Analysis of Rationale Construction in an Inter-organisational Collaboration Article by Siegel - Essay Example

The mission of LEAD is to inspire students with excellent academic performance and leadership skills, and who come from different cultures, to pursue business careers. Data collection was triangulated through semi-structured interviews, field observations, and analysis of secondary documents. The analysis included initial coding, pattern coding, and creating a conceptual framework. Findings showed that the themes were: 1) rationales ranged from self-interest to altruism; 2) the rationales changed throughout time; 3) rationales differed in their level of straightforwardness; and 4) the dynamics of rationale building frequently transformed into significant programmatic differences.

Siegel (2008) concluded that it is possible that the success of partnerships like LEAD relied on the interpretive work of its participants. He stressed that through their independent and collective interpretations of their rationales, they were able to work toward common goals. This article is related to public relations in education, because these educational institutions collaborated due to public relations needs, among others. Siegel (2008) discussed that organizations naturally pursued their own interests and considered their own benefits, even in collaborative circumstances (p.234). LEAD member corporations mentioned the most salient self-interested rationales, such as having access to talented minorities, pipeline expansion, the chance to generate “mind share” with a strategically significant group, attainment of market intelligence, constructive public relations, maximizing portfolio of other diversity-related efforts, and gaining a competitive advantage over rivals (Siegel, 2008, p.234). Connecting to communities and establishing public relations are some of the benefits that these organizations pursued (Siegel, 2008, p.234). In particular, the ethics of public relations concern understanding their rationales and ensuring that their rationales will lead, neither them nor others, into harm.

This article is valid, because it collects data through several measures, specifically: semi-structured interviews, field observations, and analysis of secondary documents. These diverse measures ensure that data can be validated and referenced through other sources of information. In essence, Siegel (2008) evaluated the difference between the rhetoric of rationale building and the sentiments of participants too. This article also presents convincing findings and conclusions, because the author did not overlook the interconnection between self-interests and collaboration.

He did not undermine self-interest as an important factor in building collaborations and establishing public relations. This article is also relevant because it explores the role of rationale building in forming pertinent collaborative efforts. The framing of rationales depends on how members understand their alliance and how they aim to promote their interests through this alliance. This paper agreed with Siegel (2008) that the framing of rationales affects the tone and movement of the collaboration because incompatible frames will inevitably obstruct commitment to goals and implementation.