to the population of s o c i a l service organizations. 
A. Conceptual Foundations 
U n t i l about 1960, research and theory concerning 
organizations had been concerned p r i n c i p a l l y with i n t r a -
organizational phenomena, or a c t i v i t i e s and structures within 
the organization. In the early 1960's several organizational 
researchers i d e n t i f i e d the lack of investigation i n the 
area of in t e r a c t i o n of organizations (Etzioni, 1960; Litwak 
& Hylton, 1962). The notion of General System Theory 
(Bertalanffy, 1950) was beginning to be used as a to o l to 
9 
conceptualize organizational behaviour. 
The concept of GST was born i n the f i e l d of biology. 
Ludwig Von Bertalanffy published the f i r s t a r t i c l e describ-
ing GST i n 1950. The key to GST was the notion of a l l 
l i v i n g systems as "open systems" as opposed to "closed 
systems". Open systems could be described as having c e r t a i n 
properties or q u a l i t i e s which distinguished them from closed 
systems. 
The properties described in GST form the basis for 
understanding and conceptualizing IOR. In f a c t , leading 
organizational theorists have used GST concepts as a basis 
for developing organizational theory (Katz and Kahn: 1966; 
Baker and O'Brien: 1971). The appeal of t h i s theory i s that 
i t looks at the organization as parts of the whole - i . e . 
t h e i r relationships to one another - rather than the i n d i -
vidual parts themselves. An open system model of organiza-
t i o n a l behaviour emphasizes that organizations are embedded 
in an environment made up of other organizations. Figure 1 
demonstrates the Open System Model. 
It i s important to describe some of the basic charac-
t e r i s t i c s associated with GST to provide a foundation for 
conceptualizing IOR, as the terms and processes share 
operational d e f i n i t i o n s . 
INPUT THROUGHPUT OUTPUT-
'S 
FEEDBACK 1 4" 
OPEN SYSTEM MODEL 
F i g u r e 1 
11 
I t i s not d i f f i c u l t to understand why GST came from 
the b i o l o g i s t s when you look at the s t r u c t u r e o f a l i v i n g 
c e l l . A c e l l must have i n p u t , throughput, output and i n f o r -
mation feedback i n order f o r i t t o s u r v i v e i n i t s environment. 
Thus the f i r s t r u l e of GST i s developed: 1) a l l l i v i n g 
systems must have i n p u t and output. 
C l o s e r examination of the c e l l r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e were 
d i f f e r e n t p a r t s to t h a t system, or smal l subsystems r e s p o n s i b l e 
f o r c a r r y i n g out d i f f e r e n t processes w i t h i n the c e l l . The 
second r u l e o f GST i s : 2) a l l l i v i n g systems c o n t a i n sub-
systems which are f u n c t i o n a l l y interdependent and f u n c t i o n a l l y 
d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . 
Through the work of an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y team from 
b i o l o g y (L. Von B e r t a l a n f f y ) , economics (Kenneth B o u l d i n g ) , 
mathematics (R. K. F i s c h e r ) , and l a t e r s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s 
C.G. B. Hearn, W. Buckley) a g e n e r a l theory r e l a t e d t o open 
systems was developed. The appeal of t h i s theory i s t h a t i t 
d e s c r i b e s a framework t o analyze r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the pro-
cesses of those r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t i s a way of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g 
the r e l a t i o n s h i p of one c e l l t o o t h e r s , or whole n a t i o n s t o 
the r e s t of the world. I t i s about the c l o s e s t we have come 
to a U n i f i e d Theory of Science and Behaviour. 
B r i e f l y , then, the terms and processes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 
GST and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory are as f o l l o w s : 
12 
Terms: 
Supra-system - higher l e v e l system of which the system i s a 
subsystem. 
System - "[A] set of units or elements which are a c t i v e l y i n t e r -
related and which operate i n some sense as a bounded uni t " .(Baker; 197 3: 4). 
Subsystem - any one of the units or elements within a unit. 
Environment - includes a l l that exists outside the system, 
boundary. Some writers have attempted to define t h i s as a l l 
that externally a f f e c t s the organization (Pffefer and Salancik; 
1978). 
Boundary - the perimeter of the system. How the system defines 
i t s e l f . 
Processes: 
Entropy - the tendency of a l l systems to move toward d i s s o l u t i o n 
or disorganization. If an organization does not adapt to the 
changing forces within the environment, i t w i l l eventually 
dissolve. 
Negentropy - forces associated with homeostasis, or equilibrium. 
This i s achieved by maximizing the r a t i o of input to output, 
or balancing forces. 
Permeability - the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of systems to include or 
exclude other systems. 
Boundary Maintenance - the a b i l i t y of the system to maintain i t s 
13 
assembly or l i n k subsystems under the auspice of a single 
system. In organizational terms, the process by which the 
organization p u l l s together a l l of i t s various components to 
operate as a single u n i t . 
Functional Interdependence - the tasks and roles of the 
various subsystems that unite the system as a single u n i t . 
Functional D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n - t h i s recognizes that subsystems 
have p a r t i c u l a r roles to play at various times. In the organi-
zational context, roles and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are fun c t i o n a l l y 
segmented so that the organization can continue to operate. 
Feedback - parts of output returned to input to modify subse-
quent outputs. This i s a form of evaluation, where the system 
measures i t s output and returns that information to the system. 
E q u i f i n a l i t y - d i f f e r e n t routes to the same end. Organizations 
with similar goals w i l l not necessarily use the same methods 
to achieve the same ends. 
From t h i s broad overview, the t h i r d rule of GST i s 
derived: 3) the whole i s greater than the sum of i t s parts. 
Systems can be understood i n terms of t h e i r interdepen-
dency by focussing on: 1) the interdependence of the system 
on i t s environment, 2) the interdependence of the system on 
i t s subsystems, and 3) the process by which systems i n the 
environment become linked to one another. 
The study of Interorganizational Relationships i s the 
14 
t h i r d focus - the process by which systems i n the environment-
become linked to one another. The f i r s t i s the.study of the 
environment while the second i s the study of intraorganiza-
t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 
A system's approach to IOR views an organization as a 
part of a set of organizations i n an environment with which 
i t has a re l a t i o n s h i p . The nature of the environment w i l l 
a f f e c t the interactions among the organizations. The goals 
and objectives of the organizations, the resources available 
to accomplish same, and the agreement among the organizational 
network as to the respective domain of each w i l l have implica-
tions for the relationships between the organizations. 
B. H i s t o r i c a l Development 
Levine and White (1961:368) i n a study of community 
health organizations, defined organizational exchange as "any 
voluntary a c t i v i t y between two organizations which has conse-
quences actual or anticipated, for the r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e i r 
respective goals or objectives". 
