Strategic Leadership in Networks:

The Effect of External Factors on Advocacy Efforts

Michael McGuire

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Indiana University-Bloomington

Rachel Krefetz Fyall

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Indiana University-Bloomington

Paper presented at the Public Management Research Conference, Syracuse, NY, June 1-4, 2011

1

Strategic Leadership in Networks: The Effect of External Factors on Advocacy Efforts

Michael McGuire, Indiana University-Bloomington

Rachel Krefetz Fyall, Indiana University-Bloomington

Introduction

Contemporary research is replete with evidence that management of networks matters. New

conceptualizations of network management have emerged (Agranoff and McGuire 2001;

McGuire 2002; Milward and Provan 2006; Rethemeyer and Hatmaker 2008) and studies have

confirmed the importance of networking for the effectiveness of public policy (Meier and

O‟Toole 2003; McGuire and Silvia 2009). In this age of collaboration, scholars are unlocking

that which has heretofore been unexamined: how to improve the operation of a network.

Although a growing body of literature frequently mentions the need for and the rise of this new

type of public management, very little empirical research has been conducted in the public sector

to “measure and identify the behaviors associated with an emergent network leadership

perspective” (McGuire and Silvia 2009, 35, emphasis added). Indeed, this increasingly

voluminous collaboration and network literature speaks only occasionally to leadership (Crosby

and Bryson 2010). Furthermore, while networks are known to include private actors, little

research has been conducted that focuses on the behaviors and actions of these private actors as

they operate within the context of a dynamic, networked, public policy process.

This paper addresses these shortcomings in the literature by empirically examining a

specific type of leadership behavior exhibited by managers of nonprofit organizations in their

networks, that of advocacy. While myriad theories and empirical studies address the motivations,

behaviors, and effectiveness of public sector legislative, executive (Doig and Hargrove 1987;

O‟Leary 1994; Schneider and Jacoby 1996), and judicial (Kobylka 1989; Rosenberg 1991)

2

leaders in seeking to influence policy outcomes, a realistic understanding of a networked policy

process must account for the influence of other types of individual actors. Also, in spite of the

widespread acknowledgement of the importance of interest groups and citizens in shaping policy

outcomes (Baumgartner et al. 2009; Burstein 2003; Hayes 1981; Stimson et al. 1995; Wilson

1973), few scholars have focused on the corresponding roles played by individual leaders.

Furthermore, empirical research within the interest group literature emphasizes full-time

lobbyists and federal-level policy rather than local advocacy efforts of leaders of nonprofit

organizations (Andrews and Edwards 2004). Therefore, a variety of scholarly traditions offer

insight into this issue, but no existing theory adequately addresses the various dimensions and

dynamics of local advocacy undertaken by nonprofit leaders within the context of their policy

networks. Studies on leadership that stress the importance of a leader‟s ability to influence

external stakeholders promote this concept as a means to preserve an organization‟s stability,

survival, and legitimacy, rather than as a way to influence policy. In contrast, this study identifies

and explains patterns of strategic behavior that connect the individual leadership actions of non-

governmental agencies to policy outcomes. Thus, this research evaluates the influence of

nonprofit leaders in a networked policy process.

Three terms must be clarified. First, a “policy network” perspective finds its source in

many different theoretical lenses and has been defined as “(more or less) stable patterns of social

relations between interdependent actors, which take shape around policy problems and/or policy

programs” (Kickert et al. 1997, 6). More specifically, Rethemeyer and Hatmaker (2008) use the

term policy network to “denote a set of public agencies, legislative offices, and private sector

organizations (including interests groups, corporations, nonprofits, etc.) that have an interest in

public decisions within a particular area of policy…because they are interdependent and thus

3

have a shared fate” (619). While moving perilously close to a network-level politics-

administration dichotomy by distinguishing policy networks from collaborative/service

provision, the conceptual distinction is relevant in this case as advocacy typically exists during

policy formulation and planning.

Second, over the past decade, treatments of leadership within public and nonprofit

management have progressed into a strong body of research on innovative and effective leaders

(Herman 2005; Perry 2010; Van Wart 2011). However, there has long been scholarly debate

regarding the difference between leadership and management (McGuire and Silvia 2009). Many

recent scholars argue that the constructs of management and leadership overlap (Fernandez,

2008; Nahavandi, 2009; Northouse, 2007) to such an extent that the terms can be used

interchangeably (Van Wart, 2005; Yukl, 2002). Many have also contended that any

operationalized definition of leadership should be based on the purpose of the research and the

research questions being asked (Bass 2008; Yukl, 2002). We adopt this approach because it

allows us to define advocacy leadership behavior based on the context of the study.

If management and leadership are to be used interchangeably, we can receive guidance

from the network management literature for the purposes of establishing just who the “network

leader” is. Milward and Provan summarize different views of management by building a

framework whereby there may be a designated, legitimate steerer of the network, but there are

also managers in the network (Milward and Provan, 2006). This distinction is consistent with

that put forth by 6 et al. (2006), who distinguish between governance of a network, which is

designed to exercise control, regulation, inducement, incentive or persuasive influence over the

whole network, and management within a network, which are activities carried out by

individuals who are themselves actors in the network (5). First, managers of networks are

4

concerned with the whole network. These are “typically individuals who are charged with the

task of coordinating overall network activities and, in general, ensuring that network-level goals

are set, addressed, and attained” (Milward and Provan 2006, 18). The goals, objectives, and

success are secondary to the network as a whole. Managers in networks primarily represent their

organization within the network. “They are managers whose primary loyalty is to their

organization, but who must work within a network context, addressing both organization- and

network-level goals and objectives. These managers have split missions and, sometimes, split

loyalties” (18). We are concerned with managers in the network.

