Abstract
This study explores the complexities of interorganizational collaboration, particularly within nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which often face interdependencies and tensions despite potential benefits. Existing research emphasizes shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect, but may overlook hierarchical structures and power dynamics. The present study addresses this gap by investigating relational dynamics, including trust, conflict, inclusion, power, and leadership, in an NGO collaboration. The study highlights the unique challenges NGOs face due to their mission-driven approach, financial insecurity, and their small workforce that handles significant societal duties. Using an abductive thematic analysis of qualitative data from a Scandinavian nonprofit collaboration, this study examines how perceptions of respect, common goals, and communication influence relational dynamics across hierarchical levels. The findings contribute to our understanding of the interactive processes in interorganizational collaboration, offering insights applicable to comparable contexts while suggesting new research avenues on interorganizational collaboration.
Keywords
Introduction
Interorganizational collaboration often involves interdependencies and tensions, which often leads to failure; nevertheless, the potential benefits continue to drive research into effective collaboration models (Gazley & Guo, 2020; Lotia & Hardy, 2008; Pavez et al., 2022; Sharma & Kearins, 2011). One such model is Relational Coordination Theory (RCT), which emphasizes effective collaboration through shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect, supported by frequent, accurate communication (Bolton et al., 2021; Gittell, 2006). While this theory does touch upon the influence of hierarchical relations (Gittell, 2002), most applications operationalize RCT functionally rather than critically, thereby often simplifying collaboration complexities. Such functionalist applications thereby tend to overlook critical aspects, including hierarchical relations and inherent power dynamics (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Lotia & Hardy, 2008). To navigate these complexities, a comprehensive understanding of relational dynamics, including trust, conflict, inclusion, power, and leadership, is essential (Schruijer, 2020).
Although the focus on relational dynamics is pertinent to all types of organizations, the present study highlights its particular significance for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This is because NGOs exemplify multistakeholder setups that uniquely combine a mission-driven approach with economic viability, while also depending on a small workforce to handle substantial societal duties (Meetei & Bhowmick, 2025). Moreover, NGOs frequently operate within complex environment characterized by significant resource dependencies, constant legitimacy pressures, and inherent mission-driven pluralism, often leading to distinct challenges when collaborating (Ebrahim et al., 2014). While research on organizations within this “third sector” has aimed to find the best mix of collaborative strategies and formal practices—since existing models are tailored for businesses or the public sector (Albrecht & Shafiq, 2024; Proulx et al., 2014)—the social and psychological aspects have been relatively underexplored. Relatedly, as Gazley and Guo (2020) noted in their systematic literature review on interorganizational collaboration among NGOs, most research has focused on the antecedents and outcomes of collaboration, leaving the interactive process itself less understood. While earlier scholarship (e.g., Thomson & Perry, 2006; Wood & Gray, 1991) often conceptualized the dynamics of collaboration as a “black box,” and more recent work has increasingly opened this black box by examining the processes and lived experiences (e.g., Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009; Söderlund et al., 2017), there is still a limited understanding of the subjective experience of collaborating in a hierarchy, and especially in an NGO context. This study addresses this specific gap by qualitatively investigating the experiences of participants involved in an interorganizational collaboration project in the nonprofit sector. Drawing on Schruijer's (2020) emphasis on relational dynamics in interorganizational collaborative processes and the development thereof, the research question is: How do perceptions of respect, common goals, and communication influence relational dynamics across hierarchical levels within an interorganizational collaboration?
To investigate this, a qualitative case study was conducted. An abductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Thompson, 2022) was applied to the qualitative data (in-depth interviews, field observations, and documents) collected in a nonprofit, interorganizational collaboration initiative in a Scandinavian country.
The following section accounts for the theoretical framework of this study. The paper then elaborates on its methodology and results, discusses findings in relation to the theoretical framework, and highlights the implications of the findings. Although this study primarily focuses on NGOs, its insights into the significance of relational dynamics may be transferable to other interorganizational collaboration initiatives with comparable contextual conditions. This study introduces a new avenue for research in the field of IOR, particularly regarding the perception of respect, common goals, and communication across hierarchical levels.
Theoretical Framework
This study seeks to understand the relational dynamics of interorganizational collaboration. To achieve this, the paper draws upon established literature on the topic, explores the concept of relational dynamics, and contrasts functionalist assumptions with a critical perspective on collaboration.
Interorganizational Collaboration Among NGOs
Interorganizational collaboration is commonly referred to as a situation in which people work across organizational boundaries, in a joint effort, toward common goals and some positive end (Gazley & Guo, 2020; Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Collaboration among nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has been studied extensively since the 1980s (Gazley & Guo, 2020; Gray, 1985). Such collaboration serves various purposes (Adomako & Nguyen, 2024; Dzhengiz, 2020; Zahoor & Al-Tabbaa, 2020), often driven by the need for increased access to material (e.g., funding) and immaterial resources (e.g., expertise, knowledge, and connections). Collaboration is also a common response to the increasing complexity and interdependence of modern work, requiring coordination across disciplines, organizations, and sectors to achieve desired outcomes and provide coherent services (Bolton et al., 2021; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009). In addition to the frequently acknowledged benefits of collaborating across organizations, studies have also highlighted the challenges of NGO collaborations where mission-driven objectives intertwine with the practical realities of scarce resources (Meetei & Bhowmick, 2025; Tsasis, 2009). Existing research on interorganizational collaboration, including within NGOs, largely focuses on antecedents and outcomes, thereby leaving the social and psychological aspects relatively underexplored (Gazley & Guo, 2020; Schruijer, 2020).
Relational Dynamics and Relational Coordination Theory
Addressing the call for research into contextual and processual factors requires a thorough understanding of interorganizational collaboration's relational aspects. According to Schruijer (2020, p. 2), relational dynamics within an interorganizational context refer to the social and psychological processes, including their emotional foundations, that emerge when organizations and their representatives interact in cross-boundary or collaborative work. This encompasses elements like trust and distrust, intergroup stereotyping and conflict, power dynamics, and leadership emergence, occurring both within and between participating organizations. Emphasis is placed on the quality and development of experienced human interactions in collaborative processes. According to Schruijer et al. (2024), exploring these relational aspects is vital, as unacknowledged dynamics can jeopardize collaborative relationships.
