Speed dating: an effective tool for initiating business community collaboration?
Cross-sector collaborations are increasingly important mechanisms to address complex
problems facing societies around the world (Selsky & Parker, 2005; Bryson, Crosby & Stone,
2006; Austin, 2000). By leveraging distinctive competencies, collaborations such as those
involving business and non-profits, have the potential to achieve corporate social
responsibility (CSR) goals and deliver important social and environmental outcomes
(Rondinelli & London, 2003; Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a). To date much of the literature
examining cross-sector collaboration in the context of business and non-profits has focused
on organisational drivers and the strategic purpose of these relationships (Loza, 2004; Nelson
& Zadek, 2000); the dynamics of implementing business non-profit collaborations (Seitanidi
& Crane, 2008) and more recently, studies have investigated collaborative value accruing at
the level of partner organisations, individuals within those organisations and broader societal
benefits (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012b). While research emphasises the importance of business
non-profit collaboration and highlights some factors influencing the success of such
engagement, we know much less about the nascent stage of collaboration, how these
relationships might form and what mechanisms might help to engender business non-profit
collaboration. As all relationships must begin somewhere examining how effective
engagement might be fostered in the embryonic stage of collaboration is a highly relevant
topic to understanding CSR implementation through business non-profit collaboration.
A number of researchers examining the dynamics of collaboration have developed models
based on chronological stages, identifying critical phases such as collaboration formation,
design, implementation and review (Selsky & Parker, 2006). While there is variation in
nomenclature used and factors assessed within each stage (Selsky & Parker, 2006), all
business non-profit collaborations, from formal arrangements (Waddock, 1989; Austin, 2000)
through to informal loose collaborations (Berger, Cunningham & Drumwright, 2004), have a
genesis somewhere. Identifying potential collaborators, understanding partner interests and
assessing the potential for engagement are all key elements in the initial stages of business
non-profit collaboration (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012b). Much of the CSR literature advocates
the need for firms to adopt a more strategic approach to social initiatives, emphasising the
importance of organisational alignment or ‘fit’ and the ability to deliver mutual benefits
(Porter & Kramer, 2011). The degree of ‘fit’ between respective organisation motivations and
interests, resources and strategic direction in partner selection is thought to have a major
influence on the ability of such collaborations to realise benefits for partner organisations and
broader society (Berger et al, 2004). Indeed, Austin and Seitanidi (2012b) argue that to a
large extent the value creation potential of an effective collaboration depends on selecting the
most appropriate partner, claiming that “good fit enables the generation of synergistic value
and the better the fit, the greater the value creation” (p.741). Similarly, Bryson et al (2006)
argue that cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed when existing networks or
relationships are in place when collaborations are first initiated, as prior relationships are
thought to be important in judging the trustworthiness and legitimacy of potential partners.
However, the context of business non-profit partnerships provides challenges as it is likely
that pre-existing ties will be weaker given diverse interests, ideological distinctions and
limited opportunities to gather information or interact with potential partners (Googins &
Rochlin, 2000; Austin, 2000). As Austin (2000) acknowledges “there is no collaboration
clearing house for matching interested parties” (p.88), making it challenging for business and
non-profits to form ties and initiate relationships. This makes the question of how business
and non-profits pursue opportunities to interact with potential partners highly relevant to
those interested in such collaborations.
1
The literature on networking and the role of social mixing events in particular, sheds some
light on critical factors that influence the likelihood of encounter and engagement between
parties who do not know each other. This is highly relevant to the context of business nonprofit collaboration where there is often a lack of pre-existing ties. Research on networking
and the role of social networking events indicates that pre-existing ties are important in
initiating relationships and connections (Ingram & Morris, 2007). This is apparent in the
context of informal, minimally structured social events where the purpose is often to meet
people who are new and different from themselves. Ingram and Morris’ (2007) study of
patterns of socialising dynamics at a social mixer concluded that in this context encounters
and engagement at an individual level depended on pre-existing ties. Results from this study
demonstrate the inherent difficulties of establishing new relationships between strangers
suggesting that informal social mixer events are more likely to reinforce existing network ties
rather than create new ties (Ingram & Morris 2007). This is supported by network theory that
indicates past interactions are important as a source of information and trust in a potential
new partner, so that new ties are added by using existing ties (Ingram & Roberts, 2000).
Despite the limitations of social mixers to create new social ties, Ingram and Morris (2007)
also found that unstructured networking events can promote meetings between dissimilar
people, concluding that “mixers may present an important opportunity to facilitate meetings
between people whose differences make it unlikely that they will meet in everyday life”
(p.584). They also concluded that more structured networking events such as speed dating
events that deliberately force encounters between strangers, could be important ways to
encourage people to make new connections.
Dahlander and McFarland’s (2013) study of intraorganisational task relationships provides
further insights into factors influencing both tie formation and tie persistence. By examining
research collaborations within universities Dahlander and McFarland (2013) found that tie
formation and tie persistence originate from different factors. More specifically tie
persistence is strengthened when people who are already familiar with each other reflect on
the value of their relationships and history of shared experiences. In contrast, as tie formation
occurs in an uncertain context it depends on potential partners making quick assessments to
identify desirable and matching traits, such as a shared organisational focus and similar
knowledge and status. Therefore, according to Dahlander and McFarland (2013) when
forging new ties short-term events such as social mixers and speed dates, can be suitable
forums to initiate acquaintances through allowing potential partners to assess a broad range of
unfamiliar potential partners.
Another key factor supporting the formation of cross-sector collaboration is the involvement
of third parties acting as brokers to bring collaborators together (Gray, 1989; Wood and Gray,
1991; Bryson et al., 2006; Stadtler & Probst, 2012). For example, Googins and Rochlin
(2000) suggest that brokers can assist with forming collaborations, often acting as boundary
spanners who leverage the networks and relationships of one partner organisation to share
knowledge assets with the other partner organisation. Brokers play a critical role as
“intermediary actors facilitating transactions between other actors lacking access to or trust in
one another” (Marsden, 1982, p.202). As convenors of potential cross-sector partnerships,
brokers can help identify and bring together potential stakeholders during the early ‘problem
setting’ phases of collaboration work (Gray, 1989). Stadtler and Probst’s (2012) study of
brokers in the context of public-private partnerships for development highlights their role not
only as convenors but also mediators, assisting ongoing relationship building and learning
catalysts, facilitating learning amongst partner organisations.
2
The study of collaborative relations between business and non-profits has received
considerable attention from management theorists. Nevertheless, calls have been made for
more research on micro processes and interactions within cross-sector collaboration (Godfrey
& Hatch, 2007; Clarke & Fuller, 2010). We need to know more about what works to initiate
new business non-profit connections between people who have never met and to understand
the expectations and preferences of the parties involved. Mature business non-profit
collaborations must start somewhere so it is important to understand how these relationships
can form. We also need to understand the role third party brokers play in helping to engender
business non-profit engagement in the pre-collaboration stage. This paper seeks to explore
these issues in the context of initiating employee volunteering collaborations, as such
initiatives are increasingly a core feature of CSR strategy and emblematic of business nonprofit engagement (Grant, 2012). Our research uses a speed dating event organised by a third
party broker to investigate initial encounters involving business and community group
representatives and examine the experience of forging a ‘sense of connection’ (or not) in the
early stage of engagement. This research seeks to answer two questions: What were
participants’ expectations and objectives for attending the event? In what ways is the speeddating format effective as a means of initiating employee volunteering collaborations?
Method
This study used a speed-dating event to examine how employee volunteering collaborations
might be initiated and factors that can influence the likelihood of initial engagement between
business and community groups. The speed-dating event was organised by a third party
broker to introduce businesses with an interest in employee volunteering to community
groups with a need for volunteers and was attended by 35 business and community group
representatives. The format of the event mirrored the round-robin format of romantic speeddating events. The two groups sat in concentric circles with community groups staying at
their initial stations and the businesses moving from one station to the next. Speed-dates
lasted for five minutes and the event was facilitated. At the end of each speed-date, attendees
indicated their interest in the other party on a form provided for that purpose. After the event,
the broker organisation collated the forms, determined which parties had indicated a mutual
interest, and contacted the attendees to advise them of the connections they had made. Prior
to the speed-dating, attendees had opportunities for informal networking over a light lunch.