Finally, advocacy can be considered an important leadership activity in networks. For

example, recent studies of network leadership in the public sector assert that mobilizing both

internal and external support is an important determinant of network performance (Silvia and

McGuire 2010). Similarly, Rethemeyer and Hatmaker (2008, 42) refer to “mobilizing mass

constituencies from within the manager‟s „home‟ network system and from those of adjacent

systems” as an important add-on to previous conceptualizations of network management

(Agranoff and McGuire 2001; McGuire 2002). In spite of the fact that few researchers have

explored the advocacy role for nonprofit leaders, nonprofit experts agree that advocacy is an

essential function of the nonprofit sector (Nonprofit Sector Strategy Group 2000). As early as the

1970s, David Horton Smith included the “systemic corrective role” of nonprofits—referring to

the negative feedback they provide to government and business institutions, explicitly

mentioning advocacy—as one of the ten major impacts the nonprofit sector has on society (2001,

84). Within today‟s political environment, nonprofit organizations such as membership

associations, unions, political organizations, and others form the primary structures for citizen

involvement in the public policy process (Reid 2006). In addition, recent scholars have focused

5

their attention on the roles played by “traditional” nonprofit organizations in shaping public

policy1 (Kreheley 2001; Child and Grønbjerg 2007; Schmid et al. 2008). Even given this

recognition that nonprofits of all types, sizes, and missions can (and often do) advocate, the

research on nonprofit advocacy concentrates almost exclusively on advocacy at the federal level

(Foley and Edwards 2002). Even when widening the lens to consider advocacy more broadly,

this bias towards research on national organizations and federal-level policy permeates the

scholarly literature (Andrews and Edwards 2004). Advocacy through regional and local networks

by nonprofit leaders certainly exists.

In light of the gaps apparent in the network literature, this paper seeks to accomplish

three goals. First, in reviewing the existing conceptualizations of individual action in the policy

process, we attempt to provide some scholarly context for empirical research. Second, by sharing

the findings from in-depth interviews with nonprofit leaders who are highly engaged with the

policy process in affordable housing, we hope to illustrate various dynamics surrounding the

strategies and behaviors of nonprofit leaders who do advocate for policy change. Finally, we use

these findings to offer some propositions on the effectiveness of particular network leadership

strategies and behaviors in influencing the policy process.

Research Questions

The following over-arching research question motivates our inquiry: How do behaviors and

actions of nonprofit leaders influence policy action within networks? Within this large question,

the following subset of questions guides the research:

1 Berry (2001) contrasts “traditional” nonprofit organizations with citizen advocacy groups as well as nonprofit

organizations without the 501(c)(3) tax designation. We will follow Berry‟s lead in referring to “traditional”

nonprofits as those 501(c)(3) organizations most commonly considered the heart of the nonprofit sector, including

social service providers, youth organizations, sports clubs, and community groups.

6

1. How do nonprofit leaders decide which actions and strategies they will use when

advocating for a particular policy outcome?

2. Which behaviors and actions do nonprofit leaders consider most effective when

advocating for a particular policy outcome? Which do they consider least effective?

3. Are there behaviors and actions of nonprofit leaders that are detrimental to an advocacy

effort for a particular policy outcome?

4. When advocating for a particular policy outcome, how and to what extent do nonprofit

leaders change their behaviors and actions in response to changes in the external

environment, such as changes in political party control or the economic prosperity of the

region?

Literature Review

The Nonprofit-Government Relationship

Dennis Young used economic theory to characterize three different manifestations of the

relationship between government and the nonprofit sector: supplementary, complementary, and

adversarial (2000). From a supplementary perspective, nonprofit organizations intervene in

public service provision where government services fall short. The complementary view conjures

images of the “hollow state” (Milward and Provan 2000), where public service dollars fund

nonprofit service delivery primarily through contracts. Finally, the adversarial characterization

considers the role for nonprofit organizations as advocates in the public policy process2. While

2 Depending on their particular tax designation, nonprofit organizations may or may not be able to engage in

lobbying. Advocacy refers to the entire spectrum of policy-related activities, such as general public education about

an issue area. In contrast, lobbying refers to attempts to influence specific legislation or referenda. Nonprofit

organizations with the 501(c)(3) tax designation are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns, but they

may lobby, as long as they remain under certain financial limits. For more information on nonprofit advocacy and

lobbying, see the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest‟s website (www.cpli.org).

7

many scholars have studied nonprofit-government relations using the supplementary and

complementary perspectives, relatively few have considered the adversarial role.

To the extent that scholars have studied nonprofit advocacy among traditional nonprofits,

most research has focused on either measuring the quantity of nonprofit activity or finding its

determinants. Multiple studies have shown that fewer than 3% of nonprofit organizations

participate in lobbying (Boris and Krehely 2002, Suárez and Hwang 2008). In terms of

determinants, scholars have found both a negative relationship between nonprofits receiving

funding from local authorities and engaging in political activity (Schmid et al. 2008) and a

positive one (Chaves et al. 2004).

The weakness of Young‟s government-nonprofit paradigm and the other treatments of

nonprofit advocacy are their failure to provide insight into the role that individuals play in

carrying out the adversarial position. Within the leadership literature, some scholars have

stressed the importance of a leader‟s ability to influence external stakeholders (Harrison and St.

John 1996, Bryson et al. 2001), but this concept is often promoted in order to preserve an

organization‟s financial stability and legitimacy. Nanus and Dobbs (1999) dedicate a chapter to

the benefits of “Leader as Politician,” offering suggestions on how and why to build a political

base, but they rely on a handful of anecdotes to provide support for the advised behaviors.