A prominent theoretical framework for analyzing collaborative efforts that emphasizes relational processes is Relational Coordination Theory (RCT) (Bolton et al., 2021; Gittell, 2006). Rooted in collaborative coordination research, the theory emphasizes relational processes over structural characteristics. Gittell (2006, p. 300) defined relational coordination as a mutually reinforcing process of communicating and relating for the purpose of task integration. This framework explains how to improve relational quality among professionals in interdependent activities, proposing that highly relationally coordinated networks are more likely to achieve desired outcome, particularly in interdependent, uncertain, or time-sensitive work (Bolton et al., 2021). Key dimensions of relational coordination include shared goals, where stakeholders move beyond individual subgoals to act with greater regard for the overarching objective of the collaboration; shared knowledge, which informs stakeholders about how their tasks and the tasks of others contribute to the whole, fostering systems thinking; and mutual respect, which occurs when stakeholders value the contributions of others, acknowledging and appreciating the unique skills, knowledge, and perspectives that each party brings to the collaboration (Bolton et al., 2021; Gittell, 2006)
Functionalist Assumptions and a Critical Perspective
Much of the literature on collaboration, including some aspects of RCT, operates under what can be broadly termed “functionalist assumptions.” These perspectives view organizations as rational entities striving for efficiency, where collaboration is primarily a means of achieving collective goals that benefit everyone involved (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992). Traditionally, the field of organization and management studies has been predominantly concerned with finding and advocating for efficient and rational organizing, often overlooking negative collateral effects (Just et al., 2021). Consequently, functionalist studies often assume an underlying consensus of values and prioritize finding ways to make collaboration more predictable and effective (Lotia & Hardy, 2008).
A critical perspective on collaboration challenges these functionalist assumptions. Such a perspective recognizes that organizations are inherently political arenas, deeply implicated in the production and reproduction of structures of domination (Adler et al., 2007). This is particularly relevant when examining widely used frameworks like RCT. While RCT's original conceptualization acknowledges relationships across various roles, including those between workers and leaders, and the influence of cross-cutting structures (Bolton et al., 2021), it has often been applied in functionalist ways that tend to downplay the hierarchical dynamics within collaborative settings. As Lotia and Hardy (2008) asserted, a critical approach embraces several key tenets. This includes challenging the more conventional assumptions that conflicting interests can always be reconciled, suggesting instead that power holders may leverage their decision-making capacity to align outcomes with their interests, or influence which issues are addressed or ignored. Thus, it highlights asymmetrical relations, emphasizing that power relations among organizations are rarely symmetrical, and those with more power may exert their influence to push their interests more forcefully. The perspective offers a critique of collaborative advantage, highlighting the political dimensions of collaboration, and challenges the assumption that collaboration is inherently beneficial for all involved actors (Lotia & Hardy, 2008). To understand this critical view more fully, it is vital to recognize how systemic factors, such as hierarchy and power, influence collaboration and its relational dynamics.
Hierarchy and the Complexities in Collaborative Dynamics
Interorganizational collaborations frequently operate within pluralistic contexts, characterized by multiple objectives, diffuse power, and knowledge-based work processes (Denis et al., 2007). In such environments, traditional rational models often prove insufficient to capture the intricate challenges that arise. Understanding of how diffuse power and divergent objectives influence collaborative efforts is essential, moving beyond idealized notions of seamless collaboration. Huxham and Vangen's (2005) foundational work on collaborative advantage highlights the potential for synergy that arises when organizations combine resources and expertise. However, they also extensively document the pervasive challenges, often leading to collaborative inertia rather than advantage. This inherent difficulty stems from the complex and often paradoxical nature of collaboration, where partners face tensions between individual organizational mandates and collective goals (Vangen & Huxham, 2011). A critical aspect of this complexity lies in how goals themselves are perceived and negotiated. As Vangen and Huxham (2011, p. 731) illustrate, collaboration goals form an “entangled, dynamic, and ambiguously hierarchical web of variously perceived, higher- and lower-level goals.” This perspective moves beyond simplistic views of shared objectives to acknowledge that goals have diverse characteristics, including level, origin, authenticity, relevance, content, and overtness, all of which influence their interpretation and realization. This inherent complexity in goal structures directly informs how hierarchy impacts collaboration.
Within these pluralistic contexts, hierarchy is not merely a formal organizational structure but a powerful contextual factor that profoundly shapes collaborative dynamics. Power asymmetry is a common characteristic of interorganizational relationships, challenging the utopian view of equitable partnerships (Cowan et al., 2015). Research shows that dominant firms or partners often wield significant influence, using various power sources to align partnership governance with their interests (Cowan et al., 2015; Nyaga et al., 2013). Power dynamics are not confined to a single level but permeate organizational, collaborative, and environmental contexts, emerging from the interactions and power bases of collaborating entities (Lotia, 2004). This means that power differentials, often linked to hierarchical position and control over resources, can significantly impact relationship quality and outcomes within collaborations (Chicksand, 2015; Dewulf & Elbers, 2018). Therefore, understanding hierarchy in collaborations necessitates acknowledging how power is distributed and how this distribution influences the perceptions, interpretations, and actions of various actors (Denis et al., 2007). This structural reality acts as a critical modifier of relational dynamics. For instance, power imbalances can shape the communication processes, influence the genuine “sharedness” of goals, and impact the experience of mutual respect within a collaborative network, thereby critically affecting the very elements central to effective relational coordination.
Bridging Systemic Structures and Local Realities
To analyze these challenges and the influence of hierarchy and power on collaborative dynamics, this study draws on Critical Systems Thinking (CST) and critical sensemaking. CST challenges normative assumptions and addresses issues of power and emancipation (Jackson, 2001). Sensemaking, as originally conceptualized by Weick (1995), refers to the process where individuals place stimuli into frameworks that allow them to understand, explain, and predict situations and events. Critical sensemaking (Helms Mills et al., 2010) extends this by explicitly incorporating issues of power and context into the analysis, and in pluralistic collaborative contexts, critical sensemaking becomes essential for understanding how systemic structures (e.g., assigned roles, hierarchical structures, asymmetrical power relations) shape local sensemaking processes.
RCT operates at a relational level, focusing on the quality of interactions and the dynamics between people (Bolton et al., 2021). Hierarchy can be examined as a structural context that influence and shape these relations. Through the lens of CST, formal structures, including hierarchy, are understood not as neutral backdrops but as a context that influence how relational dynamics manifest (Midgley, 1996). The shared understanding and mutual knowledge central to relational coordination are not formed in a vacuum; they are products of ongoing sensemaking. When systemic structures influence sensemaking across hierarchical levels, it can lead to divergent interpretations of shared goals, appropriate communication patterns, and mutual respect. Therefore, CST and critical sensemaking provide a useful framework for understanding how individuals make sense of their environments at a local level while acknowledging the influence of organizational power in the broader context.
Method
This study explored relational dynamics in interorganizational collaboration using a qualitative, abductive approach. This methodology allowed for an exploration of practitioners’ authentic experiences, refining existing theoretical frameworks by iteratively engaging with empirical data and theoretical constructs (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Thompson, 2022). A single case study design was adopted to explore the phenomenon within its specific context. This approach prioritizes analytical transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), meaning insights from this single observation can be applied to contexts with similar characteristics, particularly other NGO-based, interorganizational contexts. Purposive, nonrandom sampling was employed to select this case, an information-rich interorganizational, nonprofit collaboration, to ensure participants could provide comprehensive data on the phenomenon in question (Francis et al., 2010; Stake, 2005).
