Collaborative Governance Primer

The twenty-first century is befuddled with various complex public problems that appear to render traditional approaches ineffective in resolution. The drastic nature of the complex public problems, especially the domino effects on the various sectors and segments of society, create a sense of urgency and resolve for collective stakeholders’ action. Collaborative governance emerges as one of such promising approaches that encourage cross-sector stakeholders’ representation and participation in decision-making or implementation with potential benefits to both target populations and society at large (Gray, 1989; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Agbodzakey, 2012; Bryson et al., 2015; Emerson et al., 2015; Johnston, 2011).

The progress of collaborative governance is mainly contingent on leadership as one of the critical variables. The leaders’ unique position to influence the various aspect of collaborative governance, including the antecedent conditions, the establishment of a collaborative regime, the collaborative process of agenda setting, issue framing and facilitation, and corresponding effects on outputs, outcomes, reimplementation, and sustainability for societal benefits, cannot be overstated. Collaborative leaders are pivotal to success in all intents and purposes when dealing with complex public problems at the local, state, regional, national, and global levels. Perhaps, leadership is but one of the critical variables for collaborative governance, the reality of stakeholders’ engagements in addressing any complex public concerns or challenges, especially those with devastating effects on various population segments, warrants creative and facilitative leadership that encourages collaboration without hierarchy in ways that engender bringing the best out of the involved cross-sector stakeholders with complementary resources to reach workable solutions and impactful outcomes for the greater good. This chapter highlights the leadership factor in collaborative governance with some insights into the rudiments and contributions to collective success. The chapter integrates a model for conceptual explication and problematizing leadership to promote knowledge and understanding for academic and functional purposes within public service and society context.

The multidimensional nature of complex public problems demands design mechanisms that allow for the creation of robust and sustainable solutions based on collaborative governance. Collaborative governance’s opportunity for stakeholders from public, private, nonprofit, and civic sectors to work collectively toward common goals and objectives is promising in terms of viability, and creating impactful outcomes is partly contingent on institutional design. The reality of existing and emerging collaborative governance regimes grounded on design mechanisms that emphasize inclusive representation and participation of cross-sector stakeholders emanating different entities, locales, demographics, interests, persuasions, and power dynamics is ameliorated by established protocols, rules, policies, procedures, statutes, and bylaws to enable meaningful involvement. The reality of collaborative governance, though, resembles agreement, contention, power dynamics, frustration, and delayed decisions that the institutional design fundamentals position collaborative governance toward realizing established agenda when stakeholders’ intentionality and resolve for collective action drive efforts. This chapter elucidates institutional design within collaborative governance and its criticalness in generating constructive solutions that benefit target populations and society. It also references key elements in the institutional design with a model highlighting the conceptual underpinnings. It integrates an example of design mechanisms’ impact on addressing a complex health problem and the opportunity for related intervention strategies as a channel to pragmatic solutions as emblematic of the benefits of engagement protocols in collaborative governance.

The viability of collaborative governance, especially at the local level, entails a proactive system context that encourages stakeholders’ collective solutions in tackling debilitating complex public problems. The capacity of the local system context or environment to help set the pace for collaborative governance convening using statutes, laws, and mandates coupled with political and cultural variables creates the needed synergy for collective cross stakeholders’ action. As one of the critical variables in fostering collaborative governance, the system context has inextricable connectedness with internal and external variables as it usually manifests in interdependencies of sectors, stakeholders, and instruments impact’s purpose, resolve, structure and collaborative success as measured by created outputs and outcomes for societal benefits. The tendency of the local system context to complicate the dimensionality and operationalization of collaborative governance due to contingencies does not negate viability in realizing an established agenda for the health and general well-being of target populations. This chapter elucidates the concept of local system context within the collaborative governance regime while relating the elemental parts and interconnectedness with other critical variables in fostering creative and sustainable solutions. The chapter relates the case of system context based on the HIV/AIDS collaborative governance experiment at Eligible Metropolitan Areas (EMAs). It problematizes conceptual and practical intervention strategies as a conduit for addressing complex public problems.

