Rev CO: Org Env

IT IS NOW RECOGNIZED THAT ORGS ARE, LIKE ALL LIVING THINGS, A PRODUCT OF THEIR ENV, & LIKE SOME THINGS, ORGS ALSO CAN HAVE A PROFOUND EFFECT ON THEIR ENV

For Hawley, 1968, an environment is "all phenomena that are external to & potentially or actually influence the population under study"

How any org performs depends not only on its goals & policies but also the orgl environment, a range of factors outside the org that affect its operation, including:

a. technology
b. economic & political trends

c. population patterns
d. other orgs

Fennell found that hospitals' env are not dominated by costs (supply) or their customers (demand), rather they are status rather than market or price oriented

Hospitals therefore raised prices not because expenses went up or demand went up, but because they feared they would not be judged as fit if they were more economical

The env of hospitals includes other hospitals, community leaders who have budgetary authority over the hospital, insurance firms, medical societies, legislative bodies, courts, etc.

Freeman, 1979, studied schools & found that "rational" decisions were not made during a period of decline because of demands for programs from fed govt

Freeman found that another actor in the orgl env, interest groups, were able to maintain their programs of choice while the schools themselves could not maintain the curriculum

Thus the cuts in school budgets found by Freeman reflected external, envl pressures rather than the decisions that the school administrators might have made themselves

Whetten, 1978, found that directors were subject to role conflict based on env pressure from the staff, community leaders, regional & state govt, et al

Pearson, 1978, found that uranium mines did not make medical expenditures until forced to do so by the fed govt

ORG RESPONSES TO THE ENV ARE NEITHER AUTOMATIC, NOR NECESSARILY RATIONAL

McNeil & Miller, 1980, documented the non response of the US auto makers to foreign importers

US firms use short term accounting w/ an emphasis on cost control

This short term accting system blinded the industry to the long term ramifications

The short term accting system was a response to the crisis of the 1920s

UNCERTAIN ENVS CREATE UNCERTAINTY IN DECISION MAKING

Leblebici & Salancik, 1981, 82, examined banks' actions in uncertain envs

When uncertain envs created vague or weak decisions this lead bankers to develop procedures to deal w/ the uncertainty

An outcome of an uncertain env can be design misfit & lower org performance

An envl jolt (Meyer, 1982) is something from the env that is totally unexpected

When facing an envl jolt, orgs w/ slack resources, or who were diversified, fared better than orgs w/o extra resources or who were tightly focused

Swzwajkowski, 1975, found that illegal acts are related to env conditions

When resources in the env are scarce, there is a greater tendency for illegal actions to occur

Note also as Enron & other corps reveal their illegal acts in 2002, these firms envs may be characterized as excessively greedy in a climate of historical growth, of deregulation, & w/ a friendly fed admin

Staw, et al, 1981, found that orgs become rigid when faced w/ adversity

Envl dimensions include:

1. orgl technical conditions
2. legal conditions
3. political conditions
4. economic conditions

5. demographic conditions
6. ecological conditions
7. cultural conditions

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizations' Control of Their Environments

External
Links

ORG ENVS INCLUDE ALL ASPECTS WHICH ARE EXT TO THE ORG & POTENTIALLY OR ACTUALLY INFLUENCE THE ORG

For Perrow, the org env is all the phenomena that are ext to & that potentially or actually influence the org

Perrow notes that in most cases we look primarily at how the env affects the org

While it is true that envs shape orgs, it is also true that orgs influence their env

ORGS ADAPT TO THEIR ENV (IE SOCIETY), & THEY SHAPE THEIR ENV

Researchers often fail to see that society adapts to orgs

The view that orgs shape society directs us to the study of powerful orgs & to public data on orgl power gathered by the govt

The institutional school & most org theory (esp mgt/bus theory) does not link orgl influence to the structure of society

The instit school sees orgs as adapting to env & their internal power brokers, but does not see society as adapting to orgs

In relation to orgs' control of their env, orgs define, create, influence, & shape their env

For Perrow, to see orgs as adaptive to a turbulent, dynamic env is to indulge in fantasy

The env of most powerful orgs is well controlled by them, quite stable, & made of other orgs with similar interests

Why is the logic of the relationship between orgs and their env turned around?

