Adaptive Selling: Conceptualization,. Measurement, and by examining relationships of the adaptive selling mea- in long-term effectiveness when the benefits of the ap- .. in business (sales) situations and the social environment. Relationship benefits: Conceptualization and measurement in a business-to- business environment marketing, networks, services marketing and strategy literature and demonstrates the concept's effect on business-to-business bonds. Article in Journal of Business Ethics (2) · January with Reads Corporate environmental performance (CEP) has been of fundamental to the definition, conceptualization, and adequate measurement of CEP. .. relations ISO Environmental management performance.
Regime analysis represents a movement away from purely institutional analysis Kratochwil and Ruggie, to one that looks at broader and sometimes less formal patterns of cooperation Kahn and Zald, Organizations play several roles in the regime.
Certainly, cooperation among organizations can be the driving force behind the development of an international regime or define its structure; an example is the coordination among national health agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the World Health Organization. Yet organizations, and cooperation among them, can also be the consequence of or institutionalized manifestation of coordination between different groups or states in the world. International cooperation can also occur outside or independent of organizations, providing the analyst with a broader conception of behavior than is present by a pure concentration on institutional behavior.
A focus on organizations and cooperation is also enhanced by understanding the broader milieu in which organizations operate and cooperation emerges Haas, The limitations of the regime framework, however, include its difficulty with accommodating change, its being too issue-specific to permit generalizations, and its limited applicability to more structured, less anarchic environments than global politics for a more detailed critique of this approach, see Strange, Firms in a market are more likely to compete, and not collaborate, when the market is stagnant or declining and resources are increasingly scarce Porter, Competition is also more likely in situations in which institutional factors—such as a legal system that supports antitrust regulation—or deeply rooted distrust among members of an industry, militates against collaboration.
A number of forces, many of which are on the increase around the world, prompt organizations to collaborate with each other. Resource dependency theory Pfeffer and Salancik, argues that, because a focal organization must depend on other organizations for the inputs it needs to survive, it may be in its interest to attempt to manage the organizations on which it is dependent.
They argue that mergers and acquisitions, which represent total control of another organization, are only the most extreme of an array of strategies that organizations can employ to coordinate with or impose their interests on other organizations. They may use a series of "bridging strategies" Scott, Transaction cost economics Williamson, argues that, under conditions of high uncertainty and small numbers of alternative suppliers, collaboration can improve cost-effectiveness and therefore improve the profitability and competitive performance of an organization.
Other economists argue that collaboration weakens an organizational field by reducing competition Scherer, ; Caves,thus leading to higher prices and less innovation.
Although much of the recent impulse for mergers and acquisitions was fueled by the development of the junk bond market in the s and the use of purely financial criteria to mate corporate partners, a decade of failed alliances has made organizational executives less sanguine about entering into this type of long-term, permanent acquisition. Financial synergy may be a necessary component of a successful relationship for a market-based firm, but compatible leadership style, strategic orientation, and culture are necessary as well, as discussed below Sankar et al.
This is no less true of not-for-profit organizations, especially those with a strong missionary culture such as religious organizations and the military, in which value clashes can doom an alliance Wallis, Frameworks For Understanding Interorganizational Processes Reasons for Collaborating Both research and practice show that organizations enter into relations with each other for a wide range of reasons: As steps toward linking up with another organization begin, the parties involved are faced with at least two clear yet perplexing paradoxes, ones of vulnerability and control Haspeslgh and Jemison, Organizations have to decide how much they will cede control to their partner.
The paradox of vulnerability—trust versus self-preservation—is concerned with whether or not the recent proliferation of interorganizational collaborations represents a new spirit of cooperation or a new level of cost-cutting and market exploitation.
From one perspective, collaboration is valuable in and of itself, opening gateways to such activities as organizational learning and transformation. To facilitate this transformation, however, partners must openly share information about strategic objectives, organizational resources, and internal challenges, which paradoxically increases vulnerability to acquisition, loss of market share, proprietary control of valued resources, and other sources of strategic advantage. Thus, collaboration can be seen as both promoting and threatening an organization's long-term stability and viability.
Nevertheless, an avoidance of collaborations may also represent a costly choice, with inefficiencies and insufficient learning possibilities.
The challenge is to find the right partner one with complementary resources, compatible business and cultural characteristics, and similar philosophies regarding business goals and the collaboration's role in achieving them yet not to be so protective of organizational resources that the collaboration becomes impossible. The paradox of control—stability versus synergy—concerns the tension Page Share Cite Suggested Citation: Although a clear division of authority and decision making in interorganizational relations may reduce potential conflicts arising from partners' differing strategies, cultures, and work systems, a clear division may also reduce the likelihood that genuinely new perspectives and possibilities will emerge from the relationship.
An organization therefore risks undermining the synergistic objectives that led it to enter a collaboration in the first place when it institutes tight controls that may be intended to guarantee success. This is especially true when a collaborating organization uses less measurable objectives for indicating success, such as organizational learning and management and work styles.
A Partial Taxonomy Of Interorganizational Governance Structures As a guide to understanding interorganizational relations, we present a taxonomy of interorganizational governance structures, based on work by Kahn and Harrigan Although not all-encompassing, it is comprehensive enough to provide a road map for how to understand interorganizational relations. The following taxonomy moves from relatively less interdependent relations to relations in which interdependence and its management are key.