The elements which were exchanged between organizations 
f e l l into three categories: 
1) r e f e r r a l s / c l i e n t s , 
2) labour services, and 
3) resources other than labour. 
15 
The exchange of these elements are determined according 
to three main factors: 
1) access to resources, 
2) objectives and functions of the organization, and 
3) degree to which domain consensus e x i s t s . 
Domain consensus i s the agreement between organizations 
about the nature and function of each other's services, or the 
t e r r i t o r y they attempt to claim as t h e i r own. 
Litwak and Hylton (1962) used system theory as a basis 
for conceiving IOR. In t h e i r view, interdependence was a key 
issue i n understanding organizational behaviour. They developed 
three variables which they believed affected the relat i o n s h i p 
between organizations: 
1) the number of interdependent organizations i n the 
environment, 
2) the in d i v i d u a l organization's degree of awareness 
of other organizations, and 
3) the extent of standardization of responses between 
organizations. 
They found that low interdependence between organizations led 
to no coordination among organizations, while high interdepen-
dence resulted i n mergers of the organizations. 
Wm. Evan (1966) developed the organization-set as a 
le v e l of analysis using an input set and output set r e l a t i n g 
16 
to a single organization as the f o c a l unit for analysis. Evan 
described seven dimensions that were c r i t i c a l to understanding 
IOR a c t i v i t y : 
1) input vs. output organizational sets, 
2) comparative vs. normative reference organizations, 
3) size of the organization set, 
4) concentration of organizational set, 
5) overlap i n membership, 
6) overlap i n goals and values, and 
7) boundary personnel. 
Each of these dimensions has been the subject of empirical and 
t h e o r e t i c a l research by a variety of authors i n the l a s t decade 
(Van Auken, Alonso and B e l l ; 1976). 
Warren (1967) introduced the concept of the Interorgani-
zational f i e l d which did not imply a denied membership i n a 
larger suprasystem. The concept of the 10 f i e l d i s based on 
the observation that the i n t e r a c t i o n between two organizations 
i s affected by the nature of the organizational network i n 
which the organizations find themselves. Thus the r e l a t i o n s h i p 
between two organizations i s affected by the pre-existing t i e s 
and networks of organizational r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Again, here i s a 
reference to the concepts of system theory, that there are sub-
systems within a system which are interdependent. He described 
four possible configurations of IOR from unitary to s o c i a l 
choice arrangements. This typology may also be used to describe 
17 
horizontal or v e r t i c a l patterns of rel a t i o n s h i p s . Thus organi-
zational relationships could be seen as multi-dimensional 
depending upon the unit of exchange, and the focus of analysis. 
While these concepts about the nature of IOR were being 
formulated, similar explorations were directed at the environ-
ment of organizations. The e f f e c t of the environment on the 
formation and maintenance of IOR has come to be recognized as 
a s i g n i f i c a n t factor in the study of IOR. 
Emery and T r i s t (1965) described the environment of 
organizations i n four ideal types. The f i r s t three types 
the "placid randomized", the "placid clustered", and the 
"disturbed reactive" environment had previously been understood 
in the l i t e r a t u r e of biology, economics and mathematics 
(Terreberry; 1968: 180). The fourth type, "a turbulent 
f i e l d " i d e n t i f i e d dynamic processes a r i s i n g from the f i e l d 
i t s e l f , rather than the interactions of the component organi-
zations. The turbulent f i e l d , characterized by complexity 
as well as rapid change i n the environment, has gained sup-
port as a term to describe the human service agency environment. 
D i l l (1958) i d e n t i f i e d those parts of the environment 
upon which an organization's goal achievement i s p o t e n t i a l l y 
dependent as the task environment. The nature of the required 
performance of the organization had consequences on i t s i n t e r -
active behaviour. The examination of interactions among 
various units i n the environment led to the i d e nt i f i c a t i o n of 
18 
appropriate organization-sets as the l e v e l of analysis (Evan, 
1966; 1972). The transactions of members of the organization-
set with members of the task environment was further described 
by Thompson (1967) and more recently by Nuerhing (1978). These 
approaches used a f o c a l organization as the u n i t of analysis 
to describe IOR. 
Lawrence and Lorsch's (1967) Contingency Theory i s based 
on Emery and T r i s t ' s concept of the environment. I t states 
that there must be a f i t between in t e r n a l organizational charac-
t e r i s t i c s and the external environment i f the organization i s 
to survive. They found that i n highly turbulent f i e l d s , 
highly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and complex relationships were found 
among organizations. 
These descriptions of the context and nature of IOR set 
the stage for researchers to introduce the concept of IOR as a 
s o c i a l system. The understanding of IOR had moved from the 
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the environment of the organization, to the 
interaction of organizations, to viewing the f i e l d of IOR as 
a s o c i a l system within i t s e l f (Warren, 1967s Hage, 1974; 
VandeVen, Emmett & Koenig, 1974; Lauman, Galaskiewicz, Marsden, 
1978). Levine and White (1975) i n a subsequent a r t i c l e sug-
gested a need to s h i f t the focus of research away from the 
relationships between organizations (dyadic approach), to the 
relationships among the agencies as an exchange network. 
19 
In summary, three factors may be i d e n t i f i e d as c o n t r i -
buting to the o v e r a l l development of IOR theory: 
11 General System Theory, 
2) concept of exchange between or among organizations, 
3) description of the environment i n which 10 a c t i v i t y 
takes place, and 
a fourth factor noted by Berne (1977) was the U.S. 
federal government programming which mandated coordi-
nation among Health and Welfare Organizations i n 
Model C i t i e s programs. This provided the funds and 
arena for IOR research. 
C. Relevance to Social Work Practice 
The 10 f i e l d i s relevant to s o c i a l workers for three 
reasons: 
1) i t has implications for s o c i a l p olicy, 
2) i t has implications for the coordination of s o c i a l 
services, and 
3) i t i s a target for change. 
Given the fact that we recognize the s o c i a l service 
environment as being i n motion i t s e l f , " i n d i v i d u a l organizations, 
however large, cannot expect to adapt successfully simply through 
t h e i r own d i r e c t actions" (Emery and T r i s t ; 1965: 28). The 10 
f i e l d presents an opportunity for action, to strengthen IOR 
among s o c i a l service agencies so that they may more e f f e c t i v e l y 
control the environment. The f i r s t step i s to i d e n t i f y e x i s t i n g 
IOR's and potential l i n k s r e l a t i n g to the p a r t i c u l a r agency. An 
20 
assessment of the l i n k s i n terms of strengths and weaknesses 
enables the s o c i a l worker to plan and implement strategies for 
change. The goal i s to strengthen the network of services to 
improve service delivery. 