Hence, turning to the role of individuals in research on policy change may provide further insight

into this issue.

Leaders of Policy Change

Stemming from the political science literature on theories of policy change, two

narratives emerge for the possible role of nonprofit advocates in the policy process:

8

representatives of organized interest groups and policy entrepreneurs. While nonprofit advocacy

is under-researched, political scientists have a long-standing tradition considering the role of

organized interest groups in influencing the policy process (Evans 1996, Yackee 2005,

Baumgartner et. al 2009). Within this literature, lobbyists are often treated as perfect

representatives of the organization‟s preferences (Baumgartner et al. 2009). Wilson (1973)

distinguishes between the individual and his or her organization, insisting, “the behavior of

persons who lead or speak for an organization can best be understood in terms of their efforts to

maintain and enhance the organization and their position in it” (9). In this way, he provides room

for deviation of the attitudes and behaviors of an interest group leader from the ideology and

preferences of the group at large. With this in mind, a research approach treating lobbyists and

other organizational leaders as distinct from their organizations may help illuminate the role of

the nonprofit leader in interest groups politics.

Although this avenue seems promising, transposing the idea of nonprofit leader onto the

role of lobbyist omits critical dimensions of the former. Unlike the nonprofit leaders considered

in this study, lobbyists are rarely the administrative heads of their organizations. In fact, the

nonprofit organizations most committed to advocacy are likely to hire their own lobbyists as a

means of pursuing their policy goals. Theory explaining or predicting the advocacy behaviors

and strategies of nonprofit leaders must consider their advocacy activities alongside their other

organizational and networking responsibilities. Accordingly, being an influential nonprofit leader

in the policy process likely requires somewhat different skills than those of an effective lobbyist.

The concept of policy entrepreneurship is the second narrative that may be useful in

understanding the influence of nonprofit leaders in the policy process. According to Mintrom and

Norman, “Policy entrepreneurs can be identified by their efforts to promote significant policy

9

change” (2009, 651), although their conceptualization of the policy entrepreneur is only one

among many. In his “Exchange Theory of Interest Groups,” Salisbury argues for understanding

interest groups “as exchange relationships between entrepreneurs/organizers, who invest capital

in a set of benefits, which they offer to prospective members at a price—membership” (1969, 2).

Thus, the policy entrepreneur is often assumed to be the leader of a group with a well-defined

membership (Moe 1980). Kingdon upends this claim, asserting instead that policy entrepreneurs

are not limited to a particular place within the policy community, but are accurately defined by

“their willingness to invest their resources—time, energy, reputation, and sometimes money—in

the hope of a future return” (2003, 122). While these concepts emphasize different behaviors,

motivations, or attributes of policy entrepreneurs, they all support the broad concept of policy

entrepreneur as leader in the policy process.

Although the nonprofit leaders considered here may be policy entrepreneurs, the

entrepreneurial concept clearly emphasizes a leader of “dynamic” policy change. Thus, policy

entrepreneurs can be identified only subsequent to their substantial influence on public policy.

While the nonprofit leaders attempting to influence policy would like stake this claim, it is

unrealistic to label all of these advocates as policy entrepreneurs. Conversely, the title of policy

entrepreneur belongs only to the most outstanding among nonprofit advocates. Once again,

existing theory falls short in providing an appropriate framework for understanding the nonprofit

leader as policy advocate.

Context

The purpose of this study is to understand, from the perspective of leaders of networked

nonprofit organizations, how leadership behaviors and actions influence the outcomes of policy

10

initiatives related to their organizations‟ missions. While this research is intended to inform

nonprofit leadership within networks in general, we have pursued the research questions within

the context of those organizations focused on providing or increasing affordable housing, which

exists within a highly networked context. Nonprofit organizations operating within the affordable

housing arena provide a particularly rich setting for this study: While Community Action

Agencies and Community Development Corporations have evolved significantly from their

Vietnam Era roots (Perry 1971, Keating et al. 1991), many of the latter organizations are now

active members of their region‟s affordable housing community (Silverman 2008). With this

long history of political action, nonprofit agencies involved in affordable housing have sustained

a high level of involvement in the policy arena and thus can offer insights for organizations in

less-engaged issue areas.

In addition, affordable housing development is an extremely complex process, nearly

always involving the collaboration of numerous stakeholders including planning commissions,

private contractors, neighborhood groups, utility companies, social service providers, private

donors, and local, state, and federal funding agencies. Because the networked environment is

necessary for service provision, nonprofit leaders in the affordable housing community are ideal

informants for understanding advocacy leadership by private actors within a network.

The policy initiatives considered here are policy goals expressly stated by the

organization or the organization‟s nonprofit community. As described in the research design, the

nonprofit agencies participating in this research either have advocacy as an explicit objective or

are members of such an advocacy organization. Therefore, the policy initiatives are those

previously identified by the advocacy organizations (and supported by their member

organizations) in legislative agendas, strategic plans, or other formal documents. Most

11

commonly, these policy initiatives relate to the formulation, passage, or blocking of specific state

or local legislation. Policy initiatives relevant to this study are those which address subsidized

housing structures (development, availability, preservation) or affordable housing residents

(tenant rights, eligibility requirements, concurrent services) in general. Policy initiatives

expressly concerning particular nonprofit organizations have not been considered.

“Affordable housing” is an ambiguous term because of its various definitions, depending

on the source. According to the glossary from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), housing is generally considered “affordable” if it costs the resident(s) no

more than 30 percent of his or her income, including utilities (Glossary of HUD Terms). Most

nonprofit agencies with missions concerning affordable or low-income housing adhere to this

guideline, as it is often necessary for receiving any level of government funds. Practically

speaking, nonprofit organizations focused on affordable housing often serve special

populations—such as the elderly, disabled individuals, veterans, domestic abuse victims, or the

chronically homeless—who are unable to find affordable housing through the common market.