Organizations pool their resources to procure access to information, technology, or some other service too costly to acquire alone Kanter, Tasks including financial support are distributed among the participants, and the proceeds are returned to participants according to the terms of the agreement.
No separate entity is created for the management of this relationship. Cross-Licensing and Distribution Arrangements.
Organizations enter into agreements formalizing the limited sharing of technology or other product attributes such as brand names or markets. These arrangements are strictly contracted and bounded in scope and duration. Two or more organizations "owners" combine varying resources to form a new, distinct organization the "venture" in order to pursue complementary strategic objectives.
This new organization is jointly owned and managed, and proceeds are distributed between the venture and owners according to a formula agreed on by the owners. However, in a strategic alliance, a new firm is not created. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Background Change management experts have emphasized the importance of establishing organizational readiness for change and recommended various strategies for creating it.
Although the advice seems reasonable, the scientific basis for it is limited. Unlike individual readiness for change, organizational readiness for change has not been subject to extensive theoretical development or empirical study.
In this article, I conceptually define organizational readiness for change and develop a theory of its determinants and outcomes. I focus on the organizational level of analysis because many promising approaches to improving healthcare delivery entail collective behavior change in the form of systems redesign--that is, multiple, simultaneous changes in staffing, work flow, decision making, communication, and reward systems.
Discussion Organizational readiness for change is a multi-level, multi-faceted construct. As an organization-level construct, readiness for change refers to organizational members' shared resolve to implement a change change commitment and shared belief in their collective capability to do so change efficacy.
Organizational readiness for change varies as a function of how much organizational members value the change and how favorably they appraise three key determinants of implementation capability: When organizational readiness for change is high, organizational members are more likely to initiate change, exert greater effort, exhibit greater persistence, and display more cooperative behavior.
The result is more effective implementation. Summary The theory described in this article treats organizational readiness as a shared psychological state in which organizational members feel committed to implementing an organizational change and confident in their collective abilities to do so. This way of thinking about organizational readiness is best suited for examining organizational changes where collective behavior change is necessary in order to effectively implement the change and, in some instances, for the change to produce anticipated benefits.
Testing the theory would require further measurement development and careful sampling decisions. The theory offers a means of reconciling the structural and psychological views of organizational readiness found in the literature. Further, the theory suggests the possibility that the strategies that change management experts recommend are equifinal. That is, there is no 'one best way' to increase organizational readiness for change. Background Organizational readiness for change is considered a critical precursor to the successful implementation of complex changes in healthcare settings [ 1 - 9 ].
Indeed, some suggest that failure to establish sufficient readiness accounts for one-half of all unsuccessful, large-scale organizational change efforts [ 6 ]. Drawing on Lewin's [ 10 ] three-stage model of change, change management experts have prescribed various strategies to create readiness by 'unfreezing' existing mindsets and creating motivation for change.
A theory of organizational readiness for change
These strategies include highlighting the discrepancy between current and desired performance levels, fomenting dissatisfaction with the status quo, creating an appealing vision of a future state of affairs, and fostering confidence that this future state can be achieved [ 2411 - 16 ].
While this advice seems reasonable and useful, the scientific basis for these recommendations is limited. Unlike individual readiness for change, organizational readiness for change has not been subject to extensive empirical study [ 17 ]. Unfortunately, simply calling for more research will not do. As two recently published reviews indicate, most publicly available instruments for measuring organizational readiness for change exhibit limited evidence of reliability or validity [ 1718 ].
At a more basic level, these reviews reveal conceptual ambiguity about the meaning of organizational readiness for change and little theoretically grounded discussion of the determinants or outcomes of organizational readiness. In the absence of theoretical clarification and exploration of these issues, efforts to advance measurement, produce cumulative knowledge, and inform practice will likely remain stalled.
Although readiness is a multi-level construct, I focus on the supra-individual levels of analysis because many promising approaches to improving healthcare delivery entail collective behavior change in the form of systems redesign--that is, multiple, simultaneous changes in staffing, work flow, decision making, communication, and reward systems.
In exploring the meaning of organizational readiness and offering a theory of its determinants and outcomes, my intent is to promote further scholarly discussion and stimulate empirical inquiry of an important, yet under-studied topic in implementation science. Discussion What is organizational readiness for change? Organizational readiness for change is a multi-level construct. Readiness can be more or less present at the individual, group, unit, department, or organizational level.
Readiness can be theorized, assessed, and studied at any of these levels of analysis. However, organizational readiness for change is not a homologous multi-level construct [ 19 ].
A theory of organizational readiness for change
That is, the construct's meaning, measurement, and relationships with other variables differ across levels of analysis [ 1720 ]. Below, I focus on organizational readiness for change as a supra-individual state of affairs and theorize about its organizational determinants and organizational outcomes.
Organizational readiness for change is not only a multi-level construct, but a multi-faceted one. Specifically, organizational readiness refers to organizational members' change commitment and change efficacy to implement organizational change [ 1720 ].
This definition followed the ordinary language use of the term 'readiness,' which connotes a state of being both psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take action i. Similar to Bandura's [ 21 ] notion of goal commitment, change commitment to change refers to organizational members' shared resolve to pursue the courses of action involved in change implementation.