Research Context and Participants
The studied collaboration operates within a Nordic umbrella organization, comprising three distinct nonprofit sport organizations. Its primary objective is to promote social inclusion for individuals with substance dependencies through sporting activities, aiming to improve living conditions, boost self-esteem, and foster belonging in a drug-free environment for adult participants. Initiated in the late 2010s, the collaboration has expanded to several clusters. As a nonprofit, it relies on external government and project-based funding. The NGO initiative is structured across three hierarchical levels. Level 1 comprises the three sport organizations, each represented by a top management member on the board. The initiative employs a Level 2 manager, who oversees the collaboration's activities and ensures adherence to the collaboration's guidelines. Practical implementation occurs at Level 3, where team leaders within local branches directly engage the target demographic, organizing training and individual follow-ups. Funds are distributed from Levels 1 and 2 to Level 3, with all activity, resource use, and accounting reported centrally from Level 3.
The final sample for this study consisted of 15 individuals: Leaders from the sport organizations (Level 1, N = 3), the administrative manager of the initiative (Level 2, N = 1), and team leaders from the organizations’ branches (Level 3, N = 11). Participants referred to Level 1 as both “owners” and “board members,” with distinct connotations embedded within those terms. For consistent presentation, this level will be designated as “Level 1 stakeholders.” The participants included both women and men, aged from 36 to 58.
Data Collection
To explore the relational dynamics in this interorganizational collaboration, data were collected using in-depth interviews, observation, and internal and external documents, leveraging the case study method's ability to yield comprehensive data (Lauckner et al., 2012). Individual interviews served as the main data source, exploring participants’ personal experiences with the interorganizational collaboration. The interview setting facilitates in-depth exploration of abstract concepts often inaccessible through observational methods (Patton, 2002) and provides an opportunity to express experiences that might be subject to self-censorship in a group setting (Brown, 2020).
Potential participants were contacted by email or phone. The interviews were conducted one-on-one in the participants’ workplace. Prior to interviews, participants received a written description of the study's aim and data management protocols and verbally confirmed their voluntary participation. Interview questions, designed within the interpretative genre to access the participants’ lifeworld and lived experiences (Langley & Meziani, 2020), covered three broad themes: (1) describing the ongoing collaboration, (2) perceived facilitators and barriers, and (3) experiences with relational dynamics among stakeholders. These questions aimed to capture their subjective experience of interorganizational collaboration. Interviews, with a median length of 71 min (45–90 min), were audio-recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Following the completion of the initial data analysis, participants were revisited for member checking (Shenton, 2004), to verify inferences and interpretations when needed.
Two forms of observations were conducted: meeting observation and participant observation. Real-time meeting observations of manager and team leaders, a rich, data-intensive environment (Sandler & Thedwall, 2017), involved detailed field notes using Remmerswaal's (2015) three-level approach (procedural, content, and interaction). Additionally, participant observations were also conducted on five occasions, including direct engagement with the initiative's participants in their activities, which provided insights into team leaders’ practical work and the meaning of their services.
Internal and external documents were collected to gain additional insights into daily operations and how the collaboration presents its work to stakeholders.
Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity
Acknowledging qualitative research's interpretive nature, the researcher's positionality and potential influence on the study (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2017) were considered. The researcher's prior professional experience with vulnerable populations and the nonprofit sector (though in a different domain) provided an understanding of the operational realities, potentially facilitating rapport with participants and empathetic understanding of their experiences. Despite initially being unfamiliar with the initiative, a positive relationship was established, with participants expressing gratitude for the research interest. While this fostered trust and access, the researcher remained mindful of how these pre-understandings and emerging relationships could shape the interpretations, striving for transparency by reflecting on the interplay between the researcher's perspective and the empirical data throughout the analytical process (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2017).
Data Analysis
Grounded in data shown in Table 1, the analysis utilized an abductive thematic framework (Thompson, 2022), rooted in the principles of systematic combining (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). This methodology entailed a continuous and iterative movement between empirical data collection, preliminary analysis, and existing theoretical frameworks, ensuring that the data both informed and challenged theoretical concepts, thereby contributing to a refined understanding of relational dynamics in NGO interorganizational collaborations.
Data Sources and Use in Analysis.
In line with an abductive research strategy, which embraces theoretical preconceptions throughout all phases of research (Thompson, 2022), initial theoretical understandings, particularly drawn from RCT (Gittell, 2002), guided the formulation of some initial interview questions. Specifically, participants were probed about their experiences concerning shared goals, shared knowledge, communication, and mutual respect within their collaborative context. This provided an initial lens through which to approach the empirical data.
The abductive process unfolded through several phases and cycles (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Thompson, 2022). First, transcripts and detailed field notes were created for thorough empirical understanding. Coding and categorizing were then systematically managed in NVivo. Short memos were written throughout the process to document emerging insights, theoretical connections, and reflections on how data and theory were recursively informing each other. Approximately 50 initial codes (first-order themes) were formed based on participants’ terms and expressions, while also guided by the researcher's theoretical understanding of relational dynamics. Building on the initial codes, these themes were then organized into more abstract second-order themes through theoretical coding. This process involved juxtaposing empirical patterns with existing literature, where the data challenged and refined the theoretical categories, and required continuous re-reading and re-coding. For example, when a team leader stated that the owners’ absence made them feel “taken a little bit for granted” and that “working in a place where you never see your employer … that's actually not okay,” this empirical insight prompted a refinement of the initial concept of “mutual respect.” While RCT (Gittell, 2002) frames mutual respect as acknowledging others’ contributions, this statement showed how respect is also interpreted through symbolic engagement and visibility of higher-level actors, leading to theorize the category as “disrespect through disregard” rather than merely low relational coordination. Finally, second-order themes were condensed into even more abstract overarching themes. During this phase, examples where themes were not fully covered or explained in the extant literature were also examined to refine existing conceptual models and theories (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007). Figure 1 shows the data structure resulting from this abductive process, based on Gioia et al. (2013).
Organizational structure of the NGO.
The conceptualization of “disregard through disrespect” can further serve as an example of the iterative process (Figure 2). During early data immersion and preliminary coding, a consistent pattern emerged where the Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders expressed notions of a lack of recognition and engagement from Level 1 stakeholders. While existing literature emphasizes the importance of mutual respect, these empirical findings revealed nuanced experiences not accounted for by prevailing theoretical frameworks. This theoretical gap concerning how mutual respect appears or diminishes in collaborative, hierarchical settings, prompted a deeper engagement with critical organizational and management literature, including critical sensemaking (Helms Mills et al., 2010). This enabled a re-interpretation of the initial codes and observations. What began as notions about “lack of engagement” and “not feeling valued” were then organized into broader second-order themes, which hold more abstract concepts such as “symbolic support.” Ultimately, these second-order themes were condensed and theorized into the overarching concept of “disregard through disrespect.”
Data structure.
The complete enumeration of all internal stakeholders (15 participants), supplemented by observations and documents, provided exhaustive coverage and a thorough understanding of relational dynamics from all available internal perspectives, thereby achieving extensive coverage of the phenomenon within the defined boundaries of this case (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Saturation was understood as a priori thematic saturation (Saunders et al., 2018), meaning that the data were sufficient to exemplify and elaborate the theoretically informed categories guiding the abductive analysis. The iterative cycling between empirical material and sensitizing concepts (e.g., shared goals, mutual respect, communication) demonstrated that these categories were conceptually well-developed and adequately represented across stakeholder groups.