Whereas coordination and integration were the bywords of 
s o c i a l service analysts and change agents during the 197O's, 
the new slogan of the 1980's may well become IOR. Disenchantment 
with model c i t i e s programs and community action programs 
(Moynihan; 1969) have encouraged the reassessment of the values 
that guided early e f f o r t s . Wharf (1978) argues that the 
integration of human services into one monolithic agency may 
actually reduce access, and increase stigma for the low income 
consumer. Clearly, a major restructuring of thinking about the 
mechanisms for coordination i s i n order. The interorganizational 
arena o f f e r s one such opportunity, as i t does not add any more 
organizations to the f i e l d , but works with available resources 
to improve a l l o c a t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n . 
Implications for s o c i a l p o l i c y evolves from the current 
s o c i a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l constraints facing s o c i a l service 
agencies. The era of r e s t r a i n t has forced cutbacks i n programs 
and services used by the most vulnerable and dependent 
consumers. In order to protect the f i e l d of s o c i a l services, a 
concerted c o l l e c t i v e e f f o r t i s necessary by agencies i n the 
f i e l d . This i s a new form of community organization, that 
works with agencies serving consumers to organize and e f f e c t 
change at the p o l i t i c a l l e v e l . 
21 
Just as grass roots organizations were encouraged i n 
Canada by federal program monies from the Secretary of State 
during the late '60's and early '70's, IOR may also be 
developed through l e g i s l a t i v e mandates. In t h i s era of cut-
backs, accountability has become the byword of federal and 
p r o v i n c i a l grants o f f i c e r s . Grant applications that demand 
that agencies coordinate at l o c a l levels to agree on domain, 
and rol e s , encourage the development of IOR. 
The concept of IOR has d i r e c t implications for s o c i a l 
work practice whether one i s a l i n e worker, manager or s o c i a l 
planner, as a l l of us are working i n an organization within 
the 10 f i e l d . 
VJarren (1967) suggests that there are three c l a s s i f i -
cations for organizations around any s p e c i f i c issue: 
1) not involved, 
2) involved i n the issue i n a manner that supports the 
f i r s t organization i n i t s goals, or 
3) involved i n the issue i n a manner that hampers the 
f i r s t organization i n the pursuit of i t s goals. 
This scheme has the advantage of assembling organizations 
according to a s p e c i f i c issue as f o r , against or neutral. The 
notion of s p e c i f i c issue recognizes that the network of r e l a -
tionships between organizations i s not s t a t i c , and can change 
over time. The network can also change depending upon the 
issue and i t s impact on the organization(s). 
22 
This model can be used successfully i n conjunction with 
Kurt Lewin's (1959) Force F i e l d Analysis model when reviewing 
threat or promise of interorganizational collaboration or 
c o n f l i c t . Lewin's model i d e n t i f i e s pressures for and against 
change, so that plans of action may be i d e n t i f i e d to reduce 
negative and increase p o s i t i v e factors for change. For 
example, i f one organization was considering taking a public 
stand on abortion, i t would need to assess which organizations 
were neutral, which organizations supported the organization's 
stand and which organizations were against the organization's 
stand. At the time of t h i s assessment, the organization 
should also evaluate the strength and weaknesses of i t s stand 
based on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of support or threat of c o n f l i c t i n 
the 10 f i e l d . 
One of Warren's most useful contributions i n t h i s f i e l d 
i s his "Types of Inclusive Context" (see figure 2). He formu-
lates four types of organizational i n t e r a c t i o n based on six 
variables. 
The u t i l i t y of t h i s model i s that i t relates goals to 
structure and internal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the various u n i t s . 
It has shown some predictive value for success of organiza-
t i o n a l interactions based on s i m i l a r i t y of goals, structure 
and commitment experienced by the u n i t s . 
For instance, a group of organizations with l i t t l e or no 
c o l l e c t i v i t y experienced by the various units should not attempt 
23 
TYPES OF INCLUSIVE CONTEXT 
Type of Context 
Dimension Unitary Federative Coalitional Social choice 
Relation of units 
to an inclusive goal 
Locus of inclusive 
decision-making 
Locus of authority 
Structural provisions 
for division of labor 
Commitment to a 
leadershipsubsystem 
Prescribed collectivity 
orientation of units 
Units organized for 
achievement of inclu-
sive goals 
At top of inclusive 
structure 
At top of hierarchy of 
inclusive structure 
Units structured for di-
vision of labor within 
inclusive organization 
Norms of high com-
mitment 
High 
Units with disparate goals, 
but some formal organiza-
tion for inclusive goals 
At top of inclusive structure, 
subject to unit ratification 
Primarily at unit level 
Units structured autono-
mously; may agree to a 
division of labor, which 
may affect their structure 
Norms of moderate 
commitment 
Moderate 
Units with disparate goals, but 
informal collaboration for in-
clusive goals 
In interaction of units without 
a formal inclusive structure 
Exclusively at unit level 
No inclusive goals 
Within units 
Exclusively at unit 
level 
Units structured autonomously; No formally structured 
may agree to ad hoc division of division of labor within 
labor, without restructuring an inclusive context 
Commitment only to unit 
leaders 
Minimal 
Commitment only to 
unit leaders 
Little or none 
From: Warren, R.L. "The Interorganizational F i e l d as a Focus for 
Investigation" i n Administrative Science Quarterly 
December, 1967. 
F i g u r e 2 
24 
to organize for the achievement of i n c l u s i v e goals. This would 
be, i n Lewinian terms, a force against change which would need 
to be modified before attempting a c o l l e c t i v e action. 
In review of the Types of Inclusive Context proposed by 
Warren, there are several observations which can be made about 
the proposed model. The "Unitary configuration" appears to be 
the most s t a t i c of the four types. Both authority and locus of 
authority are situated within the structure. Warren notes 
that "The units are expected to orient t h e i r behaviour toward 
the well-being of the incl u s i v e organization, rather than 
toward t h e i r own respective subgoals" (Warren; 1967: 185). An 
example of the Unitary type of organization i n B.C. i s the 
Ministry of Human Resources. An agency of t h i s type may be the 
most d i f f i c u l t to bring into the 10 f i e l d due to i t s s i z e , com-
pl e x i t y and d i v e r s i t y . However, for these very reasons, as an 
organization i t often f a i l s to obtain commitment from the 
various departments regarding i t s goals,or agreement on what 
goals a c t u a l l y guide the a c t i v i t y of the organization. And 
while the prescribed c o l l e c t i v i t y o rientation of units i s sup-
posed to be high, the agency i s seldom able to achieve these 
norms. 