This event was an ideal format to study how employee volunteering collaborations might be
initiated. In comparison with an informal networking event this speed-dating event was
deliberately set up to allow short encounters between people who were essentially strangers.
By giving participants a lack of choice about who to interact with and prescribing topics for
discussion this brokered networking event to some degree removed participants from the
constraints of pre-existing social ties and facilitated the opportunity to make new
connections. While networking events such as speed dating may appear to be insignificant,
Ingram and Morris (2007) contend that these structured events are important forums for
initiating acquaintances and can be seen as “paths to more substantial goals” (p.559).
Data collection
The research entailed 17 semi-structured interviews with a sample of 13 business and
community group attendees and four staff from the broker organisation that hosted the event.
A review of documentation relating to the speed-dating event and analysis of the
questionnaires completed by attendees on the day supplemented the interviews.
The
employee volunteering experience of the business interviewees ranged from those who had
minimal previous experience to those who worked in businesses with fully embedded
3
employee volunteering programmes. All of the community groups had a significant reliance
on volunteer resources, but several had not previously worked with employee volunteers.
The interview format was semi-structured and each interview lasted 30 to 40 minutes.
Questions asked were framed around the participants’ motivations, perceptions, and
evaluation of the speed-dating event including:



why did you decide to attend this event?
what were your expectations of the event?
how effective did you find the speed dating format?
The interviews were transcribed and coded according to key themes emerging from the
discussion. In addition, questions in the questionnaire were coded under major headings
relating to the central research questions.
Results and Discussion
We observed that the three participant groups (business, community groups and the broker)
had multiple objectives in attending the speed-dating event and that these expectations were
not well aligned. For a number of community group respondents the primary objective was
to start a relationship with a view to initiating employee volunteering projects. Community
groups were often project-focused and wanting to solicit a commitment from business. In
contrast, business respondents were much more tentative, viewing the speed-dating event as a
low risk ‘toe-dipping’ exercise to see which community groups were available. While they
hoped that the event would provide opportunities for them to become better informed about
the local community sector and volunteering in general, business respondents were generally
unwilling to commit to specific volunteering opportunities with particular community groups.
The broker hoped the event would act as a catalyst to bring business and community groups
together, enabling the parties to find a ‘good match’ and undertake new volunteering projects
together in the future. Furthermore, the event was seen as an opportunity for the broker to
both build new ties with business and community groups and strengthen existing ties.
Consistent with themes within the cross-sector collaboration stressing the importance of ‘fit’
and alignment between potential collaborators (Bryson et al 2006; Austin & Seitanidi, 2012b)
it would seem that a multiplicity of expectations and misalignment of objectives as evidenced
in this study, can make it challenging to initiate new business community collaborations.
Elements of complementarity may enable value creation however some degree of similarity is
needed to enable collaborators to successfully work together (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012b).
While this event did not meet the host organisation’s key objective of initiating new
volunteering projects, the speed-dating event was highly salient as a networking opportunity
for participants. Our respondents commented that they found the speed-dating was a fun and
worthwhile event. Furthermore, comments indicated that a key aspect was the limited time
investment required and the relatively low risk approach. Respondents also commented that
the structured nature of the event was an efficient mechanism to meet a wide variety of
business and community organisations within a short time-frame, thus providing a less
intimidating setting than more informal networking events where attendees are expected to
mix and introduce themselves to others they don’t know. Findings of this research are
consistent with other research suggesting that speed-dating events that are deliberately
structured to force meetings between strangers can be novel and engaging mechanisms to
encourage new tie formation and potentially stimulate relationship initiation (Ingram &
Morris, 2007; Muurlink & Poyatos, 2011; Dahlander & McFarland, 2013).