Findings
This section presents the main findings, summarized in Table 2, through a lens that acknowledges how hierarchical structures and individual's positional identities shape their sensemaking processes (Helms Mills et al., 2010; Weick, 1995). The findings are structured around the interplay between perceptions of common goals, mutual respect, communication practices, and hierarchy within the interorganizational collaboration.
Cross-Level Patterning.
Theme 1: Divergent Underlying Logics and Motivation Results in Fragmented Understanding of Shared Goals
Despite stakeholders ostensibly working toward a shared objective, their participation is driven by varying underlying motivations and logics, often stemming from their distinct positional identities and roles within the hierarchy. This divergence leads to a fragmented sensemaking of the collaboration's purpose, influencing perspectives on activity prioritization and resource allocation.
Stakeholders Have Different Perceptions of What the Collaboration's Overall Aim Entails
Internal and external documents present an overarching goal of fostering belonging among their participants. However, the documents detail a wide array of sub-goals, including reducing crime rates and facilitating work training, contributing to better health, and enhancing social competence. Stakeholders in the collaboration articulate a shared goal of social inclusion for a vulnerable group but prioritize different aspects of this goal. These varying perceptions shape their individual understanding of the shared goal, influencing decisions about service delivery and funding allocation.
A Level 1 stakeholder highlighted participation in a large-scale sport event when asked about the collaboration's goal, asserting board alignment on funding: “It's a common understanding. We’ve never disagreed about that.”
This contrasts sharply with some Level 3 team leaders, who prioritize low-barrier activities, to ensure equal opportunity for participation. In interviews and observed meetings, these team leaders viewed large sport events as potentially detrimental, calling it a “vulnerable goal” that could reinforce feelings of inadequacy. One team leader expressed skepticism regarding both empowerment and financial aspects: My personal opinion is that I don’t understand why we do it. It's an extreme sport for these people. […] Then maybe we shouldn’t spend too much money on it. I think it's very important that they have the activity they have locally. I think it's too expensive. And it's better to run it locally like we do.
The level 2 manager offered a more complex, at times contradictory, perspective on reflecting her role's pressures. In an observed meeting, she emphasized large-scale sport events for participant motivation and physical testing for funding reports, stating “all numbers we can refer to in applications are gold.” However, in her interview, she also voiced concern that such a strong could overshadow the collaboration's “true objective,” reflecting, “I think our focus has been a little too much on the big events as a goal, and not our true goal, social inclusion.”
Notably, team leaders appeared more aware of these varying opinions, reporting “a good deal of discussion,” which stands in contrast to Level 1 stakeholders’ belief in a greater consensus.
Stakeholders Have Different Motivations for Being Part of the Collaboration
Stakeholders exhibit divergent underlying logics and motivations for participating. Level 1 stakeholders frame their involvement as corporate social responsibility, enhancing organizational reputation, demonstrating social impact, and fulfilling strategic goals. Their sensemaking of the collaboration's value is thus tied to their organizational identity. As one Level 1 stakeholder stated, it allows the organizations to “market themselves in relation to social responsibility,” generating goodwill and attracting funding. Another Level 1 stakeholder immediately pivoted to the collaboration's strategic value for attracting sponsors. She recounted using a photo of a participant being pushed up a hill during a race to showcase the organization as a “social actor” and highlight its commitment to social inclusion. She noted: “I use the project to tell partners, and possibly new partners, about what we are doing in addition to our main activities. It is indeed a strong strategy, from my side, to include the fact that we run projects addressing social exclusion. So that is of value for us as a federation.”
The manager's motivation is rooted in direct participant impact—“make people feel safe, so that they can have personal growth”—but also strongly emphasizes securing financial resources, viewing her primary task as “coordination, and make sure that we get funds to run it.”
Most team leaders emphasized the intrinsic rewards of direct engagement and witnessing participants’ personal growth. In an observed meeting and in interviews, they expressed a deep sense of connection to the participants, highlighting the importance of “motivating them to achieve new things” and “giving them back faith in themselves.” Their sensemaking of the collaboration's purpose is profoundly shaped by their direct engagement with the target group, forming a distinct occupational identity focused on direct impact. For team leaders, the collaboration is not primarily about organizational benefits but about making a tangible difference in the lives of individuals.
Theme 2: Disrespect Through Disregard—Perceived Lack of Valuation and Recognition
Findings indicate that the Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders perceive a lack of respect from the Level 1 stakeholders in the collaboration. This happens not through overt acts of disrespect, but through a disregard for the team leaders’ expertise and contributions, a dynamic that shapes how the manager and team leaders make sense of their value within the collaborative structure. The Level 1 stakeholders’ perceived failure to understand and engage with the team leaders’ work (devaluation of operational expertise) and to publicly acknowledge their efforts and the collaboration's results (lack of symbolic support and recognition) leads to a sense of being disregarded.
Perceived Lack of Engagement From Other Stakeholders
In interviews and observed internal meetings, the Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders expressed concerns about the Level 1 stakeholders’ lack of engagement with day-to-day operations. This perceived detachment fostered a sense of undervaluation and disregard. The manager lamented the lack of visible engagement, wishing for a “board that is much more committed,” interpreting their passive approach as a lack of recognition for her efforts.
The physical and metaphorical distance between Level 1 stakeholders and team leaders was a recurring theme. One team leader quipped, “They’re probably in an office far away,” while another stated, “We’ve been a little neglected.” Team leaders consistently emphasized the importance of more owner involvement. As one team leader stated: “I think it's really important that the owners are involved, so that the collaboration is not something that just looks nice on paper. And they get a hefty board fee, which in total is roughly equivalent to what I have at my disposal for a whole year. So I think that then it must be at least possible to get hold of people.”
These perceptions resulted in demotivation and questioning the value of their efforts. A team leader explained, “not getting in touch, or being contacted by the owner, it feels like… You feel a lack of interest. That the work you do doesn’t really mean anything to anyone. Apart from what you see with the participants. You are taken a bit for granted.” This extended to a feeling that Level 1 stakeholders underestimated their commitment and expertise: “It's our job. And it's much more than the one hour of training … It's a workplace in a way … and I think they forget that, simply. It's not a typical eight to three-thirty job. We’re not particularly well paid. All of us who work in the project have expertise in what we are doing. So working in a place where you never see your employer … That's actually not okay.”
Ultimately, team leaders’ comments suggest that Level 1 stakeholders’ lack of engagement led to a sense of disregard, undermining motivation, and questioning the true value placed on their work.
While the manager and team leaders primarily expressed concerns about the Level 1 stakeholders’ lack of engagement, the manager also wanted to have more engagement from the team leaders. She acknowledged the necessity of having independent team leaders who can “manage it very much themselves,” but also reflected, “We are one organization, which I think people forget, and I think that's also why it's a little difficult for me to get that feedback, get those meetings. It becomes a bit like me and mine, and then you forget that it's something bigger.”
Level 1 stakeholders presented varying perspectives on their involvement. The chairman acknowledged needing more dedicated time to the collaboration, but the others did not. One Level 1 stakeholder, on her overall experience, stated, “I think it's really good. When I don’t hear anything, I think it's really good [laughs]. No, it works really well.” This suggests a possible disconnect between the Level 1 stakeholders’ perception of the collaboration's health and the team leaders’ experiences of neglect.
Perceived Lack of Symbolic Support and External Recognition
In interviews and observed meetings, team leaders and manager voiced a concern that the collaboration's potential for attracting sponsors and wider recognition was not being fully realized. Witnessing the positive impact of their daily work, team leaders were puzzled by what they perceived as a failure to leverage the collaboration's external outreach. This perceived underutilization was interpreted as a lack of symbolic support and recognition from the Level 1 stakeholders, shaping their understanding of how their efforts are valued at a higher level.
The manager contrasted this collaboration with similar NGO's, stating: “I think, if they had used what we are, and had ownership of it, and in a way signaled that ‘We have a social responsibility for the weak in society. We do something for them,’ then I also think that they would have had a slightly different position in society, and perhaps a stronger position when it comes to sponsorships.” She questioned internal awareness within Level 1 stakeholders’ regarding their connection to the collaboration, suggesting a lack of internal “ownership.”
Team leaders echoed this, highlighting the potential for the collaboration to enhance the Level 1 stakeholders’ social image and attract funding. One team leader stated it “makes us to a social actor, it builds our reputation to be able to offer such a project … And that should really be communicated out too.” Another felt that the Level 1 stakeholders “do not know what values that are unused.”
The perceived missed opportunities for funding were a particular frustration. One team leader expressed disbelief at Level 1 stakeholders inaction: “And I think that if our collaboration with the owners had been closer, it would have made it easier to apply for funding and sponsorship, for example … I don’t understand it. It would have been a gold mine, I think.” This team leader also emphasized that the unique, under-communicated qualities of the initiative, suggesting Level 1 stakeholders might not grasp its full value: “They don’t really have much of a clue or overview of this themselves (…). There is a huge amount of unused potential, and we are very cheap to operate. The project is absolutely brilliant, so I wish they had been more involved.” Another emphasized increased visibility for funding, arguing that the Level 1 stakeholders should actively promote the initiative's impact: “So they have to do their part here … The owners should also maybe work on that a little bit, to put it on the agenda.”
In summary, the team leaders and manager experienced that Level 1 stakeholders were not fully leveraging the collaboration's potential to enhance social image, attract sponsors, and secure funding. This perceived lack of symbolic support and external recognition contributed to a sense that the collaboration was inadequately valued and prioritized.
Theme 3: Perceived Quality of Communication Practice is Influenced by an Interplay Between Hierarchy and Individual Needs
A key insight is that the perceived quality of communication practice within the interorganizational collaboration is not uniform across all stakeholders. Satisfaction with communication practices appears to be shaped through a sensemaking process, dependent on the individual's position within the hierarchy and their personal needs for connection and belonging.
Satisfaction With Communication Practice Varies According to Hierarchical Level Within the Collaboration
Data reveal distinct patterns in perceived communication quality. Level 1 stakeholders expressed overall satisfaction, though the chairman noted a desire for more time for collaboration work. Their statements reflected a feeling of being well-informed, primarily communicating with the manager and other board members on typical board matters (economy, strategy). They considered communication sufficiently frequent, timely, and accurate, despite intermittent contact, as expressed by a Level 1 stakeholder: It goes a bit in fits and starts. In periods we have more contact, but that's how it is. It's completely natural. So I don’t feel like there's any problem. We can send messages and call and email and Teams and meet physically every now and then, so no, I don’t have any big challenges with communication, no.
Level 1 stakeholders did not express a need for more communication with team leaders, highlighting that their board role excludes close follow-ups. Two Level 1 stakeholders also mentioned their organizations have regular meetings with their respective team leaders, a claim contradicted by team leader's experience.
The Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders reported more frustration. With few exceptions, team leaders desired increased communication among themselves, the manager, and the Level 1 stakeholders to facilitate experience sharing, case discussions, and foster community. Through interviews and an internal survey, most team leaders expressed a desire for fixed meeting schedule. As one team leader stated: “The contact could have been more frequent, but it's not because we don’t want to, in a way. But there is in a way no system in that contact.” Their sensemaking of communication practices seems to be rooted in a need for consistent connection and validation. Several team leaders stated that despite understanding Level 1 stakeholders is not involved in daily operations, they miss frequent contact: “Those who own us … The thing is, they’re not present.” Another team leader described the current communication with Level 1 stakeholders as “completely absent … disappointingly absent. I can’t get in touch, I can’t get an answer to my e-mails.”
The manager experienced challenges in obtaining feedback and responses from both team leaders and the Level 1 stakeholders. Regarding team leaders, she stated: The team leaders are very committed to their group. But I find it a little more difficult to get in touch. […] I sent out an invitation last week for a team meeting tonight. There is one person who has accepted the meeting. And I know that is a bit of a common occurrence. But I have no doubt that they have an incredible commitment to their group. So there is a bit of frustration on my part. It is a little difficult to know what they get with the information. They do not always respond to emails.
The manager is also dissatisfied with the overall communication flow, frequency, and response rate from the board: If I send something to the board, it can take ages before I get a response. So there is a bit of inertia in the system. So if I were to say what I would like to do as manager, it would be to at least get something done, bring in someone else who can contribute more to the things that I am not good at. And get a board that is much more committed.
Findings indicate a hierarchical disparity in communication satisfaction: Level 1 stakeholders are notably more content with current practices than those at Level 2 and 3. This situation is further complicated by the manager's struggle to receive adequate communication from team leaders, underscoring that communication challenges are not unidirectional.
Satisfaction With Communication Practice Varies According to Individual Needs
Satisfaction with communication practices also varies based on individual needs. How Level 3 team leaders make sense of their roles, whether as independent actors or more integrated collaborators, seems to influence their communication preferences. Those perceiving themselves as independent expressed less need for frequent communication; for example, one team leader explained, “So, in my world, we’re doing our own thing here,” prioritizing direct participant engagement over communication with other stakeholders in the collaboration.
In contrast, other team leaders expressed loneliness and highlighted the importance of regular contact for sharing ideas, knowledge, guidance on challenging cases and building a supportive community. One team leader explained that despite knowing she could call others infrequency of communication and lack of informal contact could lead to loneliness: It's because we don’t have that daily contact, like in a workplace where you have that collegiality, where you can kind of go and discuss things, you can talk to them, here you have to … you can call, and it's not far away in that sense, but you’re kind of lonely in … Where you are. And it can be a bit unfortunate sometimes when you need to maybe lift the veil about something. Or have other things you need to discuss.
Individual communication needs and practices may also be influenced by pre-existing relationships. Findings from the internal survey and interviews indicate that some team leaders with prior professional relationship with the manager reported a lower barrier to contact, feeling more comfortable reaching out, and generally experiencing greater contentment with communication flow.
Discussion
This study sought to answer the question: How do perceptions of respect, common goals, and communication influence relational dynamics across hierarchical levels within an interorganizational collaboration? While the findings affirm the importance of factors identified in Relational Coordination Theory (Gittell, 2002), they also highlight critical shortcomings in its functionalist application to complex real-world collaborations. Specifically, while RCT acknowledges certain aspects of hierarchical relations, its common applications often downplay how hierarchical structures influence the relational dynamics. This discussion will therefore address these limitations, emphasizing a critical perspective on relational dynamics in collaboration.
The Illusion of Shared Goals and the Reality of Conflicting Logics
RCT emphasizes shared goals as a driver of effective collaboration (Bolton et al., 2021). However, findings of this study suggest that the enactment and interpretation of these goals are more intricate than often acknowledged. While a foundational commitment to social inclusion existed, divergent underlying motivations and distinct sensemaking processes across hierarchical levels led to fragmented understandings of the shared goal and its achievement. Level 1 stakeholders’ motivation appears linked to their organization's social responsibility agenda and legitimacy considerations. As Suchman (1995) argues, organizations actively seek legitimacy to gain support and resources within their environment. By collaborating in this initiative, the Level 1 stakeholders signal conformity to what is considered appropriate and expected within their field and demonstrate a commitment to corporate social responsibility, seeking to enhance their organizational legitimacy (Awis et al., 2018).
This motivation contrasts with that of the Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders. The manager's motivation centers on participant impact, alongside coordinating the collaboration to secure operational funds. Team leaders, while being proud of their societal contributions, are primarily motivated by direct engagement with participants and improving their lives. These findings reveal a divergence between the Level 1 stakeholders’ macro-level, CSR-oriented motivation, and the Level 2 and 3's participant-centered approach to societal contribution. Such findings align with research indicating that being nested in different entities at different hierarchical levels can significantly influence individual perceptions and expectations in collaborative relationships (Brattström & Faems, 2020).
Although a basic commitment to social inclusion is present, differing foci and strategies suggest a fragmented understanding of how this shared goal is best achieved. More significantly, the approaches implicitly assign different meanings to “social inclusion.” For some, regardless of their place in the collaboration's hierarchy, it signifies integration into mainstream society through participating in high-profile sport events; for others, individual empowerment and belonging in smaller, supportive settings. As social inclusion is an elusive concept, different stakeholders inevitably hold different opinions. This can be understood through the lens of sensemaking (Weick, 1995): Encountering the nuances of social inclusion stakeholders interpret cues and construct plausible narratives about its meaning. Because individuals draw on different experiences, values, and priorities, these sensemaking processes can lead to divergent understandings about the collaboration's overarching goal. This divergence creates friction in the collaboration dynamics, as differing perceptions prioritize resource allocation and effort in ways that reflect individual goal understanding, potentially leading to disagreements over funding and program design. As Dewulf and Elbers (2018) suggest, control of critical resources puts the resource-rich party in a strong position to influence collective decisions. This dynamic is particularly relevant in the NGO sector, where funding is often scarce (Tsasis, 2009). In this study, some team leaders perceive Level 1 stakeholders’ preference for allocating resources to specific sport events as diverting resources from more effective, smaller-scale events. While this targeted allocation might promote integration or showcase achievement, it inadvertently creates a sense of inequity among some Level 3 team leaders. This fuels friction, as some team leaders question whether resource allocation aligns with the overarching goal of social inclusion for all.
While the Level 1 stakeholders convey a belief in unified goals, stating that they “never disagree,” some Level 3 team leaders reported “a good deal of discussion.” Several factors may contribute to this discrepancy. Hierarchical distance between Level 1 stakeholders and Level 3 team leaders can limit owners’ exposure to daily realities (Gibson et al., 2019), fostering a belief in greater consensus on the collaboration's goals than may actually exist. This distance, coupled with distinct positional identities and motivations, shapes Level 1 stakeholders’ perception of agreement, leading to a different sensemaking of consensus compared to lower hierarchical positions. This suggests that the structure and dynamics of the collaboration may create blind spots, obscuring diverse perspectives.
The case highlights the inherent difficulty of achieving a unified goal understanding, particularly within interorganizational collaborations with an organizational hierarchy. A critical perspective also raises the question of whether a superficial goal agreement masks underlying motivations (Lotia & Hardy, 2008). For instance, Level 1 stakeholders’ commitment to “social inclusion” could be interpreted as either a genuine desire to improve societal well-being, or as a political and strategic move to enhance organizational image and fulfill a social responsibility mandate (Awis et al., 2018; Martínez Orbegozo et al., 2022).
Resolving these conflicting logics is a challenging undertaking. While overarching shared goals remain useful for providing direction, many theoretical frameworks often simplify these intricacies (Barker Scott & Manning, 2024; Miles et al., 2010; Woodland & Hutton, 2012). These frameworks, despite emphasizing shared purpose, frequently overlook the interplay of factors the impacting relational dynamics and creating tensions (Prins, 2010; Schruijer, 2020). This study demonstrates that within NGO collaborations, hierarchical structures can shape underlying motivations for engagement, fostering divergent sensemaking and distinct perceptions of shared goals. From a CST perspective (Jackson, 2001; Midgley, 1996), these conflicts reveal how power is embedded within the structure, influencing whose interpretations of “shared goals” gain prominence and whose motivations are prioritized. Therefore, in collaborative environments like the one studied, central stakeholders must be aware of differences in motivations and perceptions of goals and be willing to address them.
The Erosion of Respect in a Hierarchical Collaboration
When considering the relational dynamics of this NGO collaboration, it becomes evident that the experienced level of mutual respect plays an important role. According to RCT, mutual respect and valuing the contribution of other stakeholders strengthen the inclination to act for the benefit of the whole (Bolton et al., 2021; Gittell, 2006). Mutual respect involves acknowledging and appreciating the unique skills, knowledge, and perspectives that each party brings to the collaboration (San Martín-Rodríguez et al., 2005).
Findings indicate that a perceived lack of engagement from Level 1 stakeholders is interpreted as disregard by both the Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders, undermining their motivation and questioning the value placed on their expertise and work. This perception may arise because the hierarchical position of Level 1 stakeholders grants them inherent importance and symbolic power. Through the lens of critical system thinking (Jackson, 2001) and critical sensemaking (Helms Mills et al., 2010), Level 1 stakeholders’ inaction can be interpreted as an exercise of power that impacts the experience of relational dynamics. The nonengagement of Level 1 stakeholders inadvertently communicates a hierarchy of value that diminishes the efforts of those below them, leading to a feeling in Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders of being disregarded and not respected.
It may seem paradoxical that team leaders criticize the top level for lack of engagement, while the majority uphold their own independence. However, as Weick (1995) argues, identity construction is pivotal to the sensemaking process, and team leaders, engaged in making sense of their environment, may develop a narrative of “being independent” as a way of rationalizing and coping with the perceived lack of engagement from the Level 1 stakeholders. Rather than being formed in a vacuum, this narrative is shaped by retrospective experiences and the social context of the collaboration (Helms Mills et al., 2010). Team leaders’ past experiences within the organization, coupled with the current reality of limited owner engagement, are likely to contribute to the construction of this identity as independent actors. Their “independence” might be less a pre-existing trait and more a pragmatic adaptation (Huettermann et al., 2024), a way of maintaining agency and a sense of control in a situation where they perceive a void in leadership and support from above.
