What does it take for organizations to support people working together effectively? What does it mean for an organization to be effective? Does successful collaboration lead to more effective organizations? This study explored these questions both theoretically and empirically in an effort to help organizations understand the most important aspects to consider when attempting to achieve collaboration for organization success. The purpose of this study was to fill some of the gaps in the research by taking a broad, holistic approach to exploring the context required to support collaboration at levels of organizations broader than the team and exploring the links between organization support of collaboration and organization effectiveness. In preparation for the current study, the Organization Support of Collaboration model was developed to identify the broad organization design elements that are required to support collaboration. The Organization Effectiveness model was created to provide a holistic view of what it takes for an organization to be considered effective. The present study empirically validated these models and explored the links between them. Data was collected via a web-based questionnaire administered to a broad sample of individuals who work in organizations. Results supported a model of Organization Support of Collaboration with six factors (Connect to the Environment, Craft a Culture of Collaboration, Understand Work Processes, Design Using an Array of Structures, Build Shared Leadership, and Align Support Systems) and a model of Organization Effectiveness with six factors (Performance, Employee Involvement, Flexibility, Customer Satisfaction, New Customer Development, and Treatment of People). Connect to the Environment predicted five of the six Organization Effectiveness factors, and Craft a Culture of Collaboration predicted four of the six, notably with a connection to Performance. For the predicted relationships between the models, nine hypotheses were supported, six were not supported, and three unexpected significant relationships were found. Implications for practice and future directions are recommended.