People and their communities are key constituents that drive collaborative governance to address debilitating societal concerns through collective cross-sector stakeholders’ action. The unique role of people and their communities in a collaborative governance ecosystem, exemplified by divergent representation and participation in the various fundamental aspects, is integral for creating needed solutions and impacts. Whether the nature of engagement is that of service providers, agency representatives, non-elected community leaders, target populations, concerned individuals, policy entrepreneurs, coalition leaders, and mandated representatives, people and their community’s collective negotiation of varying interests, persuasions, and shared understanding relative to the common public problem is critical to creating outputs and outcomes that reflect meaningful transformation for the benefits of key populations and society at large. While the dynamics of numerous stakeholders’ engagement in collaborative governance could breed elements of inclusion and exclusion due to associated contingencies, the opportunity for diverse representation and participation as a postmodern approach compared to the usual adversarial bureaucratic methods of generating collective solutions make people and their communities the lifeblood of collective action with impactful outcomes. This chapter reiterates the integral role of people and their communities as one of the critical constituent elements in enabling constructive societal responses to complex public problems. The chapter draws on the case of existing measures in the healthcare regime with people and the community at the center of collective action and postulates options for futuristic pragmatic solutions.

The complex nature of public problems portends various perspectives on the rudiments, with the shared understanding needed as a conduit to creating the synergy for collective action. Cross-sector stakeholders’ shared knowledge based on negotiating the various interests, interpretations, positionalities, and versions of workable solutions allows for constructive pathways regarding collaborative process-related engagements and attendant outputs and outcomes. Stakeholders collective shared understanding of what constitutes the problem, agreed strategic measures to address it as reflective of common resolve, willingness to learn, and aligning values and desires in ways that will translate into categories of services to target populations with associated benefits to society are essential. The reality of stakeholders’ engagement in addressing a complex public problem is, in some instances, constrained by fallible theories or concepts of elemental components. Still, the eventual development of clear goals and objectives set the stage for collective forward implementation actions for the greater good. This chapter details shared understanding as one of the collaborative process variables relevant to establishing collaborative governance and the relentless pursuit of an agreed mission for collective impact. The chapter identifies some elements associated with shared understanding with reflective practical cases and a model to promote conceptual understanding. It concludes with hypothetical concepts relative to the subject matter to encourage innovation in the joint creation of meanings and relevant solutions.

One of the feasible ways to enable the realization of established collaborative governance agenda is to ensure that the stakeholders trust each other and are committed to building trust over time. Building trust positions stakeholders to deal with previous or existing antagonism toward each other in either individual or organizational capacities and to be more engaged in the various aspects of collaborative governance toward purposeful ends. Stakeholders’ intentional commitment to building trust fosters constructive engagement during the collaborative process and an overall willingness to work assiduously toward achieving the goals and objectives of collaborative governance. No doubt, attempts to build trust among stakeholders in consonance with expectations would be time-consuming and somewhat challenging, but the viability of collaborative governance is contingent on it. Thus, building trust as a collaborative process variable creates the needed synergy among stakeholders in collaborative governance to achieve the desired outcomes collectively. This chapter focuses on building trust in collaborative governance and identifies associated elements and cases for practical and conceptual purposes to promote knowledge and understanding.

Cross-sector stakeholders’ commitment to collaborative governance, especially the collaborative process, enhances synergistic engagement and encourages working assiduously toward achieving collaborative success. Stakeholders’ willingness to engage each other relative to the complex public problem results in them volunteering their time and resources. It also entails accepting challenges associated with involvement, performing related tasks, and embracing continuous improvement as part of collaborative governance to promote collective resolve and outcomes that meaningfully help address concerns of target populations with domino benefits for society. The commitment of stakeholders to collaborative governance, despite sometimes legitimate reservations, underscores the motivation to make a difference. The stakeholders’ commitment reflects some level of mutual recognition and appreciation of the contributions in ways that yield outputs and outcomes with sustainability in terms of impact. The reality of collaborative governance embraces some unavoidable shortfalls due to push or pull factors. However, stakeholders’ shared responsibility and observance of engagement protocols, including ownership of the process and the acceptance of associated results, serve as an impetus for relentless commitment to the greater good. This chapter explains the stakeholders’ commitment to the collaborative governance process, references some related elements, includes a contemporary case relative to health services, and concludes with an intervention case for strategy and solution formulation.