4
As collaboration theorists have speculated brokers can play a key in bringing different parties
together (Berger et al, 2006; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012b). In this study we found that the
broker could have played a more proactive role to engender business non-profit connections
in three key areas. Firstly, some pre-event screening and matching of businesses and
community groups by the broker would have been desirable. Todd, Penke, Fasolo and Alison
(2007) in the context of romantic attraction describe speed-dating as the “initial screening
stage” of the relationship initiation process. It is at this stage that unsuitable choices are
eliminated, leaving those that have some potential. Todd et al (2007) argue this is crucial
because “it determines which pairings have any chance at all of resulting in
committed…relationships” (p.15012). Pre-screening may have been a more efficient
mechanism to ensure that objectives of those attending were aligned, as well as maximising
opportunities for an appropriate fit between potential collaborators. Secondly, appropriate
preparation and presentation during the event were highlighted as important factors. First
impressions count in a speed-dating context with comments from respondents indicating that
the event attendees noticed when others had prepared well (or not). While the broker
provided some preparatory information to attendees it seems that attendees wanted to know
more about their potential speed-dates. However, it is difficult to know if attendees would
have made the time to review background material, given that one of the appealing features
was the low investment of time required. Thirdly, follow-up after the event is crucial.
Generally participants felt there was a lack of clarity around post-event follow-up and they
had missed opportunities to form connections. There were expectations the broker would
initiate the contact between two interested parties and were disappointed when this did not
happen. As Muthuri, Matten and Moon (2009) argue “Employee volunteering relations can
die if they are not maintained” (p.85). Brokers can play an important role not only initiating
business community links but also helping cement connections by ensuring that the parties
involved continue to communicate. Improving this aspect of the event would not only better
meet the expectations of attendees, but may also improve the likelihood of connections being
made.
References
Austin, J.E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 29 (1), 69-97.
Austin, J.E. (2011). From organization to organization: On creating value. Journal of Business Ethics, 94,
(Supp.1), 13-15.
Austin, J.E. & Seitanidi, M. (2012a). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits
and businesses: Part 1. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 41 (5), 726-758.
Austin, J.E. & Seitanidi, M. (2012b). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits
and businesses: Part 2. Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
41 (6), 929-968.
Basil, D. Z., Runte, M.S., Easwaramoorthy, M. & Barr, C. (2009). Company support for employee volunteering:
A national survey of companies in Canada”, Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 387-398.
Berger, I.E., Cunningham, P.H. & Drumwright, M.E. (2004). Social alliances: Company/non-profit
collaboration”, California Management Review, 47 (1), 58-90.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. & Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations:
Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66 (Suppl.1), 44-55.
5
Clarke, A., & Fuller, M. (2010). Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and implementation
by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (Suppl.1), 85101.
Dahlander, L. & McFarland, D. (2013). Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations
over time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 69-110.
Godfrey, P. & Hatch, N. (2007). Researching corporate social responsibility: A research agenda for the 21 st
century. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 87-98.
Googlins, B. & Rochlin, W. (2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of
cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105 (1), 127-144.
Grant, A. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate
volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37 (4), 589-615.
Gray, B. (1989), Collaboration, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.
Ingram, P. & Roberts, P. (2000). Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. American
Journal of Sociology, 106, 387-423.
Ingram, P. & Morris, M. (2007). Do people lix at mixers? Structure, homophily and the “Life of the party”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 558-585.
Loza, J. (2004). Business-community partnerships: The case for community organization capacity building.
Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (3), 297-311.
Marsden, P. (1982). Brokerage behaviour in restricted exchange networks”, in P. Marshall & N. Lin (Eds.),
Social structure and network analysis (pp.202-218), Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Muurlink, O. & Poyatos, M. (2011). From romance to rocket science: speed dating in higher education. Higher
Education Research & Development, 30 (6), 751-764.
Muthuri, J., Matten, D. & Moon, J. (2009). Employee volunteering and social capital: Contributions to corporate
social responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20 (1), 75-89.
Nelson, J. & Zadek, S. (2000). Partnership alchemy new social partnerships in Europe. The Copenhagen
Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2011). Shared value: How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash
a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1-2), 62-77.
Rondinelli, D.A. & London, T. (2003). How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing
cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17 (1), 61-76.
Seitanidi, M. & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design
and institutionalisation of non-profit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 413-429.
Selsky, J.W. & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and
practice. Journal of Management, 31 (6), 1-25.
Stadtler, L. & Probst, G. (2012). How broker organizations can facilitate public-private partnerships for
development. European Management Journal, 30 (1), 32-46.
Todd, P., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Alison, P. (2007) Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices
and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (38), 15011-15016.
Waddock, S. (1989). Understanding social partnerships: An evolutionary model of partnership organizations.
Administration & Society, 21 (1), 78-100.
Wood, D. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 27 (2), 139-162.
6