Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T11:50:43.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developmental Dynamics in Nonprofit-Sector Federations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

John W. Selsky
John W. Selsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
*
2Correspondence should be directed to John W. Selsky, Department of Management, Monash University, P.O. Box 197, Caulfield East, Victoria 3145, Australia; e-mail: John.Selsky@BusEco.monash.edu.au.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores developmental processes in community-based issue domains and the effects of such processes on the federated referent organizations (FROs) that emerge to address problematic issues. Such organizations mobilize resources and serve as focal points for collective strategies. FROs encounter developmental tensions as they oscillate between adaptation to their environments and construction of new contexts. The way these tensions are resolved suggests three possible response scenarios: reorientation, replacement, or demise. Likely conditions for each scenario are explored. A case study of a federation of over 200 nonprofit organizations in a metropolitan region in the United States is used to illustrate the argument, and implications for similar types of organizations are indicated.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie les processus du développement dans les domaines ayant trait aux questions communautaires, et leurs effets sur les fédérations à but non lucratif, appelées organisations fédératives de référence (OFR), qui sont formées dans le but de résoudre un certain nombre de difficultés. De telles organisations mobilisent des ressources et servent de point focal pour la mise en place de stratégies collectives. La littérature existante n’a pas apporté de solutions satisfaisantes aux problèmes des OFR. Les fédérations sont obligées de balancer entre s’adapter à leur environnement ou reconstruire de nouveaux contextes, et ce balancement est générateur de conflits, qui mènent à trois scénarios possibles: réorientation de la stratégie de l’OFR, remplacement de celle-ci par une autre structure ou échec. Chacun de ces scénarios est analysé. Le but de la réflexion sur ces concepts est de présenter une fédération rassemblant plus de deux cents oraganisations non lucratives dans une zone métropolitaine aux Etats-Unis, et d’étudier son évolution pendant les dix premières années de son existence. Les implications pour d’autres fédérations du même type sont présentées.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel erforscht Entwicklungsprozesse in gemeinschaftsbasierten Problemzonen und die Wirkung solcher Prozesse auf gemeinnützige Verbandsorganisationen—sogenannte, verbündete Referenzorganisationen (“federated referent organisations”) (FRO)—die entstehen, um Probleme anzugehen. Solche Organisationen mobilisieren Ressourcen und dienen als Fokuspunkte für kollektive Strategien. Die Literatur hat sich nicht in ausreichendem Maße auf die Spannungen konzentriert, denen FRO’s in ihrer Entwicklung begegnen. Solche Spannungen entstehen, wenn die Verbände zwischen Anpassung an ihre Umwelt und der Konstruktion neuer Kontexte schwanken. Die Auflösung dieser Spannungen führt zu drei möglichen Erwiderungsszenarien: die FRO kann ihre Strategie umorientieren, ersetzt werden oder versagen. Wahrscheinliche Bedingungen für jedes Szenario werden erforscht. Der Fokuspunkt für die Diskussion dieser Konzepte ist ein Bündnis von mehr als 200 gemeinnützigen Organisationen in einer Großstadtregion in den Vereinigten Staaten und seine Evolution im Verlauf der ersten zehn Jahre seiner Existenz. Implikationen für ähnliche Organisationstypen werden indiziert.

Resumen

Resumen

Este artículo examina los procesos de desarrollo en el ámbito de los asuntos con base en la colectividad, y el resultado de tales procesos en las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro federativas—denominadas organizaciones federadas referentes (OFRs)—que surgen para estudiar cuestiones problemáticas. Tales organizaciones movilizan recursos y sirven de puntos focales para las estrategias colectivas. El material impreso no se ha centrado suficientemente en las tensiones de desarrollo con las que han tropezado las OFRs. Tales tensiones surgen cuando una federación oscila entre la adaptación a sus entornos y la interpretación de nuevos contextos. La resolución de dichas tensiones produce tres posibles marcos de reacción: una OFR puede volver a encauzar su estrategia, ser sustituida, o fracasar. Se examinan las condiciones probables para cada marco hipotético. El punto focal para tratar estos conceptos lo constituye una federación de más de 200 organizaciones sin fines de lucro en una zona metropolitana de los Estados Unidos, y su evolución durante los diez primeros años de su existencia. Se señalan las implicaciones que conlleva para otros tipos de organizaciones semejantes.

Keywords

federationsadaptationdevelopmental tensioncollective strategy

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1998, pp. 283 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University

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

Ackoff, R., and Emery, F. (1972). On Purposeful Systems, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Anheier, H., and Seibel, W. (1990). Sociological and political-science approaches to the third sector. In Anheier, H. and Seibel, W. (eds.), The Third Sector: Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations, DeGruyter, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astley, G., and Fombrun, C. (1983). Collective strategy: Social ecology of organizational environments. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 576–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, J., and Singh, J. (1994). Organization-environment coevolution. In Baum, J. and Singh, J. (eds.), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, J. K. (1982). A framework for policy analysis. In Rogers, D. and Whetten, D. (eds.), Interorganizational Coordination, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
Brown, L. D. (1991). Bridging organizations and sustainable development. Human Relations, 44(8), 807–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P., and Powell, W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Fleisher, C. (1991). An agency-based approach to analyze collaborative federated interorganizational relationships. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franz, Η-J., Rosewitz, B., and Wolf, H. (1986). Associations and coordination. In Kaufmann, F., Majone, G., and Ostrom, V. (eds.), Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J. (1979). Resource Networks and Community Politics, Sage, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Gamson, W., and Meyer, D. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gittel, R. (1990). Managing the development process: Community strategies in economic revitalization. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(4), 507–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Gray, B., and Hay, T. (1986). Political limits to interorganizational consensus and change, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschhorn, L. (1984). Beyond Mechanization, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Huff, J., Huff, A., and Thomas, H. (1992). Strategic renewal and the interaction of cumulative stress and inertia. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, A. (1993). National federations: The role of voluntary organizations in linking macro and micro orders in civil society. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(2), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khinduka, S. (1969). Community development: Potentials and limitations, Proceedings of the 96th National Conference on Social Welfare.Google Scholar
Kimberly, J. (1980). Initiation, innovation, and institutionalization in the creation process. In Kimberly, J., Miles, R., and associates (eds.), The Organizational Life Cycle, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. (1990). Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economies of Associations, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Laumann, E., Galaskiewicz, J., and Marsden, P. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkages. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 455–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes—toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, J., and Selsky, J. (1984). Hyperturbulence and the emergence of type 5 environments. Academy of Management Review, 9 (3), 460–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1996). Constraints and opportunities in adopting, adapting, and inventing. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (6), 1212–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milward, H. (1982). Interorganizational policy systems and research on public organizations. Administration and Society, 13(4), 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, M. (1982). Mediating institutions: The communitarian individual in America. The Public Interest, 3–20.Google Scholar
League, Pennsylvania Economy (1992). A Profile of Nonprofit Organizations in Pennsylvania, project report, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Powell, W., and Friedkin, R. (1987). Organizational change in nonprofit organizations. In Powell, W. (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. (1994). From the board chair. NCNA News, May/June, 2.Google Scholar
Provan, K. (1983). The federation as an interorganizational linkage network. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkopf, L., and Tushman, M. (1994). The coevolution of technology and organization. In Baum, J. and Singh, J. (eds.), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Schermerhorn, J. (1975). Determinants of interorganizational cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 78(4), 846–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schon, D. (1971). Beyond the Stable State, Norton, London.Google Scholar
Scott, R., and Meyer, J. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Selsky, J. (1991). Lessons in community development: An activist approach to stimulating interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selsky, J., and Smith, A. (1994). Community entrepreneurship: A framework for social change leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 5(3/4), 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sink, D. (1991). Transorganizational development in an urban policy coalition. Human relations, 44(11), 1179–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smircich, L., and Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategy making in an enacted world. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, W., and Schmitter, P. (1985). Community, market, state—and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. In Streeck, W. and Schmitter, P. (eds.), Private Interest Government, Sage, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Trist, E. (1980). The environment and systems response capability. Futures, 12, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trist, E. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations, 36(3), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trist, E. (1986). Quality of working life and community development: Some reflections on the Jamestown experience. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(3), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M., and Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171–222.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A., and Garud, R. (1994). The coevolution of technical and institutional events in the development of an innovation. In Baum, J. and Singh, J. (eds.), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Warren, R. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus of investigation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 396–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiewel, W., and Hunter, A. (1985). The interorganizational network as a resource: A comparative case study on organizational genesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 482–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitz, G. (1980). Interorganizational dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar