Lecture 1 Introduction Inter-organizational Relations and Networks – Exploring the field
Part 1
Tilburg Organization Studies: A Relational Perspective on Adaptive Organizations (4 I’s)
• The first I: ‘intra-organizational relationships’. This regards interaction within organizations,
in projects, and teams.
• The second I: inter-organizational relationships: networks, alliances, value chains, or project
networks.
• The third I: institutional contexts of organizations, like norms, values, rules, and regulations
and how organizations can deal with them. ‘’Why do organizations form relations with
others?’’
• The fourth I: is about innovation, how do organizations renew themselves, how do they react
to and anticipate technological, commercial and societal developments, and how do they
connect them to the other three i’s?
Building networks is also about innovation, both in terms of new org. forms but also trying to
innovate. Another lecture: ‘’How will organizations work together to innovate?’’.
Heading towards a society of networks?
History. Norms development of org. forms. Has a lot to do with industrial revolution and now with the
digital revoltion. 19th century: academic perspective; society of individuals and families, charcaterized
by industrial revolution and an increase in individual specialization. Org form: org. anshich; this
means that there is something like an org. form and people collaborate to achieve collective goals, but
not yet an organizational identity, especially not apart from for example an individual entrepreneur, so
the identity was mainly individual, I was a craftsman, entrepreneur, trader. Time horizon of org. form:
individual lifetime of a trader, entrepreneur and not the idea that the formal org. that we have today are
conceptialized as being potential internal, we now that is not the case but from a cognitive standpoint
,we assume that they do not have an ending gate. Dominant forms of control: cultural or can contral.
Very often personal centralized control. Unit of analysis: individuals and society. And basically it was
observation and theoretical reasoning. What we understand as general sociological theory. With the
rise of formal org. and the bureaucracy (Max Weber for example), we see the rise in bureaucratic mass
organizations, both in terms of production but also in trade unions and in terms of the state, the big
state bureaucracies developed in the 20 centuries. Identity; Philips: formed an org. identity next to the
personal individual identity (worked their all your live) = Organization für sich. Conscientiousness of
being part of an org. Time horizon: potentially open ended and org. become legal persons: they are
independent from the individual persons, have certain functions, they have their own liability and can
also litigate in their own right. These organizations became very large. Formal bureaucratical control.
Org as the new unit of analysis. Development of org. theory. Statistics based on attribute variables
used in research. Contingency theory for example.
Developments more towards an network society. Globalization, IT, increase of org. specialization.
Network an sich: there are networks forming but they do not have a conscientiousness yet, so org.
collaborate but they do not feel part of a particular entity yet. Entity stays the same. Competition
become increasing dominated by org. and alliances (airline alliances), org. collaborating more and
more. Control: output control, reputational control. As a consequence: scientists also look at dyadic
ties and network as emergent systems. Development of network analysis based on relational variables
which was a real innovation in the social sciences and beyond. Theory: TCT, RDT, which are about
dyadic relationships between organizations.
2000: society of networks. We add another layer of organizing on top of formal organizations. Further
development of the web, we also see the increasing development of goal directed, consciously created
networks, where another layer of identity develops = network für sich. Individual identity (employee),
org. identity (which the individual is part of )and a network identity. For example; airline worker of
Alitalia that is stationed at Schiphol and aligned with KLM, that has more contact with KLM
colleagues than propably with his own Allitalia colleagues In Italy. Legal persons: indviduals, org. and
networks (more prediction than a fact), increasing in importance, we will also ask the question; What
happens if something goes wrong, who is responsible? Temporary to solve problems, develop a certain
product or service and then go dormant or dispand. Competition is moving towards changing networks
or groups of organizations. Self control/reputatioanl control. New unit of analysis: network as
conscientously created org. form. Network analysis is further developed and development of network
theory: especially on whole networks.
Development of Research on IOR/ION
Historical development of the publications (indicators of what is happening in reality with some time
lag of a few years), need some time to discover these phenomena, and describe them and publish about
it. Synonyms of inter org. relatioons and networks: strategic alliances for example. 1st cell: number of
,times the toppic appears in a title/than in the abstract/in the journal. These numbers really explode and
there is almost an exponential growth through the 1970s and 1980s into the 2000s.
Cropper et al. 2008: Introducing inter-organizational relations
Web of Science: Interorgani?ational or interorgani?ational relation* in topic
The attention and also indicator of what is going on in reality is very high. The publications per year
in journals that are listed on web of science, almost lineair in terms of time that they increase (in
recent years). Each year some more publications.
Web of Science: Interorgani?ational or interorgani?ational network* in topic
Same goes for this term, still increasing.
In which topic areas are these studies published? The big majority is in management in business. To
some extent in computer science/operations and research management/ public administration.
Private/Non-profit and public organizations. Environmental studies: cross-sectional partnerships, than
there would be even more publications. Complex environmental issues can also be solved by several
or dozens of org. working together. Are also networks.
What is an IOR?
Interorganizational relationship: tie/relationship between two org. Next level: organizational set. An
egocentric network around a focal system. Can connect that to some extent to the interorganizational
relationships. This is a network we pull out by selecting a node and all of its connections. Next level
(which is not visible here): interorganizational network; where there are relationships between the
, organizations that are connected to the focal organization.
Perrow, C. (1993). Complex organizations: a critical essay. New York: McGraw-Hill. P. 194 See also:
Provan, K., Fish A. & Sydow, J. (2007) Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level. Journal of
Management 33(3):479-516.
• Relationship between two more or less autonomous organizations (not necessarily a
relationship between a multinational holding and subsidiaries; because they are not very
autonomous) and to achieve their goals more efficiently and more effectively.
• Organizations can be competitors, suppliers, customers, service providers, knowledge
institutes, … Basically every type of org. you can think of.
• Organizations can cooperate or collaborate horizontally or vertically with regard to the value
chain) Producers of raw materials into manufacturing to sales/marketing in a vertical value
chain but also horizontally if org. collaborate to respond to a natural disaster for example. Not
really a value chain but the pooling of resources horizontally to produce a certain outcome.
(Sydow et al. 2016:4/14)
A lot of other notions of interorganizational relationships. Language in the field of IOR.
Why do organizations collaborate with other organizations?
From a theoretical perspective.
• Strengthening their own power position (SNT). Social network theory perspective. I form
relationships with other org. in a way that gives me advantages position in terms of
information flows in a certain network for example → in this way enhances my power
position.
• Reduce uncertainty (RDT). Org. form relationships to reduce uncertainty. All org. need raw
materials, resources, knowledge, cannot produce everything on their own, have to buy it
or get it from outside. How do you reduce the uncertainty for example about the quality
and whether you will get it. Form long term relationships and trusting relationships.
• Gaining and managing legitimacy (Inst. Theory). For example country like the Netherlands
collaborations are highly valued. As a small org. with a big reputable one the small one
also gains legitimacy.
• Access to knowledge and resources (RBV). Little bit connected to RDT but more the focus
on access not so much on the uncertainty.
Part 1
Tilburg Organization Studies: A Relational Perspective on Adaptive Organizations (4 I’s)
• The first I: ‘intra-organizational relationships’. This regards interaction within organizations,
in projects, and teams.
• The second I: inter-organizational relationships: networks, alliances, value chains, or project
networks.
• The third I: institutional contexts of organizations, like norms, values, rules, and regulations
and how organizations can deal with them. ‘’Why do organizations form relations with
others?’’
• The fourth I: is about innovation, how do organizations renew themselves, how do they react
to and anticipate technological, commercial and societal developments, and how do they
connect them to the other three i’s?
Building networks is also about innovation, both in terms of new org. forms but also trying to
innovate. Another lecture: ‘’How will organizations work together to innovate?’’.
Heading towards a society of networks?
History. Norms development of org. forms. Has a lot to do with industrial revolution and now with the
digital revoltion. 19th century: academic perspective; society of individuals and families, charcaterized
by industrial revolution and an increase in individual specialization. Org form: org. anshich; this
means that there is something like an org. form and people collaborate to achieve collective goals, but
not yet an organizational identity, especially not apart from for example an individual entrepreneur, so
the identity was mainly individual, I was a craftsman, entrepreneur, trader. Time horizon of org. form:
individual lifetime of a trader, entrepreneur and not the idea that the formal org. that we have today are
conceptialized as being potential internal, we now that is not the case but from a cognitive standpoint
,we assume that they do not have an ending gate. Dominant forms of control: cultural or can contral.
Very often personal centralized control. Unit of analysis: individuals and society. And basically it was
observation and theoretical reasoning. What we understand as general sociological theory. With the
rise of formal org. and the bureaucracy (Max Weber for example), we see the rise in bureaucratic mass
organizations, both in terms of production but also in trade unions and in terms of the state, the big
state bureaucracies developed in the 20 centuries. Identity; Philips: formed an org. identity next to the
personal individual identity (worked their all your live) = Organization für sich. Conscientiousness of
being part of an org. Time horizon: potentially open ended and org. become legal persons: they are
independent from the individual persons, have certain functions, they have their own liability and can
also litigate in their own right. These organizations became very large. Formal bureaucratical control.
Org as the new unit of analysis. Development of org. theory. Statistics based on attribute variables
used in research. Contingency theory for example.
