Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:03:37.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ties That Bind: Public Foundations in Dyadic Partnerships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Alexandra Kate WilliamsonOpen the ORCID record for Alexandra Kate Williamson[Opens in a new window],
Belinda Luke and
Craig Furneaux
Alexandra Kate Williamson*
Affiliation:
Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Belinda Luke*
Affiliation:
School of Accountancy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Craig Furneaux*
Affiliation:
Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
*
a3.williamson@qut.edu.au
b.luke@qut.edu.au
c.furneaux@qut.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs) are grantmaking philanthropic foundations, largely held to be independent. However, some PubAFs exist in significant and exclusive relationships (dyadic partnerships) with a dominant stakeholder involving shared values, strategy, resources, and goals. This paper examines the benefits and challenges for PubAFs of being in a dyadic partnership and how this relationship affects their identity, accountability, and independence. Interviews with 28 PubAFs reveal significant differences between the operating forms and practices of PubAFs in dyadic partnerships, and those which were not. While dyadic partnerships are most commonly associated with donor organisations that establish and provide ongoing funding to foundations (e.g. corporate foundations), this study’s findings show that to be a limited understanding, with PubAFs existing in dyadic partnerships in a range of different contexts. Further, the closeness and exclusiveness of a dyadic partnership presented both benefits and challenges which PubAFs must actively manage over time.

Keywords

Philanthropic organisationsPublic foundationsDyadic partnershipsDominant stakeholders

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2021, pp. 234 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Godfrey, P. C., Reger, R. K., & Whetten, D. A. (1998). Epilogue: What does the concept of identity add to organization science?. In Whetten, D. A. & Godfrey, P. C. (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 273–294). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452231495.n8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol . 7, pp. 263–295). US: JAI Press Inc.Google Scholar
Al-Tabbaa, O., Leach, D., & March, J. (2014). Collaboration between nonprofit and business sectors: A framework to guide strategy development for nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(3), 657–678. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9357-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Taxation Office. (2019). Private and public ancillary funds, 2000–01 to 2016–17 income years. Retrieved 13 Aug 2020 from https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/taxation-statistics-2016-17/resource/abdc1c08-eef0-4220-9e6d-2817458f8aea.Google Scholar
Barman, E. (2007). An institutional approach to donor control: From dyadic ties to a field-level analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1416–1457. doi: 10.1086/511802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, B., & Crant, J. M. (2000). Dyadic communication relationships in organizations: An attribution/expectancy approach. Organization Science, 11(6), 648–664. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.6.648.12537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brickson, S. L. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 82–101. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.2791604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brickson, S. L. (2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 864–888. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carboni, J. L. (2016). Combined effects: The influence of organizational form and structural characteristics on contract performance in mixed sector markets. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1781–1808. doi: 10.1007/s11266-015-9677-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, J. (2016). Are all national nonprofit sectors around the world becoming “American”? In The nonprofit world: Civil society and the rise of the nonprofit sector (pp. 131–143). Kumarian Press, Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Chan, K-B (2010). Father, son, wife, husband: Philanthropy as exchange and balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(3), 387–395. doi: 10.1007/s10834-010-9205-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortis, N., Powell, A., Ramia, I., & Marjolin, A. (2018). Australia’s Grant-making charities in 2016: An analysis of structured philanthropy and other grant-makers. Retrieved 12 Dec 2019 from https://www.acnc.gov.au/tools/reports/grant-making-charities-australia-2016.Google Scholar
Empson, L., Cleaver, I., & Allen, J. (2013). Managing partners and management professionals: Institutional work dyads in professional partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 808–844. doi: 10.1111/joms.12025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, Q., Fisher, K. R., & Li, B. (2019). Follower or challenger? How Chinese non-governmental organizations manage accountability requirements from funders. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 722–735. doi: 10.1007/s11266-019-00184-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furneaux, C., & Ryan, N. (2014). Modelling NPO–government relations: Australian case studies. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1113–1140. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.895030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J., & Burt, R. S. (1991). Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 88–105. doi: 10.2307/2393431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandara, D., Rippner, J. A., & Ness, E. C. (2017). Exploring the ‘how’ in policy diffusion: National intermediary organizations’ roles in facilitating the spread of performance-based funding policies in the states. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 701–725. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2016.1272089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Canal, E., Valdés-Llaneza, A., & Ariño, A. (2003). Effectiveness of dyadic and multi-party joint ventures. Organization Studies, 24(5), 743–770. doi: 10.1177/0170840603024005004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government—nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 653–673. doi: 10.1177/0899764009360823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, C., & Lai, W. (2019). Community foundations in China: In search of identity?. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 647–663. doi: 10.1007/s11266-017-9932-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herlin, H., & Pedersen, J. T. (2013). Corporate foundations: Catalysts of NGO-business partnerships?. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2013(50), 58–90. doi: 10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2013.ju.00008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambright, K. T., Mischen, P. A., & Laramee, C. B. (2010). Building trust in public and nonprofit networks: Personal, dyadic, and third-party influences. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(1), 64–82. doi: 10.1177/0275074008329426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)Forming strategic cross-sector partnerships: Relational processes of social innovation. Business and Society, 49(1), 140–172. doi: 10.1177/0007650309345457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leat, D., Williamson, A., & Scaife, W. (2018). Grantmaking in a disorderly world: The limits of rationalism. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(1), 128–135. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liden, R. C., Anand, S., & Vidyarthi, P. (2016). Dyadic relationships. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 139–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashaw, J. L. (2006). Accountability and institutional design: Some thoughts on the grammar of governance. In Dowdle, M. (Ed.), Public law working papers: Public accountability: Designs, dilemmas and experiences (pp. 115–156): Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McElroy, C. A. (2012). Corporate foundations in the mining industry: The relationship between responsible investment and social investment. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 2(3–4), 240–256.10.1080/20430795.2012.742636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvily, B., Zaheer, A., & Kamal, D. K. F. (2017). Mutual and exclusive: Dyadic sources of trust in interorganizational exchange. Organization Science, 28(1), 74–92. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2016.1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor-Lowndes, M., & Williamson, A. (2018). Foundations in Australia: Dimensions for international comparison. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(13), 1759–1776. doi: 10.1177/0002764218773495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, S. C., & Brudney, J. L. (2014). Doing good, public good, and public value: Why the differences matter. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(1), 23–40. doi: 10.1002/nml.21109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, S. C., & Brudney, J. L. (2018). Introduction: Why this book?. In Brudney, J. L. (Ed.), Partnerships the nonprofit way: What matters, what doesn’t. Bloomington: Indiana University Press doi: 10.2307/j.ctv8j5x7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, A. (2018). The global landscape of philanthropy. Retrieved 24 Oct 2019 from http://wings.issuelab.org/resources/29534/29534.pdf.Google Scholar
Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3), 415–441. doi: 10.1177/0170840605050874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, N. F., & Evans, S. K. (2017). Civil society partnerships: Power imbalance and mutual dependence in NGO partnerships. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(4), 1399–1421. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9721-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrander, S. A. (2007). Innovation, accountability, and independence at three private foundations funding higher education civic engagement, 1995 to 2005. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(2), 237–253. doi: 10.1002/nml.183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qu, S., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 8(3), 238–264. doi: 10.1108/11766091111162070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey-Garcia, M., Martin-Cavanna, J., & Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I. (2012). Assessing and advancing foundation transparency: Corporate foundations as a case study. The Foundation Review, 4(3), 77–89. doi: 10.4087/FOUNDATIONREVIEW-D-12-00003.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 91–115. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussin Isett, K., & Provan, K. G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational relationships in a network of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 149–165. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910. doi: 10.5465/amr.1997.9711022107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitanidi, M. M., Koufopoulos, D. N., & Palmer, P. (2010). Partnership formation for change: Indicators for transformative potential in cross sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 139–161. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0784-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, D. (2016). Public ancillary funds (PuAF) trustee handbook (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia, Australian Philanthropic Services.Google Scholar
Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., & Macdonald, E. K. (2018). Business-nonprofit engagement in sustainability-oriented innovation: What works for whom and why?. Journal of Business Research. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 14–19. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, A., Luke, B., & Furneaux, C. (2018). Why be accountable? Exploring voluntary accountability of Australian private ancillary funds. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(3), 375–391. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar