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.
Similar content being viewed by others
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 D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 273–294). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). US: JAI Press Inc.
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.
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.
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.
Barry, B., & Crant, J. M. (2000). Dyadic communication relationships in organizations: An attribution/expectancy approach. Organization Science, 11(6), 648–664.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chan, K.-B. (2010). Father, son, wife, husband: Philanthropy as exchange and balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(3), 387–395.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Furneaux, C., & Ryan, N. (2014). Modelling NPO–government relations: Australian case studies. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1113–1140.
Galaskiewicz, J., & Burt, R. S. (1991). Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 88–105.
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.
García-Canal, E., Valdés-Llaneza, A., & Ariño, A. (2003). Effectiveness of dyadic and multi-party joint ventures. Organization Studies, 24(5), 743–770.
Gazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government—nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 653–673.
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.
Herlin, H., & Pedersen, J. T. (2013). Corporate foundations: Catalysts of NGO-business partnerships? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2013(50), 58–90.
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.
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.
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.
Liden, R. C., Anand, S., & Vidyarthi, P. (2016). Dyadic relationships. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 139–166.
Mashaw, J. L. (2006). Accountability and institutional design: Some thoughts on the grammar of governance. In M. Dowdle (Ed.), Public law working papers: Public accountability: Designs, dilemmas and experiences (pp. 115–156): Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
McGregor-Lowndes, M., & Williamson, A. (2018). Foundations in Australia: Dimensions for international comparison. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(13), 1759–1776.
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.
Mendel, S. C., & Brudney, J. L. (2018). Introduction: Why this book? In J. L. Brudney (Ed.), Partnerships the nonprofit way: What matters, what doesn’t. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Milner, A. (2018). The global landscape of philanthropy. Retrieved 24 Oct 2019 from http://wings.issuelab.org/resources/29534/29534.pdf.
Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3), 415–441.
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.
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.
Qu, S., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 8(3), 238–264.
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.
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.
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.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.
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.
Ward, D. (2016). Public ancillary funds (PuAF) trustee handbook (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Philanthropy Australia, Australian Philanthropic Services.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.023.
Weick, K. E. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 14–19.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors are all employed by Queensland University of Technology (QUT). An early version of this paper was presented at the 14th Australian and New Zealand Third Sector Research (ANZTSR) Conference, Sydney, November 2018, and all three authors received financial support from QUT to attend (airfares, registration, and accommodation costs). Our thanks to those present who gave feedback.
Human and Animal Rights
This research was approved by QUT's Low-risk human ethics advisory committee, Approval Number 1600000863.
Informed Consent
All participants in this research were provided with information about the project in accordance with QUT’s research ethics requirements, and all signed a consent form before participating in interviews. Signed consent forms are stored as per QUT’s research data policies. Further, participants were able to withdraw from the research up to two weeks following interview, with all data pertaining to them destroyed. None chose to do so.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Williamson, A.K., Luke, B. & Furneaux, C. Ties That Bind: Public Foundations in Dyadic Partnerships. Voluntas 32, 234–246 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00269-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00269-8