However, while this narrative of independence potentially serves as a defense mechanism, it can negatively influence the collaboration's dynamics. Since team leaders belong to different organizations, striving for shared knowledge and goals as a unified NGO entity is already challenging. This is further complicated by perceived lack of engagement from Level 1 stakeholders, fostering a need among the Level 3 team leaders to act independently. A concrete consequence of this can be found in the reflections of the Level 2 manager, who praised the team leaders’ effort for their participants, but questioned their overall commitment of the collaborative initiative. More broadly, relational dynamics may be impeded by a potential downstream effect of a perceived lack of engagement from the owners. When team leaders feel disregarded and disrespected, it can be interpreted as a violation of the reciprocal obligations (Conway & Briner, 2009). This can potentially lead them to focus solely on day-to-day activities with their participants, decreasing their engagement in the overall NGO initiative.
Furthermore, findings indicate that the Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders interpreted the Level 1 stakeholders’ limited engagement with potential sponsors and media as a devaluation of their work's societal impact. Both manager and team leaders express pride in their achievements yet were disappointed by the perceived missed opportunities by the Level 1 stakeholders to publicly validate the collaboration's contributions. This suggests that the perceived lack of respect is not solely rooted in internal dynamics but is significantly influenced by how the collaboration's external presence is handled. Level 1 stakeholders’ passive approach to promoting the work and seeking external validation is internally interpreted as a lack of valuation for the work itself, revealing how control over external representation shapes internal perceptions of worth and respect.
While collaboration literature often emphasizes the importance of mutual respect in collaborations, several nuanced perspectives warrant consideration within the context of interorganizational NGO collaborations. The very nature of these collaborations introduces complexity, as organizations involved may incline toward independent operation, possess distinct identities, and face challenges in cultivating mutual respect (Cooper & Shumate, 2012; Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Weare et al., 2014). Relatedly, while RCT itself acknowledges mutual respect as a core component for effective coordination across diverse roles (Gittell, 2002), many research applications of RCT tend to implicitly minimize the influence of hierarchical structures. A multilevel collaboration, with owners and decision makers at the top, likely influences the perception of mutual respect among stakeholders at various levels. As observed in this study, the presence of Level 1 stakeholders creates an expectation of engagement and bestows symbolic power that can influence the Level 2 manager's and Level 3 team leaders’ sense of being respected. Moreover, Level 1 stakeholders, as board representatives, control critical resources like funding distribution, which also shapes perceptions of value and the extent to which contributions are genuinely appreciated.
The Role of Communication in Hierarchical Disconnect
Communication is central to successful collaboration (Lewis, 2016; Sharma & Kearins, 2011). However, while there may be general agreement on the importance of frequent, timely, accurate, and problem-solving communication, as noted by Gittell (2006), the answer on what “good communication” really is may vary significantly among stakeholders. This perspective is often overlooked in functionalistic theoretical frameworks and their common applications, including many within the domain of RCT, which tend to focus on idealized models of communication, neglecting the variability and context-dependent nature of how communication practices are experienced. March and Simon (1993) argued that perception, a central part of the sensemaking process, is a function of formal positions, enacted roles, and the broader organizational setting. In the present study, findings reveal that experienced quality of communication practices varies according to individuals’ perceptions of their roles, needs, and responsibilities.
The language and wording used in communication is important, as it frames the message (Flusberg et al., 2024); for example concerning stakeholder roles in a collaboration. A critical finding for understanding the various experiences about the collaboration's communication practices is the terminology the participants use to describe Level 1 stakeholder. Participants belonging to Level 1 refer to themselves as “board members,” whereas the Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders mainly refer to them as “owners.” A cognitive perspective on the concept of framing (Sullivan, 2023) reveals how language creates structures of expectations (Tannen, 1993), where different terminologies lead to different interpretations of the top-level roles. For participants in this study, the label “board member” suggest an advisory and oversight-oriented role, associated with strategic guidance rather than day-to-day involvement. In contrast, the term “owner” links to a deeper level of engagement and responsibility, with an expectation of active participation in the organization's operations.
This linguistic distinction likely contributes to sensemaking processes (Weick, 1995, 2008) across all collaborative levels, shaping how different stakeholders perceive communication practices. For Level 1 stakeholders, identifying as “board members” aligns with their perception of a limited, strategic role, justifying their limited communication practices as appropriate for their self-defined position. This is evident in the sentiments of one Level 1 stakeholder—“When I don’t hear anything, I think it's really good …”—implying that a lack of communication from lower levels is interpreted as a sign of successful operation. Conversely, Level 2 manager and Level 3 team leaders’ use of the term “owners” reflects their expectation of more active top-level involvement. They perceive Level 1 stakeholders as having a vested organizational interest that should translate into greater engagement and more frequent communication. Consequently, the limited communication that signifies successful operation to Level 1 stakeholders is experienced by the manager and team leaders as a “sense of being disregarded,” which leads to frustration and a feeling of being “taken a bit for granted.” These findings indicate the presence of the hierarchical erosion effect (Gibson et al., 2019), where those at higher organizational levels tend to perceive organizational activities, including communication effectiveness, more favorably than those positioned lower in the hierarchy. This stark contrast reveals how the hierarchical position fundamentally alters the interpretation of communication, contributing significantly to the divergent experiences reported across organizational levels.
The differing perceptions and subsequent sensemaking processes highlight a tension in and between roles and expectations within the collaboration. The manager's experiences illustrate the practical implications of the hierarchical context and power dynamics on relational coordination within NGO settings. Her perception of communication with Level 1 stakeholders as unsatisfactory is compounded by their inertia in the system (Prins, 2010), where “it can take ages” before she gets a response. This does not merely present a delay; it signifies a power dynamic (Dewulf & Elbers, 2018) where the manager's operational needs are subordinated to the less engaged, strategic pace of the Level 1 stakeholders. The manager also faces challenges with some team leaders who fail to attend meetings or respond to requests for reports. This situation vividly portrays the manager's “squeezed position.” Caught between Level 1 stakeholders’ detachment and Level 3 team leaders’ operational independence, the manager experiences firsthand the collaboration's fragmented nature. Tasked with ensuring guidelines adherence and coordinating activities, her efforts are hindered by a lack of engagement from above and inconsistent communication from below. This dual pressure exemplifies how the manager's capacity to foster relational coordination across the collaboration is constrained, and how structural hierarchy translates into everyday challenges for those attempting to bridge organizational levels.
The team leaders’ limited communication practices may arise from their self-perception as independent actors, who are deeply engaged in their specific tasks and responsibilities, but not fully integrated into the broader NGO collaboration. The lack of proactive communication from the Level 1 stakeholders can inadvertently reinforce this sense of autonomy among Level 3 team leaders, further contributing to their sensemaking (Weick, 1995) about being independent actors. They may interpret the Level 1 stakeholders’ limited engagement and communication as a signal to prioritize immediate work over the collaboration's overarching goals.