Within this study, “affordable housing” and “low-income housing” are used interchangeably,

since nearly all affordable housing providers serve low-income residents and the terms are

indistinguishable in practice.

Methodology

Grounded Theory Approach

We employ a qualitative research design based in grounded theory. Such research is intended to

generate rather than validate any prior theory. Thus, in contrast to the traditional deductive

approach to forming theory, a grounded theory approach uses data to derive the theory. First

12

explained in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967), grounded theory is

an inductive approach where the researcher “discovers concepts and hypotheses through constant

comparative analysis” (Glesne 2006, 27). Rather than forcing the data to fit into preconceived

theoretical frameworks, grounded theorists form their ideas about relationships among concepts

from the data itself. This tends to make the grounded theory approach more appropriate for

research involving qualitative rather than quantitative data.

Grounded theory is far from being non-systematic. Avoiding a pre-structured design in

research often results in only thick description of raw data as opposed to analysis. Indeed, some

grounded theory applications allow for a frame of reference or a theoretical lens through which

to analyze the data. For example, Miles and Huberman (1994) recommend designs that pay prior

attention to a conceptual framework, as well as research questions, sampling, and

instrumentation that have a “focusing and bounding” role (34). Basically, for this research, it is a

way to look at advocacy empirically from the perspective of those immersed in the arena. The

approach taken in this study thus puts the qualitative researcher somewhere between designs

based on deductive quantitative testing of explicit theoretical propositions and descriptive and

causal inference, and thick analysis of nominal data (Agranoff 2007).

Research Design

This study is appropriate for qualitative research because the subject it explores is both

subtle and complex. Policy-making is a multifaceted process highly influenced by factors such as

political party control, the state of the economy, and the individual agendas of elected officials.

The only hope for understanding the influence (or ineffectiveness) of networked nonprofit

leadership within this dynamic environment is to learn from those who have experienced it

13

firsthand. Accordingly, structured interviews comprised the primary form of data for this study.

Information gathered from organizational websites and 990 tax forms (as accessed through

www.guidestar.org) constitute a limited amount of supplemental data.

The interviewees were selected from the community of nonprofit leaders of affordable

housing organizations in West Coast states (Washington, Oregon, and California). Specifically,

interviews were conducted with staff members from state- and local-level affordable housing

advocacy organizations associated with the PCAHN network. PCAHN (the Pacific Coast

Affordable Housing Network) is an informal network of nonprofit organizations that serve as

trade associations and/or advocacy organizers for their local affordable housing communities.

Each PCAHN organization is a federation (Selsky defines this as an association “in which the

affiliates are organizations rather than individuals” (1998, 286)) comprised of nonprofit

affordable housing providers and other affordable housing support organizations in their local

communities. In terms of their public policy involvement, some PCAHN members focus on city-

and county-level policy while others focus on state-level policy. Some examples of PCAHN

members are the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing, the Oregon Opportunity

Network, and the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County.

The interviewees are individuals who have served in formal leadership positions (current

or past) and have experienced a high level of engagement with policy issues. In addition,

interviewees have been selected from among those who are willing to reflect on their advocacy

failures in addition to their successes, as honest self-reflection was crucial for obtaining

meaningful data. The interviews were conducted by telephone, ranging from thirty to fifty-five

minutes with the average time of forty minutes.

14

Description of Participants

The data for this study have come from interviews with twenty-one professionals from

nonprofit organizations involved with the field of affordable housing. The interviewees used in

this part of the work in progress all live and work in the West Coast of the United States, with

eight based in California, five in Oregon, and eight in Washington State. Thirteen of the

interviewees are or were recently leaders of affordable housing coalition organizations, in which

advocacy is a core function. Another six interviewees serve as leaders of nonprofit organizations

that develop and/or provide affordable housing services to low-income residents; these

organizations are all members of one or more coalition groups. Of the remaining two

interviewees, one is a leader in an affiliated coalition (not focused strictly on housing), and the

other is from a funding organization that supports affordable housing advocacy efforts. Of the

twenty-one leaders interviewed, five primarily focus their efforts (both advocacy and services)

statewide, five have a regional focus, eight focus within their specific county, and two generally

limit themselves to work within their city. On average, the interviewees had served in their

positions for six years. Ten of the participants were male.

The organizations represented constitute a particular sub-sample of nonprofits that are

highly engaged in advocacy. Although twelve of the organizations had advocacy as a core

function (two interviewees were the past and current director of a single organizations), all of

these organizations have the 501(c)(3) tax designation. Of the remaining seven organizations

whose leaders participated in the study, four are 501(c)(3) organizations, two are housing

authorities, and one is a private foundation. Of the eleven 501(c)(3) organizations reporting

lobbying activity on their most recent publicly-available 990 tax form, all but two took the 501H

15

election. In terms of advocacy activity, this suggests a higher level of sophistication among this

group of organizations as compared to average nonprofits (Berry 2006).

Method of Analysis

In accordance with grounded theory, data collection occurred simultaneously with

analysis and, in fact, guided the data collection process (Corbin and Strauss 1990). While a

discussion guide provided a continuous structure throughout data collection, the interviews

varied in terms of range of discussion and emphasis on particular topics. Overall, early

interviews tended to focus on specific advocacy actions used as well as decision-making

strategies. Later interviews concentrated more on the influence of external factors. However, a

significant portion of all interviews centered on effective strategies and leadership behaviors.