Developments more towards an network society. Globalization, IT, increase of org. specialization.
Network an sich: there are networks forming but they do not have a conscientiousness yet, so org.
collaborate but they do not feel part of a particular entity yet. Entity stays the same. Competition
become increasing dominated by org. and alliances (airline alliances), org. collaborating more and
more. Control: output control, reputational control. As a consequence: scientists also look at dyadic
ties and network as emergent systems. Development of network analysis based on relational variables
which was a real innovation in the social sciences and beyond. Theory: TCT, RDT, which are about
dyadic relationships between organizations.
2000: society of networks. We add another layer of organizing on top of formal organizations. Further
development of the web, we also see the increasing development of goal directed, consciously created
networks, where another layer of identity develops = network für sich. Individual identity (employee),
org. identity (which the individual is part of )and a network identity. For example; airline worker of
Alitalia that is stationed at Schiphol and aligned with KLM, that has more contact with KLM
colleagues than propably with his own Allitalia colleagues In Italy. Legal persons: indviduals, org. and
networks (more prediction than a fact), increasing in importance, we will also ask the question; What
happens if something goes wrong, who is responsible? Temporary to solve problems, develop a certain
product or service and then go dormant or dispand. Competition is moving towards changing networks
or groups of organizations. Self control/reputatioanl control. New unit of analysis: network as
conscientously created org. form. Network analysis is further developed and development of network
theory: especially on whole networks.
Development of Research on IOR/ION
Historical development of the publications (indicators of what is happening in reality with some time
lag of a few years), need some time to discover these phenomena, and describe them and publish about
it. Synonyms of inter org. relatioons and networks: strategic alliances for example. 1st cell: number of
,times the toppic appears in a title/than in the abstract/in the journal. These numbers really explode and
there is almost an exponential growth through the 1970s and 1980s into the 2000s.
Cropper et al. 2008: Introducing inter-organizational relations
Web of Science: Interorgani?ational or interorgani?ational relation* in topic
The attention and also indicator of what is going on in reality is very high. The publications per year
in journals that are listed on web of science, almost lineair in terms of time that they increase (in
recent years). Each year some more publications.
Web of Science: Interorgani?ational or interorgani?ational network* in topic
Same goes for this term, still increasing.
In which topic areas are these studies published? The big majority is in management in business. To
some extent in computer science/operations and research management/ public administration.
Private/Non-profit and public organizations. Environmental studies: cross-sectional partnerships, than
there would be even more publications. Complex environmental issues can also be solved by several
or dozens of org. working together. Are also networks.
What is an IOR?
Interorganizational relationship: tie/relationship between two org. Next level: organizational set. An
egocentric network around a focal system. Can connect that to some extent to the interorganizational
relationships. This is a network we pull out by selecting a node and all of its connections. Next level
(which is not visible here): interorganizational network; where there are relationships between the
, organizations that are connected to the focal organization.
Perrow, C. (1993). Complex organizations: a critical essay. New York: McGraw-Hill. P. 194 See also:
Provan, K., Fish A. & Sydow, J. (2007) Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level. Journal of
Management 33(3):479-516.
• Relationship between two more or less autonomous organizations (not necessarily a
relationship between a multinational holding and subsidiaries; because they are not very
autonomous) and to achieve their goals more efficiently and more effectively.
• Organizations can be competitors, suppliers, customers, service providers, knowledge
institutes, … Basically every type of org. you can think of.
• Organizations can cooperate or collaborate horizontally or vertically with regard to the value
chain) Producers of raw materials into manufacturing to sales/marketing in a vertical value
chain but also horizontally if org. collaborate to respond to a natural disaster for example. Not
really a value chain but the pooling of resources horizontally to produce a certain outcome.
(Sydow et al. 2016:4/14)
A lot of other notions of interorganizational relationships. Language in the field of IOR.
Why do organizations collaborate with other organizations?
From a theoretical perspective.
• Strengthening their own power position (SNT). Social network theory perspective. I form
relationships with other org. in a way that gives me advantages position in terms of
information flows in a certain network for example → in this way enhances my power
position.
• Reduce uncertainty (RDT). Org. form relationships to reduce uncertainty. All org. need raw
materials, resources, knowledge, cannot produce everything on their own, have to buy it
or get it from outside. How do you reduce the uncertainty for example about the quality
and whether you will get it. Form long term relationships and trusting relationships.
• Gaining and managing legitimacy (Inst. Theory). For example country like the Netherlands
collaborations are highly valued. As a small org. with a big reputable one the small one
also gains legitimacy.
• Access to knowledge and resources (RBV). Little bit connected to RDT but more the focus
on access not so much on the uncertainty.
