Ties That Bind: Public Foundations in Dyadic Partnerships
- PDF / 329,248 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 46 Downloads / 214 Views
RESEARCH PAPERS
Ties That Bind: Public Foundations in Dyadic Partnerships Alexandra Kate Williamson1
•
Belinda Luke2 • Craig Furneaux1
Accepted: 28 August 2020 International Society for Third-Sector Research 2020
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 organisations Public foundations Dyadic partnerships Dominant stakeholders & Alexandra Kate Williamson [email protected] Belinda Luke [email protected] Craig Furneaux [email protected] 1
Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
2
School of Accountancy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Introduction Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs) are Australian philanthropic foundations that fundraise from the public and make grants to endorsed nonprofit organisations. They may be established by a range of different individuals or groups, including nonprofit or for-profit organisations. While legally independent, some PubAFs exist in exclusive and close ‘‘dyadic’’ partnerships with another organisation, relying on exchanges of information and value. This partnership dominates a PubAF’s operation and may involve shared values, strategy, culture, performance, engagement, staffing, or operating budgets. As such, the impact of dyadic partnerships raises unexplored issues around a PubAF’s identity, accountability, and independence. Examples of individual dyadic partnerships include mentor–mentee, leader–follower, friendships, and coworkers (Liden et al. 2016). Dyadic organisational partnerships refer to organisational pairs which maintain a significant, often exclusive, long-term connection with each other, with common goals (Muthusamy and White 2005). For PubAFs in such dyadic partnerships, however, managing organisational identity, accountability, and independence can become demanding. This research examines the benefits and challenges for PubAFs in dyadic partnerships, addressing the research question ‘‘how do dyad
Data Loading...