Similar observations can be made about the other three 
types when they are applied to an actual organization. While 
the organization may appear to f i t into one type, invariably 
i t does not meet a l l of the dimension requirements set forth 
25 
by Warren. When applying t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l model i n practice, 
some adjustments are necessary for the r e a l i t y of the organi-
zation. Yet, i t s t i l l serves as a useful model, and a 
st a r t i n g place for analyzing and predicting success of s o c i a l 
action strategies involving more than one organization. 
A t h i r d contribution to s o c i a l work practice from 10 
Theory i s relevant to s o c i a l p o l i c y makers. Warren (1967: 
193-194) raises t h i s i n his a r t i c l e "The 10 F i e l d as a Focus 
for Investigation" under the subheading of ' S a t i s f i c i n g 
versus Maximizing'. Borrowing his terms from Herbert Simon 
(.1965) , Warren sets before us the c l a s s i c problem of o p t i -
mality. This problem i s also associated with GST models. 
The problem of optimality can be i l l u s t r a t e d by a 
simple story of a flock of birds a l l attempting to b u i l d t h e i r 
i n d i v i d u a l nests using grass from one s p e c i f i c grassy k n o l l . 
Let us assume that the one kn o l l i s the l i m i t of resources 
available, or the boundary of the system. As each bird pads 
his own nest, he i s reducing the number of blades of grass 
available. When there i s plenty of grass, there i s l i t t l e 
problem. However, i n periods of scarce resources there i s 
much competition. The r e s u l t may be that some birds get nests, 
though not a l l , and that i s seldom optimal f o r the whole 
community. 
In t h i s era of constraint, human service agencies are 
experiencing the problem of optimality. How do we maximize 
26 
our values (agency) without jeopardizing other values 
(agencies)? This i s the problem that faces s o c i a l p o l i c y 
planners, as s o c i a l p o l i c y i s b a s i c a l l y about choices 
between c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic objectives 
and how those objectives are formulated. 
Warren (1967:193) postulates that choices made i n the 
10 f i e l d constitute a series of s a t i s f i c i n g resolutions i n 
which values are mixed, usually to the complete s a t i s f a c t i o n 
of none of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . In order to improve the aggre-
gate value of these choices, Warren suggests a number of 
strategies to strengthen the 10 f i e l d . He encourages the 
sharing of information at a l l lev e l s of 10 analysis to r a t i o n -
a l i z e and optimize the a l l o c a t i o n of resources. The recommen-
dations also encompass a provision to break impasses or resolve 
c o n f l i c t s that may arise i n the 10 f i e l d . 
In summary IOR a f f e c t the delivery of services by 
a f f e c t i n g resource a l l o c a t i o n both within and without the 
organization. By strengthening the IOR i n the s o c i a l service 
f i e l d , there i s an opportunity to improve or optimize the mix 
of value choices facing s o c i a l service agencies, and perhaps 
even reduce value c o n f l i c t s . 
The collaborative approach proposed seems to have stood 
the t e s t of time. Schindler-Rainman & L i p p i t t (1978), i n a review 
of interagency collaboration, summarize the possible problems and 
benefits when non-governmental organizations work together. They 
i d e n t i f y ten bar r i e r s to collaboration that may be categorized 
27 
as Information, Domain, Personnel, and System Related Problems. 
In order to counteract these barriers they suggest a va r i e t y 
of strategies to i n i t i a t e and maintain collaboration. One 
area where they suggest that i n i t i a l collaboration may occur 
i s i n the area of funding. Organizations may be mandated to 
coordinate funding applications by funders, or seek to cooperate 
with each other i n order to get funding. They stress that at 
a l l stages information and communication must be kept a l i v e and 
relevant i f the collaborative structure i s to succeed. An open 
system model of information that i s directed by s k i l f u l , 
rotating leadership i s proposed to ensure feedback on goals and 
objectives. These authors l i k e Warren, see benefits i n c o l l a -
borative sharing of information and resources. S p e c i f i c a l l y 
they l i s t f i v e p o t e n t i a l benefits of interagency collaboration. 
1) maximization of expertise available i n the 10 f i e l d , 
2) creation of an influence base for new funding and/or 
programs, 
3) new understanding of s o c i a l service arena through 
the interpersonal interface, 
4) concentration of energy and commitment to shared 
goals, 
5) power r e d i s t r i b u t i o n amongst the agencies. 
Together, they hope that these f i v e benefits have an additive 
function of bringing about improved s o c i a l service delivery 
systems. 
28 
D. Current State of the Art 
In the previous sections, a collaborative strategy of IOR 
has been described. This paradigm sees resource exchange as a 
function of collaboration among organizations i n the 10 f i e l d 
to ensure mutual s u r v i v a l . 
At present there are perhaps three competingtheories of 
IOR, although they are not mutually exclusive. They are the 
voluntary exchange model, the c o n f l i c t resource dependency 
model, and the mixed-motive model. 
A l d r i c h (1971) espouses the c o n f l i c t resource dependency 
model. It focuses on decisions, power and influence r e l a t i o n -
ships that a f f e c t organizational actions and oh strategies .that 
seek to manage the environment. This model d i r e c t s inquiry at 
the l e v e l s of power and authority, 10 c o n f l i c t and member 
compliance. A l d r i c h predicts that organizations are more l i k e l y 
to tighten t h e i r organizational boundaries than to expand t h e i r 
boundaries when engaged i n 10 c o n f l i c t , thus reducing 10 
a c t i v i t y . 
Benson (197 5) may also be classed i n the c o n f l i c t resource 
dependency school. He conceives of 10 networks as a p o l i t i c a l 
economy concerned with the d i s t r i b u t i o n of two scarce resources, 
money and authority. He sees the po s i t i o n of organizations i n 
the network as dependent upon t h e i r respective market positions 
and power to a f f e c t the flow of resources. The four components 
of equilibrium i n the system are: 
29 
1) Domain Consensus, 
2) Ideological Consensus, 
3) Positive Evaluation, and 
4) Work Coordination. 
The components vary together and are affected by the p o l i t i c a l 
and economic substructure. 
Jones (.1978) , i s also a member of the c o n f l i c t school. 
In his work, he investigated the variables of interagency power, 
control and sanctioning (reward) system present i n the 10 f i e l d . 
He concludes that hidden 10 agendas subvert o r i g i n a l agency 
goals regarding IOR, and that the domination of the hidden 
agenda goals shape the variables. 
Studies supporting the c o n f l i c t resource-dependency model 
generally f i n d that slack or performance excess conditions i n 
the organization r e s u l t i n more 10 a c t i v i t y . This means that 
when intraorganizational concerns are s a t i s f i e d , the organization 
w i l l become more involved i n IOR. 
Sheldon (1978) finds support for Aldrich's model i n her 
study of j o i n t programs of s o c i a l service agencies i n a single 
urban area. Comprehensive s o c i a l service delivery systems are 
not enhanced merely by urging voluntary coordination and appeal-
ing to professional i d e a l s . She suggests that funds are required 
to make coordination f e a s i b l e . 
Zeitz (.1980:86) c r i t i c i z e s the resource dependency model 
30 
as o f f e r i n g too s i m p l i s t i c a set of alternatives - "either 
organizations manipulate and control environments, or environ-
ments dominate and constrain organizations". In accepting the 
c o n f l i c t model, strategies for action are severely lim i t e d , 
and i n many senses unworkable. Zeitz (1980:86) also c r i t i c i z e s 
exchange theory as being nothing more than n e o - c l a s s i c a l 
economic theory, and for ignoring the dynamic state of 10 
linkage. He seems to have ignored more recent formulations of 
exchange theory, and i n p a r t i c u l a r Warren's (1967) concept of 
10 as constituting a dynamic f i e l d . Zeitz i s proposing a new 
form of the c o n f l i c t model - D i a l e c t i c a l Intervention, based 
on Marxian p r i n c i p l e s . 
The theory proposed by Zeitz (1980) i s appealing on 
i n t e l l e c t u a l grounds, e s p e c i a l l y as i t keys on the d i s t r i b u -
t i o n of resources as i t affects the i n t e r a c t i o n among organiza-
tions. However, i t s appeal i s undermined when one considers 
the l o g i c a l extension for action based on Marxist doctrine. 
For p r a c t i s i n g s o c i a l workers and s o c i a l work administrators, 
i t seems impractical to consider revolutionary t a c t i c s at the 
present time. 
The c o n f l i c t school i s conceptually li m i t e d by the 
nature of c o n f l i c t i t s e l f . C o n f l i c t seems to presuppose a 
clashing of two opposing forces. In the dynamic state of the 
10 f i e l d i t i s d i f f i c u l t to conceive of one agency being able 
to i d e n t i f y i t s e l f i n c o n f l i c t with a l l other members. The 
dyadic nature of c o n f l i c t theory l i m i t s i t s application when 
31 
the 10 f i e l d i s defined as a network of agencies. 
The t h i r d paradigm of IOR can be described as Mixed-
Motive. This c a l l s for an integrated view of both exchange 
and resource dependency models to f u l l y understand 10 theory 
(Schmidt and Kochan; 1977). Cook (1977) proposed an extension 
of the exchange model to incorporate the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power 
as one element of exchange. She disagrees with A l d r i c h that 
exchange theory i s conceptually barren to deal with unequal 
power and resource d i s t r i b u t i o n (1977:77) but urges the addi-
t i o n a l development of the theory. 
The c o n f l i c t i n g paradigms of IOR are no comfort to 
s o c i a l work p r a c t i t i o n e r s seeking to extract hints for 
techniques for change i n the 10 f i e l d . To t h i s writer, the 
Mixed-Motive model seems to o f f e r the most pote n t i a l for 
developing guidelines for action. I t recognizes the existence 
of c o n f l i c t between organizations, but by avoiding that 
element as the central aspect of the theory, i t accommodates 
both c o n f l i c t and collaboration as a r e a l i t y of the 10 f i e l d . 
C o n f l i c t can be used i n a constructive sense for system 
building and should not be excluded. 
Laumann, Galaskiewicz, and Marsden (1978) i n an 
excellent summary of the state of the art of IOR c a l l e d upon 
researchers to focus upon three areas: 
1) linkages between organizations, 
2) what leads to the development of l i n k i n g mechanisms, 
32 
and 
3) the implications of IOR for public p o l i c y 
decisions i n order to more f u l l y understand IOR 
theory. 
When reviewing the current l i t e r a t u r e on IOR from these 
three reference points one becomes aware of the overlap of a l l 
three schools, and lack of consistent findings i n the l i t e r a -
ture. This indicates that the development of IOR theory i s i n 
i t s infancy, and needs both exploratory research and concep-
t u a l i z a t i o n to further the f i e l d . Examples are based on the 
three issues for researchers i d e n t i f i e d by Laumann, Galaskiewicz 
and Marsden (.1978) as above follow. 
Recent studies of IOR linkages have been based on 
resource transfers or interpenetration of organizational 
boundaries. These relationships may be viewed as a r i s i n g out 
of collaboration or c o n f l i c t strategies employed by member 
organizations to meet the requirements for s u r v i v a l i n the 10 
f i e l d . Linkages among organizations have been viewed i n terms 
of coordination of services (Aiken & Hage, 1968; Sundquist, 
1969; Mott, 1970; Baker & Schulberg, 1970; T. Jones, 1974; 
Warren, Rose & Bergunder, 1974; H a l l & Clark, 1974; Lehman, 
1975; Gans, 1975; Davidson, 1976; H a l l , 1977; and Paulson, 
1976). These studies have reviewed various segments of 10 
linkages and possible s t r u c t u r a l implications a r i s i n g from 
dependent and independent variables i d e n t i f i e d . There i s 
33 
growing support for Levine, White and Vlasak's ( 1 9 7 5) concep-
t i o n of exchange as a dependent variable, while the open-
systems context i s the independent v a r i a b l e . Studies have 
concentrated t h e i r approach on segments of 10 linkages ( i . e . 
dependent variables) and possible s t r u c t u r a l implications. 
The number of shared functions, or shared or coordinated 
a c t i v i t i e s around such items as personnel, funds, r e f e r r a l s , 
information, support, and c l i e n t s have a l l been the subject 
of study. Cans (197 5) i nhis study of Integration of Human 
Services (USA) proposes a set of twenty-two linkage mechanisms 
ranging from j o i n t budgeting and colocation to c l i e n t r e f e r r a l s . 
Frumkin C 1 9 7 8 ) uses Gans 1 (1975) l i s t as a basis for understand-
ing IOR. He states that an understanding of services 
integration as an interorganizational r e l a t i o n s h i p mechanism 
i s an e s s e n t i a l administrative s k i l l . 