The gravity of challenges associated with complex public problems necessitates cross-sector stakeholders working together to formulate strategies and solutions through consensus to foster constructive implementation actions. The usual nature of the problem, diverse representation and participation, variations of interests, perspectives of a realistic path to a solution, and different levels of expertise and resources demand savvy negotiation of the interrelated dimensions to reach a consensus that advances the collaborative agenda. Stakeholders’ willingness to engage on the various collaborative governance agenda associated with the collaborative process or forum correlates with acceptance of challenges of deliberation, i.e., delays, disagreements, or conflicts, the tabling of items with eventual consensus either by a unanimous vote or simple majority voting defining the collective path forward. Consensus or consensus orientation associated with collaborative governance highlights its uniqueness in promoting inclusive involvement for solutions that benefit target populations and society. This chapter relates the what and why of consensus in collaborative governance, attendant elements with a real health services case, and a proposed intervention case to promote a somewhat robust understanding in the public affairs context.

Communication in collaborative governance drives the various aspects that enhance the realization of established intents in mandated or voluntary contexts. Communication influences stakeholders convening and engagement during the collaborative process, including decisions, implementation actions, and outcomes. It is integral to tackling complex public problems that benefit target populations and society. The opportunity for stakeholders to engage regularly through face-to-face dialogue allows for authentic deliberations on the various pertinent agenda items, resolution of collaborative-related conflicts, and producing consensus-oriented outputs that enable categories of services in consonance with the established collaborative governance intent. Using associated communication means such as emails, phone calls, text messages, symbols, pictures, social media, minutes, posters, artifacts, roleplays, and nonverbal aspects enriches stakeholders’ engagement in collaborative governance towards purposeful ends. Entrenched interests and power imbalance dynamics could hamper the reality of stakeholders’ collaborative process deliberations. Still, the interconnectedness of communication with the process and critical variables in collaborative governance empowers eventual collective decisions and implementation actions as reasoned outcomes. This chapter addresses communication in collaborative governance with emphasis on the elements and complemented by a pragmatic case and an intervention case to encourage stakeholders’ formulation of innovative strategies, tasks, and results.

The emergent collaborative governance approach in addressing complex public problems’ inclusive nature relative to cross-sector stakeholders, empowers. The opportunity for diverse representation and participation across sectors, including locales, people groups, gender, resources, and expertise, sanctions constructive contributions in meaningful ways with a personal touch. Including underserved and underrepresented target populations in the policy process, especially in implementing decision-making and attendant actions because of a collaborative governance approach, engenders authentic levels of empowerment with beneficial outcomes that transcend representative experiences at the collaborative forum. The empowerment grounded on the rudiments of the collaborative governance process, including fair use of protocols, stakeholders’ capacity building, transparency in agenda-related items coupled with some level of mutual respect and dignity, empower toward fulfilling the established mission with enhanced ownership and sustainability for societal benefits. While interpersonal dynamics within the collaborative forum could be frustrating, especially to initial weak link participants, intentional efforts by leaders and other stakeholders involved in collaborative governance could truncate such unhelpful occurrences to enable eventual collaborative success. This chapter highlights empowerment within the collaborative governance context, including elements, a real case based on health services experience, and a scenario case for problematizing and solution formulation as part of measures to promote conceptual and practical competencies for collective problem-solving.

The benefits of cross-sector stakeholders’ involvement in collective problem-solving through collaborative governance have its ills of conflicts in various aspects. The divergent representation and participation, turfs, interests, persuasions, variations in understanding of the complex problem and workable solutions, power imbalances, and other interpersonal and intersectional dynamics usually result in unavoidable conflicts with delayed decisions or actions, innovation, and constructive solutions. Challenges of a history of antagonism among some of the stakeholders, resource constraints, contentions during the collaborative process, especially deliberations on the various agenda items, including resource allocation priorities, service-related contractual obligations, local statutes, and other legal and political variables are realities that directly or indirectly results in conflict as a result of the use of collaborative governance. While there are legitimate perspectives relative to delays in decisions and actions sometimes due to the unproductive nature of some collaborative governance-related conflicts, the overall calculus in collective stakeholders’ decisions and actions appear to generate constructive outputs, thereby addressing identified complex public problems with usual segmented and general benefits to the population and consequently society at large. This chapter focuses on conflicts in collaborative governance and identifies elements with an added example of a health service case and a tentative intervention case for strategy and solution creation.