It is important to recognize that collaborations are not static entities; rather they are negotiated relationships, shaped by ongoing communicative processes (Lawrence et al., 1999; Lewis, 2016; Phillips et al., 2000). The discrepancy between the terms used and associated expectations prompts the manager and team leaders to question and negotiate the meaning of ownership and leadership within the collaboration. This divergence also points toward a potential dysfunction in the collaborative dynamic, where communication practices may not be effectively serving the needs of all stakeholders. The Level 1 stakeholders, by virtue of their hierarchical position, may be shaping communication practices to suit their needs, and therefore potentially overlooking or dismissing the concerns of those lower in the hierarchy. This raises questions about whether the premise of collaboration as a negotiated relationship across all levels is truly upheld in this context. While all stakeholders possess some degree of power, the Level 1 stakeholders’ limited engagement, while a form of communication in itself, may undermine the collaborative spirit, signaling a lack of interest in fostering open dialogue and mutual understanding. The dynamic illustrates how, in multilevel collaborations like this NGO initiative, the hierarchical position of the Level 1 stakeholders, and the power embedded within it, can implicitly define acceptable communication norms. Consequently, the communication needs of those lower in hierarchy are marginalized, thereby impacting relational coordination. This phenomenon underscores that organizations are not neutral entities but are contexts of struggle where power imbalance shape communication and social reality (Jackson, 2001; Midgley, 1996). Therefore, theoretical frameworks, as well as their applications, should be cautioned against viewing communication merely as a neutral tool for information exchange, but also as a mechanism for asserting power, managing the agenda, and marginalizing differing opinions.
Implications for Research and Practice
This study explored how stakeholders experience the relational dynamics within an NGO interorganizational collaboration. The findings demonstrate that despite an overarching objective, the collaboration is profoundly affected by diverging underlying motivations and fragmented understandings of key concepts, such as social inclusion. This friction in the relational dynamics leads to both open and obscure disagreements over resource allocation and programmatic priorities. An erosion of respect was observed, where a perceived lack of engagement from the highest hierarchical levels led to the manager and team leaders feeling disregarded, questioning the value of their contributions, and experiencing diminished motivation. Furthermore, divergent sensemaking of roles and responsibilities resulted in very different experiences regarding the collaboration's communication practices, with what is perceived as adequate by Level 1 stakeholders being experienced as a lack of engagement by lower levels.
Theoretical Implications
By employing a critical perspective, this study challenges the functionalist assumptions often prevalent in collaboration research, including certain applications of RCT (Gittell, 2002). While RCT emphasizes shared goals, communication, and mutual respect, this study demonstrates how hierarchical structures and relational dynamics influence the enactment and interpretation of these elements within real-world collaboration. It moves beyond idealized models by illustrating that collaboration can be a negotiation between stakeholders with divergent interests, where those in positions of power can influence agenda-setting and outcomes. Specifically, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of goal alignment, emphasizing that perceived consensus can mask deeper divergences influenced by structural position and individual interests. Furthermore, the concept of “disregard through disrespect” is introduced to explain how perceived lack of engagement from higher hierarchical levels undermines mutual respect and influences stakeholder sensemaking. Finally, this study illuminates the intricate, “squeezed” position of the manager, demonstrating that managers are not monolithic power brokers but are also subjected to pressures and communication challenges across various hierarchical levels.
Practical Implications
The findings of this study offer several prescriptive suggestions for practitioners involved in managing or participating in interorganizational collaborations, particularly within the nonprofit sector.
Firstly, as demonstrated in this study, the perceived lack of engagement from higher hierarchical levels is interpreted as disregard. While specific tasks can be distributed across levels, the highest-level leaders cannot outsource their fundamental responsibility for cultivating mutual respect and engagement. Leaders should actively acknowledge contributions and ensure adequate support to all levels of the collaboration. This means more than just formal oversight; it requires genuine interaction and recognition of the value contributed by those on the front lines.
Secondly, “good communication” is not universally defined. Leaders should recognize that communication practices are perceived differently across hierarchical levels, influenced by roles, needs, and power dynamics. Implementing structured, multidirectional communication channels and regularly soliciting feedback on communication quality and effectiveness from all levels can help bridge these gaps.
Lastly, given the impact of hierarchical position on perception and sensemaking, leaders should cultivate reflexivity, critically examining how their own roles and perspectives might influence their understanding of collaboration dynamics. Understanding their “blind spots” can lead to a more empathetic appreciation of diverse perspectives and more humane leadership approaches.
Limitations and Future Research
Qualitative insights are context-bound (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As this study is based on a single qualitative case within a Nordic nonprofit context, the transferability to other organizational and cultural settings has limitations. Furthermore, the scope of this research was constrained by the relatively small number of available stakeholders for data collection; while this enabled in-depth exploration, it inherently limits the breadth of perspectives captured (Flyvbjerg, 2004). Scholars and practitioners should therefore consider how organizational structures, governance arrangements, and cultural contexts similar to those examined here may shape the relevance of the findings in other settings.
Future studies could deepen understanding in several ways. First, comparative case designs across nonprofit, public, and hybrid organizations could explore how different governance structures shape collaborative experiences, building on research highlighting the influence of pluralistic contexts and organizational forms (Denis et al., 2007; Ebrahim et al., 2014; Proulx et al., 2014). Second, longitudinal studies could trace how relational dynamics evolve as collaboration matures or face external pressures such as funding instability, aligning with calls for more time-sensitive approaches to studying collaboration (Martínez Orbegozo et al., 2022; Söderlund et al., 2017). Finally, scholars may investigate the micro-practices of sensemaking through ethnographic or diary methods to illuminate how frontline workers in NGOs interpret collaboration dynamics in real time, drawing on critical perspectives on sensemaking (Helms Mills et al., 2010).
Conclusion
This study shows that the relational dynamics underpinning collaboration take shape through ongoing interaction and interpretation across hierarchical levels. While Relational Coordination Theory (Gittell, 2002) highlights the importance of shared goals, communication, and mutual respect, this research empirically demonstrates how these relational dimensions are enacted unevenly, interpreted differently, and continually renegotiated in practice. This points to the importance of understanding shared goals, communication, and mutual respect as dynamically and relationally produced qualities, rather than as fixed features of collaboration.
At a broader level, this research calls for a more critical, multilevel view of collaboration, one that acknowledges power, positionality, and the lived experience of organizational members. Making these dynamics visible provides a foundation for more informed and reflective approaches to collaboration within organizational settings.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Mari Svendsen and Hans Erik Næss for their valuable feedback and comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Ethical Considerations
This study was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines and received approval from the Norwegian SIKT (Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research). All informants were thoroughly informed about the ethical aspects of the research both in writing and verbally. Informed consent was obtained verbally from all participants, ensuring their understanding and voluntary participation in the study. Participants also provided consent for the publication of the research findings.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data collected and analyzed during this study are not publicly available as sharing this data could compromise the informants’ confidentiality and privacy. Therefore, in accordance with ethical guidelines and legal requirements, the data will remain confidential and will not be deposited in a public repository.