This returns us to the second question posed by 
Laumann, Galaskiewicz, and Marsden (1978) - "What leads to the 
development of l i n k i n g mechanisms?" Studies on cooperation 
and c o n f l i c t have sought to i d e n t i f y factors a f f e c t i n g l i n k s 
between organizations. Molnar and Rogers (1978) i d e n t i f y 
comparative s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences among organizations 
i n a model of IOR c o n f l i c t . This seems to build on the work 
of A l d r i c h (1971) who argues for including c o n f l i c t i n the 
concept of IOR by examining the nature of interdependence 
among organizations i n the environment and IOR. In his d i s -
cussion of 10 c o n f l i c t , he describes two strategies that are 
34 
available for heightening the member p a r t i c i p a t i o n necessary 
for providing resources used i n 10 competition. One strategy 
i s to c o n s t r i c t the organization's boundaries, the other i s 
to expand the boundaries to take i n the competition. Baker 
and O'Brien (1971) question t h i s approach as useful to 
describe interdependence as i n t h e i r view organizations may 
be highly interdependent i n some but not a l l areas. 
IOR are affected by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power, authority 
and influence. The actual location of t h i s power, etc. 
whether i n the organization i t s e l f , the individuals who 
comprise the organization, or as a part of the environment 
has been a subject of study. Perruci and P i l i s u k (1970) 
examined power i n terms of 10 t i e s which create resource 
networks that can be mobilized to meet organizational require-
ments. P f e f f e r (1972) examined the external influence from 
s p e c i f i c organizations on managerial behaviour. Turk (1973) 
found i n a study of urban communities that influence was more 
s i g n i f i c a n t when organizations were linked to one another 
than when individuals were linked to t h e i r environment. This 
finding gave added credence to interorganizational l e v e l s of 
analysis. 
The development of l i n k i n g mechanisms i s seen as the 
role and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of administrators (O'Brien, 1973). 
Their degree of commitment to the task w i l l a f f e c t the outcome 
of the relationship (Weirich, 1977; G i l b e r t & Specht, 1977). 
Schermerhorn (1976), in his study of h o s p i t a l administrators' 
35 
information sharing a c t i v i t y , attempted to discern whether they 
were motivated to exchange on the basis of d i s t r e s s or slack 
( a v a i l a b i l i t y of s u f f i c i e n t time and resources to perform task). 
He found support for the slack theory, thus c a l l i n g into ques-
ti o n the resource-dependency model. Adamek and Lavin (1975), i n 
t h e i r study of 321 health and welfare agencies, found that r e l a -
t i v e abundance of resources and not s c a r c i t y promoted exchange. 
Warren, Rose and Bergunder (1974) assess the s i t u a t i o n 
d i f f e r e n t l y . They describe c o n f l i c t i n organizational net-
works as requiring cooperation merely by the fa c t that two or 
more organizations are engaged i n contact even i f only through 
c o n f l i c t . Thus t h e i r approach asserts that there i s a pre-
ex i s t i n g network of t i e s i n the organizational environment. 
If Warren's view of the pre-existing network of 10 t i e s 
i s accepted, then the 10 f i e l d has implications for planning 
and policy decisions. Davidson (1976) urges planners to con-
sider 1) environmental pressures acting on the organizations; 
2) cert a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those organizations and 
3) aspects of the 10 planning process i t s e l f . Investigation of 
the implications of IOR a c t i v i t i e s i n a r u r a l environment has 
received r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e attention. Hassinger (1961) con-
sidered the linkage mechanisms required between centralized 
and l o c a l systems of urban and r u r a l s o c i a l systems as a key 
to understanding r u r a l society. Sundquist and Davis (1969) i n 
t h e i r review of federalism and program coordination recommended 
36 A 
two levels of cooperation depending upon the goals of coordina-
t i o n and the environment (urban or rural) - either multi-county 
organizations, or a single federal authority with planned 
devolution as l o c a l organizations became more competent. 
Benson (1975) describes 10 networks as belonging to a larger 
environment consisting of a u t h o r i t i e s , l e g i s l a t i v e bodies, 
bureaus and publics that are constantly seeking equilibrium 
among the forces i n the larger structure. Centralized decision 
structures are found not to be complementary to good service i n 
r u r a l elements due to a lack of awareness of the 10 network at 
the l o c a l l e v e l . Nuerhing (1978) studied task environment 
patterns and the organizational context. He concludes from 
his r e s u l t s that there i s a strong c o r r e l a t i o n between p a r t i -
cular styles of 10 i n t e r a c t i o n i n r u r a l environments, as they 
were found to be organizationally diffused over a large number 
of operating s i t e s . Horesji (1978) notes that IOR may be 
dominated by the informal s o c i a l choice model (Warren, 1967) 
in r u r a l areas, and c a l l s for investigators to note the 
developmental history of organizations. Klonglan et a l (1976) 
found three le v e l s of IORs corresponding to the h i e r a r c h i c a l 
l e v e l of government at state, multi-county, and d i s t r i c t 
l e v e l s . Understanding v e r t i c a l and horizontal patterns of IOR 
(Warren, 1963) has special impact for human service organiza-
tions due to the unique requirements put upon them to s a t i s f y 
l o c a l demands within p r o v i n c i a l or v e r t i c a l constraints. 
37 
It i s apparent from t h i s review that although much work 
has been done i n the IOR f i e l d , questions such as the ones 
posed by Laumann, Galaskiewicz and Marsden (1978) remain to 
be answered. No theory has yet been developed to adequately 
explain linkages between organizations, what leads to the 
development of l i n k i n g mechanisms; and the implications of IOR 
for public p o l i c y decisions. 
In the next chapter a model of IOR related to informa-
t i o n sharing i n the funding context w i l l be introduced. The 
model i s not purported to solve the problems i n theory 
building so far i d e n t i f i e d but to contribute to the search for 
th e o r e t i c a l underpinnings. 
38 
Chapter III - Study Design 
A. Theoretical Framework 
The model that has guided t h i s inquiry i s based on 
several elements a r i s i n g from the l i t e r a t u r e on IOR. The 
conceptual foundation of the model i s dependent upon General 
System Theory as the basis f o r conceiving of and understanding 
IOR. GST encompasses the notion of interdependence within a 
network of organizations, i n the environment. Contributions 
made by theorists (Emery & T r i s t ; 1965. Terreberry; 1968) have 
characterized the Human Service Agency environment as turbulent. 
The notion of a turbulent environment implies a l i v i n g system 
that i s constantly i n motion, receiving input, processing i t , 
and producing output that i s subsequently modified by the 
system as feedback. 
The model of input, throughput, output and feedback 
implies that there must be exchange within the larger supra-
system for thesmaller units to function as l i v i n g systems. 
Exchange, defined by Levine & White (1961) i n the context of 
IOR as "any voluntary a c t i v i t y between two organizations which 
has consequences actual or anticipated for the r e a l i z a t i o n of 
th e i r respective goals or objectives" must be extended to 
account for the nature of a l i v i n g system. Exchange must be 
viewed as a natural consequence for organizations that e x i s t 
within a systems' framework. 