Outputs and outcomes reflect cross-sector stakeholders’ purpose and attendant efforts in tackling complex public problems for society through collaborative governance. The challenges that complex problems present in the various areas, such as health and human services, environment, climate change, crime, water crisis, economic development, national security, and terrorism, demand intentional collective decisions and actions through collaborative governance to enable constructive and sustainable solutions. The convergence of public, private, nonprofit, and civic sectors and stakeholders in collaborative governance coupled with regular engagement in result-oriented collaborative forums usually culminates in outputs that translate into categories of services or actions with associated tangible and intangible outcomes for the greater good. Thus, whether the outputs are decisions such as allocation priorities, strategic or comprehensive plans, number of clients served, collaborative forum engagement-related committee tasks, or evaluation results, the outcomes could be reflected in health, community wellbeing, responsive public service delivery, resiliency, sound natural resources management, effective climate action, continuous improvement, and others. The reality of collaborative governance, though, especially the complications of the collaborative process, could somewhat negate or delay prompt stakeholders’ efforts. However, their collective resolve helps to work toward outputs and outcomes with extensive benefits. This chapter relates the concepts of outputs and outcomes in a collaborative governance context while referencing the elements, a health service case, and a proposed intervention case as essential additions to promote relevant competencies.

The growing nature of complex public challenges renders resolution mechanisms somewhat ineffective, unlike the emergent collaborative governance that encourages creative solutions grounded in cross-sector stakeholders’ representation and participation. Whether it is a global health complexity like COVID-19 or HIV/AIDS, bushfires, flooding, ecological disasters, or natural or manufactured disasters, the usually established bureaucratic top-down and somewhat network approaches are not as robust as collaborative governance for comprehensive decisions and implementation actions. The recent COVID-19 pandemic accentuates the essence of collaborative governance relative to multisector stakeholders’ representation and participation in all stages of decision-making and implementation as a conduit to meaningful and sustainable outcomes for societal benefits. The palpable evidence of cross-sector involvement in the case of the U. S. at the municipal, county, state, regional, and national levels, and as is the case in numerous other countries, is encouraging the benefits of inclusive strategies and approaches in tackling complex societal concerns or problems. The policy and administrative realities of the COVID-19 response highlight disturbing disparities in the healthcare system. However, the lessons and measures offer the opportunity to revamp or build robust and interconnected systems to foster a more proactive and efficacious response to future pandemics. This chapter examines the COVID-19 pandemic based on the collaborative governance framework. It underscores some elements with a confirmed case and a proposed case to stimulate intervention strategies and actionable tasks in public service and society context.

Collaborative governance in addressing complex public problems as a postmodern alternative to the traditional top-down bureaucratic arrangement for implementation decisions and actions necessitates reimagining public managers’ roles within the public service context. The reliance on contributions of stakeholders from public, private, nonprofit/civic sectors during the collaborative process and attendant outputs as part of overarching collaborative governance intents allow for more vigorous solutions with impactful outcomes for societal benefits and with implications for the public manager. The nature of convening, collaborative forum engagements coupled with complementary effects of collaborative governance leadership, institutional design, system context, and community dynamics tend to redefine the public manager as a catalyst or champion without necessarily playing an authoritative or central role. Thus, the public manager’s support of collaborative governance both directly or indirectly generates benefits and creates additional opportunities to engage more stakeholders in tackling complex public problems with the consequential impact of addressing concerns of different people groups or demographics within the context of social contract service expectations. The vulnerabilities of the lack of public managers’ authoritative control of collaborative governance could be somewhat unnerving, but the embrace of cross-sector stakeholders’ collective resolve relative to addressing a complex public problem within an existing administrative mechanism is to create more benefits than headaches for bureaucratic leaders. This chapter presents and reframes the public manager’s role in collaborative governance and references rudiments associated with the reimagined roles. Therefore, this chapter integrates a public service-oriented case and an intervention stimulation case for solutions.

The world is constantly changing, and so is the public sector’s response to complex problems. Public complexities’ emergent and somewhat cataclysmic nature renders some traditions, bureaucratic mechanisms, theories, frameworks, and conventions ineffective. The solutions for proactive and comprehensive response thereby lie on reimagined approaches with cross-sector stakeholders’ representation and participation as a viable strategy to help generate relevant outputs and outcomes with sustainable impacts for societal benefits. The regular and somewhat rapid occurrence nature of public complexities nowadays leaves no room for errors or experimentation as doing so would be irresponsible or outright criminal; hence collaborative governance, among other emergent robust approaches, presents hope for constructive public service solutions and actions for the health and general wellbeing of the population. The intent is not to suggest that collaborative governance and related approaches are not fallible, but the focus on inclusion and intersectionality is promising and worth utilizing. This chapter summarizes the book’s conceptual and practical rudiments to reiterate the telos for promoting knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon relative to collaborative governance in this contemporary era as one of the viable approaches to help regimes tackle the growing and somewhat debilitating complex public problems.