All but three of the interviews were recorded and archived3, although limited note-taking

also occurred during the interviews. Following the strategy suggested by qualitative

methodologists (Silverman 2005, Glesne 2006), common themes, preliminary analyses, and

research experiences were periodically written down in a researcher journal. In determining the

common themes and concepts, additional notes were taken from the interview recordings and

then arranged the concepts in clusters. The description of these clusters is identified in the

findings, and the analysis generated the subsequent propositions.

Findings

Advocacy Activities, Policy Goals, and Decision-making Processes

Most of the advocacy activities used by the interviewees were consistent with those

typically considered by those attempting to influence policy. The specific actions most

3 Technology failures prevented three recordings, but extensive notes were taken during those interviews.

16

frequently mentioned include testifying at council meetings and public hearings, writing letters

to legislators, submitting opinion pieces to local news sources, and sponsoring events with the

purpose of educating government officials, their staff, and the general public. In addition, all of

the leaders interviewed do substantial work in their networks through coalitions. Because of the

research design, all but two of the twenty-one leaders interviewed are formal members or leaders

of at least one coalition specifically focused on affordable housing issues. However, many of the

leaders also cited their participation in broader networks, within which they worked on a vast

range of issues including regional planning, transit-oriented development, and benefits for low-

income individuals. This is evidence of what Rethemeyer and Hatmaker (2008) referred to as a

network system.

The leaders referred to a relatively narrow range of policy goals, although the specific

initiatives varied greatly by region as well as government level (city, county, and state). The

most common policy goals referenced related to budget allocations for affordable housing

development/preservation and resident support services, the creation of new funding streams,

and inclusionary zoning ordinances.

Organizations employed a variety of processes for determining what policy initiatives the

organization or coalition would pursue. The majority of organizations had a formal process for

determining policy goals, such as an advisory board or policy committee. For other

organizations, the executive director made most decisions about when to get involved in a policy

area. One leader explained that her board developed specific guidelines that she uses to

determine if she can engage in a policy issue without seeking board approval first. Other leaders

use their experience and their knowledge of their stakeholders‟ priorities to guide their actions.

17

Synthesis of Inside and Outside Strategies

Nearly all of the leaders discussed the importance of having both an “inside” and

“outside” strategy. Inside strategies largely referred to direct connections with legislators and

governmental staff, generally through private meetings and personal relationships. For the

interview participants, outside strategies imply more of a grassroots mobilization as well as a

more aggressive stance on whatever issue is at hand.

While all leaders asserted that some outside strategy is necessary, few believed they alone

could influence policy. One agency head explained reluctantly that while a solid showing at a

public hearing is important (“If you don‟t do it, you‟ve got a problem”), this is not where

important decisions are made. Even still, illustrating that there are individuals backing an

organization can be invaluable for long-term credibility. Another leader reflected, “I think a lot

of our power at the local level comes from our ability on the big issues, once in a while, to turn a

lot of people out to city council meetings.” Thus, participation in public hearings is a crucial but

insufficient part of influencing policy.

The leaders identified relationship-building with politicians and government staff as

among the most effective strategies for influencing policy. Starting a new relationship with an

elected official is challenging but often necessary because of regular turnover on local councils

and state legislatures. Leaders suggest that the easiest strategy is to reach out to legislators using

their particular constituents, although this strategy alone may prevent relationship-building with

key decision-makers. Alternately, pursuing relationships with agency and legislative staff is seen

as a good way to get to know legislators as well as foster long-term allies, since staff often retain

their positions for longer time frames.

18

Influence of Economic Crisis

The recent economic downturn played a profound role in determining both the policy

goals and strategies of interview participants. Leaders have tended to temper their “asks” and

redefine their victories. For several years, one advocacy organization had pushed for a continual

increase in dedicated housing funds; this year, they took a defensive route, aiming to prevent the

funds from total elimination.

Alternately, several leaders highlighted the policy opportunities created by the economic

crisis. One organization led a successful effort to pass a local inclusionary zoning ordinance. The

leader attributed this success to the slow housing market, commenting that the traditional

opposition of private developers had been weakened by the economy. Another leader considered

the economic crisis a good opportunity to forge unconventional alliances, as his group recently

started formal collaboration with a local school district.

As for changing strategy, leaders talked about their rapport with legislators, and the need

to tone down policy goals in order to maintain credibility. Instead of focusing on policy battles,

nonprofit leaders emphasized the need to help guide elected officials during difficult times:

You can‟t advocate in a vacuum…What you can‟t do is ignore the realities

and just keep pitching the same thing, because then you will not be providing

any help to those legislators...You need to adjust your approach so you can

find ways to help legislators do the right things.

According to several leaders, one sign of an effective advocate is that legislators will seek out

him or her to provide expert advice. In a time of intense budget cuts, these relationships can help

guide elected officials in deciding which programs to cut and which to protect.

19

Least Effective Strategies

Overall, the nonprofit leaders interviewed considered their coalitions and approaches to

be largely effective. However, past experiences as well as observations of other advocates

enabled them to highlight some particularly ineffective strategies. One leader previously worked

in a nonprofit where advocates employed an “old-school” strategy of setting up conflict and

identifying the enemy (usually an elected official). While this may generate grassroots

excitement, this kind of approach will likely jeopardize any chances of shaping future legislation.

Several leaders faulted other organizations for taking positions on more policies than they

could credibly influence. These leaders felt that selecting a small number of policy priorities

allowed for much greater influence than spreading limited resources across many initiatives.