Warren (1967) extended the notion of exchange when he 
39 
described the Interorganizational F i e l d , which did not imply a 
denied membership i n a larger supra-system. The 10 f i e l d , 
according to the formulation by Warren, i s a network of pre-
e x i s t i n g t i e s among organizations. This network of pre-
e x i s t i n g t i e s i s not limited to merely voluntary a c t i v i t y , or 
collaborative exchange, but includes relationships among 
organizations that are based on c o n f l i c t . C o n f l i c t among 
organizations does not i m p l i c i t l y serve to separate organiza-
tions from one another, but rather to es t a b l i s h a l i n k based 
on the connection alone. The intent of the l i n k i s in c i d e n t a l 
information i n the systems context. Thus, as Warren, Rose & 
Bergunder (1974) have described i t , c o n f l i c t between organiza-
tions can serve as a tool for collaboration by vi r t u e of the 
fact that there i s a l i n k between them. This l i n k can be the 
c o n f l i c t r e l a t i o n s h i p . 
In t h i s model, IOR exists i n the human service agency 
environment by virtu e of the systems' context. IOR's are 
based on interdependence which may or may not be the r e s u l t of 
voluntary, intentional or collaborative modes of exchange. The 
organizations exchange because they are interdependent upon 
one another. They must receive input and produce output i n 
order to survive as a l i v i n g , or functioning, system. Exchange 
exists because there are pre-existing networks i n the 10 f i e l d . 
The focus of t h i s model i s information exchange. Infor-
mation i s only one of the many linkage mechanisms (Gans; 1975) 
40 
that can be i d e n t i f i e d i n 10 exchange. Linkage mechanisms, or 
the t i e s that form the networks among organizations include 
c l i e n t s , s t a f f , resources, space, funds, j o i n t t r a i n i n g , adminis-
t r a t i o n and the service population. Information was chosen as a 
key element because i t i s i m p l i c i t in any exchange of other more 
tangible elements of exchange. Also, information gathering, 
processing and disseminating have become a c r i t i c a l factor for 
human service agencies i n the 1980's. In t h i s decade i n p a r t i -
cular, human service agencies w i l l be c a l l e d upon to demon-
strate accountability to funders through the presentation of 
information. The information items required are related to 
the documentation of need, problem d e f i n i t i o n , c l e a r l y written 
goals and objectives, program descriptions, budgetary and 
administrative management, p u b l i c i z i n g the agencies' programs 
and services, Annual Report and f i n a l l y Evaluation Reports. 
Information sharing can be a useful way to diminish 
competition, by replacing misconceptions about other agencies 
with factual data. Agencies presently compete with one another 
for a share of the decreasing s o c i a l service agency allotment. 
By sharing information related to t h e i r target population and 
need for resources, a collaborative network may be established 
which w i l l j o i n together those agencies or groups struggling 
to maintain t h e i r services. 
Warren (1967) and Schindler-Rainman & L i p p i t t (1978) 
both support information exchange as the v i t a l f i r s t step i n 
41 
setting up a collaborative network of human service organiza-
tions. Both arrive at the same set of recommendations: to 
promote information exchange among organizations to maximize 
values and ultimately improve the network of s o c i a l service 
delivery systems. 
Information exchange, then, i s a key factor i n develop-
ing c ollaborative IOR's. Increasingly information i s being 
demanded to demonstrate accountability to consumers, the public 
and funders. The information required by these constituencies 
f a l l s into three main areas: documentation of need for the 
proposed service; adequate management of the programs and 
services; and evaluation of the services delivered. The 
a b i l i t y to gather and disseminate information i n these cate-
gories has improved dramatically i n the l a s t few years. Atten-
t i o n must now be directed at ways that these kinds of informa-
t i o n b i t s may be used to improve the service delivery system. 
Chris Sower (1957) describes a process of legitimation 
which s o c i a l service organizations must f u l f i l i f they are to 
continue to e x i s t . Legitimation refers to gaining public 
acceptance from a l l constituencies regarding the service(s) 
offered by the voluntary agency. Obviously, legitimation of 
the agency and i t s services i s achieved i n a variety of 
forms. Some organizations are l i g i t i m i z e d merely by the 
length of t h e i r existence i n the f i e l d . They have stood the 
t e s t of time and survived, therefore they are viewed as 
42 
legitimate. There are few organizations that meet t h i s 
c r i t e r i a in the turbulent s o c i a l service f i e l d , p r e c i s e l y 
because the f i e l d i s turbulent. 
Since the avenue of time as a l e g i t i m i z i n g influence 
i s not available to a l l agencies i n the f i e l d , other techniques 
for l e g i t i m i z i n g programs must be explored. Sower (1957) 
proposes a concept of a "Bank of Goodwill". The Bank of 
Goodwill i s predicated upon a model of exchange among organi-
zations whereby they exchange information, goods and services 
which are useful to other agencies. Inherent i n t h i s concept 
i s an intent to share c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y items which w i l l c o n t r i -
bute to the success of the other agencies i n the f i e l d . 
I m p l i c i t i n the "Bank" concept i s that by maintaining a 
po s i t i v e balance i n the s o c i a l service community, in t e r e s t 
w i l l naturally accrue to the benefit of the i n i t i a t o r of the 
goodwill action. I f a l l participants i n the s o c i a l services 
network contribute to the bank of goodwill, then the whole 
w i l l benefit. 
The Bank of Goodwill concept has i t s roots i n the 
private enterprise system. However, competition for scarce 
resources diminishes the u t i l i t y of t h i s approach. 
The model of legitimation through goodwill must be 
extended to a collaborative system that benefits the group. 
The i n t e r e s t or goodwill accumulated must be reinvested into 
the s o c i a l services community. 
43 
Mancur Olson (1965), a Harvard economist, discusses 
in his book The Logic of C o l l e c t i v e Action the conditions for 
in d i v i d u a l contributions for group benefit. He states that 
action on behalf of the group ceases orice benefits to the 
in d i v i d u a l are exhausted. However, i f the contributions by 
in d i v i d u a l agencies to the c o l l e c t i v e good of the s o c i a l 
service community cease, the whole community's s u r v i v a l i s 
endangered. In periods of scarce resources, i f there i s not 
a c o l l e c t i v e action to ensure the continuance of the system, 
then the i n d i v i d u a l members must either f a i l to survive or be 
taken up by another system. 