Leaders identified other common mistakes relate to issue messaging and coalition

coordination. Individuals with particularly strong relationships sometimes go directly to

legislators outside of coalition efforts, which can confuse legislators and undermine coalition

efforts. However, a few leaders warned that a coordinated message can also be ineffective if it

does not resonate with elected officials. In this case, leaders emphasized that communication

among coalition members is critical in order to quickly identifying a stronger message.

The Perception of Nonprofit Advocates

One area of relative disagreement revolved around how nonprofit leaders believe they are

perceived by elected officials as compared to other types of advocates (i.e., private sector or

individual citizens). One group of leaders definitely thought they enjoyed greater integrity

because of their mission-based motivation. One leader asserted, “We have „right‟ on our side,”

20

while another explained that some politicians view members of his coalition “not as lobbyists,

but really as advocates… representing a constituency of people.”

Other leaders believed that some politicians consider nonprofit advocates less competent

than those representing for-profit organizations. One leader speculated that certain elected

officials think that the business lobbyists represent “people who are really doing something” in

contrast to the low-income constituents represented by nonprofit advocates. Finally, a few

nonprofit leaders suspected that a substantial portion of elected officials do not differentiate

between mission-based and private interest advocates.

Promising Leadership Attributes

The interview participants provided remarkable consensus around the two related

leadership attributes they emphasized most frequently: Effective skills in relationship-building

and facilitating coalitions. Other associated qualities, such as good communication skills and

comfort with shared leadership, further supported these attributes. Under the umbrella of

facilitating coalitions, several leaders discussed the challenging but crucial skill of supporting

other people‟s leadership by getting the right messenger to deliver the most effective message. In

contrast to common perceptions of charismatic leadership, some leaders also referred to a

“behind the scenes” tendency as important for maintaining a healthy coalition. Finally, given the

technical complexity of this arena in terms of both policy and practice, some leaders thought an

expert-level understanding of affordable housing development is crucial to effective leadership.

Theoretical Development

21

So what is learned from these nonprofit leaders? At least four general propositions about network

leadership effectiveness in advocacy emerged from the research.

Proposition 1: Nonprofit leaders involved with advocacy should have a good understanding of

when to act quickly and independently versus when to ask others and go through a collaborative

decision-making process. Policy advocacy can either be a singular or a collaborative activity. For

the former, the relevant contacts must be known, actions need to be swiftly taken, yet the leader

must act on behalf of the larger coalition or network. On the other hand, it is not always easy or

advantageous to participate in collaborative decision making. Huxham (2003) argues that in

some cases, collaborative arrangements attain a “collaborative advantage which is concerned

with the potential for synergy from working collaboratively” (401). In many cases, however,

“collaborative inertia” occurs. Participants in a collaborative endeavor often cannot agree on

common aims, the amount of power within the collaboration is unequal, trust is difficult to build,

and participants often do not know with whom they are linked (McGuire 2006). The stark

conclusion is that “unless the potential for real collaborative advantage is clear, it is generally

best, if there is a choice, to avoid collaboration” (Huxham 2003, 421).

Proposition 2: Nonprofit leaders who invest in relationship-building with both government (staff

and elected officials) and members of their own coalitions will be most successful. Managing the

external network environment is important for the leader, as Silvia and McGuire (2010)

demonstrate in their analysis of leadership behaviors in local emergency management.

Encouraging support from and keeping the network in good standing with the higher authority,

as well as encouraging support from and keeping the network in good standing with stakeholders

22

inside and outside the network. Such behavior helps establish the legitimacy of the network

(Milward & Provan, 2006) and acts as a “mobilizer” to develop commitment and support for a

specific policy position from both the network/coalition members and external stakeholders.

Proposition 3: Nonprofit leaders who develop and adjust strategies and policy goals based on

the broader political and economic context will be more influential than those with less adaptive

approaches. Policy advocates must work within the current environment, taking into account the

influence of partisanship, election results, opposition tactics, the power of the status quo, and

issue salience (Baumgartner et al. 2009). The salience and complexity of an issue are particularly

important considerations, but their levels are alterable and will likely change over time (Gormley

1986). Thus, these and related external factors are dynamic, requiring an effective nonprofit

advocate to continually gauge and adjust strategy and policy goals based on environmental

changes. Even within a well-established network, “boundary-spanning” pursuits are effective

strategies for adapting to changing conditions (Alexander 2000), as identified by leaders in this

study who forged untraditional partnerships in response to the economic crisis.

Proposition 4: The most successful nonprofit leader advocates will rely on network leadership

practices such as excelling in communication, promoting strategies that attempt to get the best

messenger to deliver the right message, building relationships with relevant stakeholders, and

having credibility as both experts and community organizers. A leader/advocate must be able

and ready to sell an idea/project, or a set of ideas/projects, to elected officials and representatives

of other organizations (McGuire 2011). Collaboration does not come automatically and the more

the potential collaborators perceive demands on agency autonomy, power, and resources, the

23

more resistance is likely to follow. The decision to pursue advocacy thus requires persuasion that

participation or partnering will be of mutual benefit and/or for a larger cause. The leader should

have some substantive knowledge of the issues/problems dealt with in the network (Klijn and

Edelenbos 2008). Network managers thus must be able to engage in what could be called

transdisciplinary practice (Agranoff and McGuire 1999). A manager must know something about

the work of different professions and occupations, and be ready to respond with this knowledge.

Acquiring and utilizing knowledge from multiple disciplinary practices simultaneously can thus

be critical to the success of advocacy.

Discussion

Much of the research on nonprofit advocacy considers organizational rather than

individual actors. In contrast, the results from this study make a first step towards linking the

strategies and behaviors of nonprofit leaders to their influence on the policy process. The

propositions offered here may form the beginning of a theory explaining the role of traditional

nonprofit leaders in the policy process as they operate in vast policy networks. Because this

research used a limited qualitative approach, the findings presented here should not be

generalized outside of the context of this particular study. However, the presented propositions

help lay the groundwork for a more systematic approach to these research questions. Therefore,

this research contributes to the leadership literature by examining the way that nonprofit leaders

fulfill the “adversarial” role in the nonprofit-government relationship. This research also

contributes to theory by using leadership concepts as a means of bridging across the research

streams of nonprofit advocacy and the role of individuals in a dynamic policy process.

24

In addition to contributing to leadership theory, this study has numerous implications for

leadership practice. Findings from the study have illustrated particular leadership practices that

seem most effective for influencing the policy-making process, so nonprofit leaders from all

issue areas will benefit from this research. By discussing explicit actions and behaviors of those

involved with advocacy, the study could serve as a catalyst for nonprofit network leaders looking

to become involved in the policy-making process but unsure of how to do so. Furthermore,

elected officials and other stakeholders can gain a better understanding of effective ways to

engage the nonprofit community in creating policy. Finally, if nonprofit leaders adopt the

strategies identified here as most effective, public policy has the potential to change in a way that

is more consistent with the preferences of nonprofit leaders.

Advocacy and mobilizing mass constituencies for the purposes of influencing public

policy making should be considered an important component of network leadership. Whether to

pursue a collaborative strategy, when and how to invest in relationships within policy coalitions

and networks, how to adapt to fiscal and socioeconomic contexts, and determining how and why

particular leadership skills are most effective are all important pieces of the leadership skill set.

Future research should consider a larger dataset to address the aforementioned propositions as a

means to further develop the “tool belt” of the nonprofit network leader.

25

References

6, Perry, Nick Goodwin, Edward Peck, and Tim Freeman. 2006. Managing Networks of Twenty-

First Century Organisations. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Agranoff, Robert. 2007. Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 1999. Managing in Network Settings. Policy Studies

Review 16(1): 18-41.

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2001. Big Questions in Public Network Management

Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3): 295-326.

Alexander, Jennifer. 2000. Adaptive Strategies of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations in an

Era of Devolution and New Public Management. Nonprofit Management and Leadership

10 (3): 287-303.

Anderson, James E. 1975. Public Policy-Making. New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc.

Andrews, Kenneth T. and Bob Edwards. 2004. Advocacy Organizations in the U.S. Political

Process. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 479-506.

Atkins, Burton M. and William Zavoina. 1974. Judicial Leadership on the Court of Appeals: A

Probability Analysis of Panel Assignment in Race Relations Cases on the Fifth Circuit.

American Journal of Political Science 18(4): 701-11.

Baumgartner, Frank R., Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, and Beth L. Leech.

2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Bass, Bernard. M. 2008. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial

Applications (4th

ed.). New York: Free Press.

26

Berry, Jeffrey M. 2001. Effective Advocacy for Nonprofits. In Elizabeth J. Reid and Maria D.

Montilla, eds. Exploring Organizations and Advocacy: Strategies and Finances, Issue 1.

Urban Institute: 1-8. Available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310226.

Boris, Elizabeth T. and Jeff Krehely. 2002. Civic Participation and Advocacy. In Lester M.

Salamon, ed., The State of Nonprofit America. Washington: Brookings Institution Press,

299-330.

Burstein, Paul. 2003. The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda.

Political Research Quarterly 56(1): 29-49.

Bryson, John M., Michael J. Gibbons, and Gary Shaye. 2001. Enterprise Schemes for Nonprofit

Survival, Growth, and Effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 11(3): 271-

288.

Chaves, Mark, Laura Stephens, and Joseph Galaskiewicz. 2004. Does Government Funding

Suppress Nonprofits‟ Political Activity? American Sociological Review 69(2): 292-316.

Child, Curtis D. and Kirsten A. Grønbjerg. 2007. Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations: Their

Characteristics and Activities. Social Science Quarterly 88(1): 259-281.

Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss. 1990. Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and

Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1): 3-21.

Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. 2010. Special issue on public integrative leadership:

Multiple turns of the kaleidoscope. The Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 205-208.

Doig, Jameson W. and Erwin C. Hargrove. 1987. „Leadership‟ and Political Analysis. In

Jameson W. Doig and Erwin C. Hargrove, eds. Leadership and Innovation: A

Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1-23.

27

Evans, Diana. 1996. Before the Roll Call: Interest Group Lobbying and Public Policy Outcomes

in House Committees. Political Research Quarterly 49(2): 287-304.

Fernandez, Sergio. 2008. Examining The Effects of Leadership Behavior on Employee

Perceptions of Performance and Job Satisfaction. Public Performance Management

Review 32(2): 175-205.

Foley, Michael W. and Bob Edwards. 2002. How Do Members Count? Membership,

Governance, and Advocacy in the Nonprofit World. In Elizabeth J. Reid and Maria D.

Montilla, eds., Exploring Organizations and Advocacy: Governance and Accountability,

Issue 2. Urban Institute: 19-31. Available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410532.

Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research. Piscataway, New Jersey: Aldine Transaction.

Glesne, Corrine. 2006. Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. Boston: Pearson.

Glossary of HUD Terms. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Available at

http://www.huduser.org/portal/glossary/glossary.html (Accessed 4/22/2011).

Gormley, William T. 1986. Regulatory Issue Networks in a Federal System. Polity 18 (4): 595-

620.

Harrison, Jeffrey S. and Caron H. St. John. 1996. Managing and Partnering with External

Stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive 10(2): 46-60.

Hayes, Michael T. 1981. Lobbyists and Legislators: A Theory of Political Markets. Rutgers

University Press: New Brunswick, NJ.