Non-governmental organizations appear to be facing 
exactly t h i s dilemma i n the 19 80's. They have b a s i c a l l y two 
options - to j o i n another system (in t h i s case the government 
system) or to work together to maintain t h e i r own system.The 
model proposed here i s a collaborative IOR exchange network 
based on information. Information, as a key factor i n demon-
st r a t i n g accountability which contributes to success i n 
obtaining funding, must be shared among non-governmental 
organizations. In order to legi t i m i z e the NGO's, and th e i r 
role i n the delivery of s o c i a l services, the bank of goodwill 
must use that i n t e r e s t to benefit the whole community. Infor-
mation exchange as the currency of goodwill must be promoted 
to maintain and strengthen the base of support for NGO's i n 
the human services arena. 
44 
In summary, the t h e o r e t i c a l framework that i s guiding 
t h i s inquiry i s a collaborative model of IOR. The element of 
exchange that i s the focus of t h i s research i s information as 
i t relates to funding of NGO's i n the s o c i a l services f i e l d . 
The premise i s that information exchange between agencies i s 
related to success i n obtaining funds. A complete description 
of the hypotheses used i n thi s research are described i n the 
next section. 
B. Hypotheses and Assumptions of the Study 
1) Hypotheses 
The hypotheses guiding t h i s inquiry might more properly be 
referred to as the issues that were explored i n the survey. 
The reason for the d i s t i n c t i o n i s the l e v e l of the study (explora-
tory) which precludes experimental t e s t i n g of the hypothesis. 
An exploratory study design i s necessary due to the current 
state of IOR Theory conceptualization. The study then i s 
designed to explore the rel a t i o n s h i p between interorganizational 
relationships and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. 
The f i r s t hypothesis may be stated as: 
a) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the nature 
of IOR pursued by NGO's and the l e v e l of success i n 
obtaining funding. 
The IOR's being reviewed are the sharing of i n f o r -
mation by Executive Directors of NGO's i n nine , 
categories with four d i f f e r e n t constituencies. The 
45 
information categories and the constituencies are the 
predictor variables for the hypothesis stated above. 
The information categories are based on the Open 
System Model of input, throughput and output. 
In order to address the hypothesis the study 
generated questions around three issues. These 
three issues are explored i n each information category 
throughout the instrument. The f i r s t issue i s related 
to the importance attached to each information item as 
i t relates to the l e v e l of success i n obtaining 
funding i n each organization. The second issue 
addresses the p r i o r i t y attached by the organization to 
actually providing the information considered 
important to obtaining funding. The t h i r d issue was 
addressed by using a matrix format designed to s o l i c i t 
information regarding whom the agency shares informa-
t i o n with and for what purpose. 
The inc l u s i o n of the f i r s t two questions on 
importance of a c t i v i t y and p r i o r i t y assigned to 
a c t i v i t y served a twofold purpose. The f i r s t purpose 
was to act as a measure of i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y by com-
paring the perceived importance of the information 
sharing a c t i v i t y and the actual p r i o r i t y given to the 
a c t i v i t y . The second purpose was to indicate i n a 
general way how Executive Directors used t h e i r time 
in r e l a t i o n to the information sharing a c t i v i t i e s . 
This data was presumed to be useful to further describe 
46 
the nature of IOR pursued (how important and what 
p r i o r i t y ) and to contribute to the understanding of 
the nature of IOR and i t s rel a t i o n s h i p to the l e v e l 
of success i n funding obtained by NGO's. 
The second hypothesis may be stated as: 
b) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the 
importance attached to the information sharing 
a c t i v i t y and the p r i o r i t y assigned to i t , and the 
l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. 
The t h i r d question i n the survey was designed to more 
adequately describe the nature of IOR by ind i c a t i n g with whom 
the agency shares information and for what purpose. The t h i r d 
hypothesis may be stated as: 
c) There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the con-
stituencies with whom the agency shares information 
and the purposes for which the information i s shared, 
and the l e v e l of success i n obtaining funding. 
In both of the l a t t e r two hypotheses, each information 
category i s treated as in d i v i d u a l items. Therefore, there are 
nine items subsumed under hypotheses two and three, as per the 
indi v i d u a l information categories. The categories are: 
a) Need for Services; 
b) Problem D e f i n i t i o n ; 
c) Goals and Objectives; 
d) Program Description. 
e) Budget; 
f) Management Structure; 
g) P u b l i c i z e Organizational A c t i v i t i e s ; 
h) Annual Report; 
i) Evaluation Report. 
The tenth and f i n a l matrix i n the questionnaire i s the 
ov e r a l l question which asks the respondent to.rank i n importance 
the purposes for which he/she shares information with each 
d i f f e r e n t constituency. This item refers only to the t h i r d 
hypothesis. 
2) Operational Definitions of Independent and Dependent 
Variables 
Before defining the variables measured i n t h i s study i t w i l l 
be useful to review the central concepts involved i n t h i s study. 
Interorganizational Relationships refers to the relat i o n s h i p 
among the network of s o c i a l service organizations i n the environ-
ment. This d e f i n i t i o n assumes a rel a t i o n s h i p between agencies 
as long as they share membership i n the same s o c i a l service 
delivery system, which i s similar to Warren's (1967) notion of 
the pre-existing t i e s found among the network of organizations. 
Open System Model i s derived from General System Theory 
which holds that a l l l i v i n g systems must have input, throughput, 
output and information feedback i n order to survive i n the 
environment. 
The given e s s e n t i a l i n thi s research i s the need for funding. 
48 
The need for funding precedes a l l other a c t i v i t i e s of a non-
governmental organization, and i s ongoing and persistent. 
The independent variable i n t h i s research i s IOR. I t 
i s assumed that IOR exists i n the environment of the human 
services arena. The study i s designed to explore what factors 
of IOR influence funding for NGO's. 
The dependent variable i n t h i s research i s the l e v e l 
of success i n obtaining funding. The way i n which success i s 
measured i s by reference to the question asking the respondent 
to indicate what percentage of t h e i r i n i t i a l request for funds 
was met i n the 1979 f i s c a l year. A response of 96-100% i s 
considered successful. A l l items i n d i c a t i n g 95% or less 
received of the i n i t i a l request for funds are to be considered 
less than successful. A l l items i n d i c a t i n g 101% or more are 
to be considered more than successful. 
The predictor variables used i n t h i s study are the 
nine information categories plus the o v e r a l l item, the c o n s t i -
tuencies and the purposes described i n each matrix of the 
questionnaire. The nine information categories are divided 
into input, throughput and output items. While the informa-
t i o n items are self-explanatory and w i l l not be defined again 
here, a few words about the grouping of the items i s i n order. 
Input category contains three information items which 
are the need for service, the d e f i n i t i o n of the problem and a 
description of goals and objectives. Information about these 
three areas i s esse n t i a l to any organization to set up or 
i n i t