Herman, Robert D., ed. 2005. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and

Management, (2nd

ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

28

Huxham, Chris. 2003. Theorizing Collaboration Practice. Public Management Review 5(3): 401-

423.

Jaccard, James and Jacob Jacoby. 2010. Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A

Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: The Guilded Press.

Keating, W. Dennis, Norman Krumholz, and Phil Star. 1991. Current Status and Future

Prospects for Community Development Corporations. Journal of Planning Literature

6(1): 34-37.

Kickert, Walter J.M., Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F.M. Koppenjan. 1997. Introduction: A

Management Perspective on Policy Networks. In Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn,

and Joop F.M. Koppenjan (eds.), Managing Complex Networks, 1-13. London: Sage

Publications.

Kingdon, John W. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Second Edition. New York:

Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.

Klijn, Erik-Hans, and Julian Edelenbos. 2008. Meta-governance as Network Management. In

Eva Sorensen and Jacob Torfing (eds.), Theories of Democratic Governance. New York,

NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kobylka, Joseph F. 1989. Leadership on the Supreme Court of the United States: Chief Justice

Burger and the Establishment Clause. The Western Political Quarterly 42(4): 545-68.

Krehely, Jeff. 2001. Assessing the Current Data on 501(c)(3) Advocacy: What IRS Form 990

Can Tell Us. In Elizabeth J. Reid and Maria D. Montilla, eds., Exploring Organizations

and Advocacy: Strategies and Finances, Issue 1. Urban Institute: 37-50. Available at

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310226.

29

McGuire, Michael. 2002. Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why

They Do It. Public Administration Review 62(5): 426-33.

McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and

How We Know It. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 33-43.

McGuire, Michael. 2011. Network Management. In Sage Handbook of Governance, edited by

Mark Bevir. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 436-453.

McGuire, Michael, and Chris Silvia. 2009. Examining the Effect of Leadership Behaviors on

Managers' Perceptions of Network Effectiveness. Public Performance and Management

Review 33(1): 34-62.

Meier, Kenneth J. and Laurence J. O‟Toole. 2003. Public Management and Educational

Performance: The Impact of Managerial Networking. Public Administration Review

63(6): 689-699.

Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded

Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Milward, H. Brinton and Keith G. Provan. 2000. Governing the Hollow State. Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 359-379.

Mintrom, Michael and Phillipa Norman. 2009. Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change.

Policy Studies Journal 37(4): 649-667.

Moe, Terry M. 1980. The Organization of Interests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Nahavandi, A. 2009. The art and science of leadership (5th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Nanus, Burt and Stephen M. Dobbs. 1999. Leaders Who Make a Difference: Essential Strategies

for Meeting the Nonprofit Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

30

Nonprofit Sector Strategy Group. 2000. The Nonprofit Contribution to Civic Participation and

Advocacy. Washington: Aspen Institute.

Northouse, P. G. 2007. Leadership: Theory and practice (4th

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

O‟Leary, Rosemary. 1994. The Bureaucratic Politics Paradox: The Case of Wetlands Legislation

in Nevada. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4(4): 443-67.

Perry, James L. (Ed.). 2010. Nonprofit and Public Leadership: The Jossey-Bass Reader. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, Stewart E. 1971. National Policy and the Community Development Corporation. Law and

Contemporary Problems 36(2): 297-308.

Reid, Elizabeth J. 2006. Advocacy and the Challenges it Presents for Nonprofits. In Elizabeth T.

Boris and C. Eugene Steuerle, eds., Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and

Conflict, 2nd

edition. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Rethemeyer, R. Karl, and Deneen M. Hatmaker. 2008. Network Management Reconsidered: An

Inquiry into Management of Network Structures in Public Sector Service Provision.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 617-646.

Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change?

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Salisbury, Robert H. 1969. An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups. Midwest Journal of

Political Science 13(1): 1-32.

Schmid, Hillel, Michal Bar, and Ronit Nirel. 2008. Advocacy Activities in Nonprofit Human

Service Organizations: Implications for Policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

37(4): 581-602.

31

Schneider, Saundra K. and William G. Jacoby. 1996. Influences on Bureaucratic Policy

Initiatives in the American States. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

6(4): 485-522.

Selsky, John W. 1998. Developmental Dynamics in Nonprofit-Sector Federations. Voluntas:

International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 9(3): 283-303.

Silverman, David. 2005. Keeping a Record. In David Silverman, Doing Qualitative Research,

2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 247-252.

Silverman, Robert Mark. 2008. The Influence of Nonprofit Networks on Local Affordable

Housing Funding: Findings from a National Survey of Local Public Administrators.

Urban Affairs Review 44(1): 126-141.

Silvia, Chris, and Michael McGuire. 2010. Leading Public Sector Networks: An Empirical

Examination of Integrative Leadership Behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 264-277.

Smith, David Horton. 2001. The Impact of the Voluntary Sector on Society. In J. Stephen Ott,

ed., The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 79-87.

Stimson, James A., Michael B. Mackuen, and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. Dynamic Representation.

The American Political Science Review 89(3): 543-65.

Suárez, David F. and Hokyu Hwang. 2008. Civic Engagement and Nonprofit Lobbying in

California, 1998-2003. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37(1): 93-112.

Van Wart, Montgomery. 2011. Dynamics of Leadership in Public Service: Theory and Practice.

Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Wilson, James Q. 1973. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.

32

Yackee, Susan Webb. 2005. Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group

Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory 16(1): 103-24.

Young, Dennis R. 2000. Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations:

Theoretical and International Perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

29(1): 149-172.

Yukl, Gary A. 2002. Leadership in Organizations (5th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.