One reason is the heritage of the functionalist perspective

The peaceful tribe who fought off a warring tribe then found that they had warriors who needed to make war to win honor & thus they made war, shaped their env, to meet their needs, to win honor

For Schumpeter, those w/ power make sure that their skills are imp for the community by shaping the community to accept/need those skills

Morris Janowitz’s view of the military fits Perrow's view of orgs shaping their env in that he sees the military shaping the intl political env to create the demand for defense expenditures

GM too shapes it env

COMBINING THE ASPECTS OF PERROW'S UNDERSTANDING ORGL CONTROL OF THEIR ENV & WEBER'S UNDERSTANDING OF GOAL DISPLACEMENT GIVES THE IMAGE OF ORGS WHICH FORM STRAT & STRUC TO EXPLOIT /SHAPE ANY ENV & GOAL AVAILABLE TO THEM

There are more reasons to question the goal displacement effect in that is is not an aberration but an orgl characteristic that env try to develop

The trend in goal displacement is that some orgs, such as GM & the AMA, understand & embrace it while others do not, e.g. the military

Contenders for top leadership positions in our large vol & econ orgs are those who share dominant perspectives of our elates

It is from muckrakers, sociologists, etc. that we learn about the ways in which orgs. shape our env, not from the org specialists

Earlier Perrow argued we have more to fear more orgs. than their negative effects upon spontaneity and self realization

Perrow argues that we have more to fear than goal displacement

For Perrow, what we have to fear is orgs controlling their envs

Perrow embraces the 'tool of the powerful view' which is a neo Weberian view where orgl structure is accompanied by the insights of the institutional school

For Perrow, the expose’ tradition examines the dangers arising from the orgl search for stability & growth & their resistance to character restructuring

THE ORG SCHOOL'S VIEW OF THE ORG ENV IS THAT ORGS:
1. ARE NOT SIMPLY RAT ORGS THAT OPERATE IN THEIR ENV AFTER RAT GOALS
2. DEVELOP THEIR OWN INNER LOGIC
3. ARE SHAPED BY THE ENV, & THEY SHAPE THEIR ENV
4. ARE THE TOOLS OF THEIR MASTERS

The contributions of the Institutional School to the Orgl School view that orgs shape their env is that:

First, there are a variety of orgs that the technical school has not grasped

While the tech school of orgs largely holds that orgs are rational actors who pursue rational goals, some orgs operate on other sets of rules

Second, the neo Weberians must realize that orgs do develop their own inner logic that is not the result of those who control them

For Weber, modern orgs develop the bureaucratic structure which often dictates the strategy, which has survival, expansion, control, etc as primary goals; ie not simply rat goals

The neo Weberians must realize that those who control orgs come to accept their own inner logic & are not controlled by the env

Third, the acceptance of the env as a shaper of orgs & as shaped by orgs

Modern orgs are large & powerful, larger than many nation states, & thus they have the power to shape their very env

Lastly, orgs are tools in the hands of their masters

The masters of orgs have an agenda, & are shaped by the env & the org

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Orgl Env & the Development of Orgs

External
Links

ORGS HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME & LIKE BIO EVOL, ORGS EVOL IN RESPONSE TO ENVL FACTORS

Stinchcombe (1965) posits that particular envl conditions are necessary for the emergence of orgs as new forms of social interaction

For Stinchcombe, special purpose orgs take over various social functions as in the past when the military became a separate branch

Orgs evolve at different rates in different societies, replacing or supplementing multipurpose grps such as the family or the community

For orgs to evolve, people must have an awareness of the various orgl alternatives available to them & thus resources such as education, urbanization, wealth, political stability, orgl density, & sufficient tech are advantageous

The conditions which allow new org structures to evolve have not been randomly distributed throughout history because the resources necessary for that evolution are valuable, thus those w/ power try to control them, & thus org dev

The env at the time of an org's formation is critical for the form that the org takes

Because orgs are constantly changing, to a certain extent, they are 'new' everyday, & thus the env at any given time impacts the org's structure

The orgl & envl relationship is dynamic & codeterminative

ENV CONDITIONS WHICH ALLOW ORGL EVOL INCLUDE ED, URBANIZATION, WEALTH, POL STABILITY, ORGL DENSITY, & TECH

According to Stinchcombe, the basic envl conditions which allow new orgs to dev include education, urbanization, wealth, political stability, orgl density, & sufficient tech

a. Education is a basic envl condition for the dev of orgs because it increases the staying power of new orgs, it makes people aware of the alternative orgl possibilities, it encourages impersonality & merit achievement, it provides for the recording of transactions, & it makes info available to orgs thereby increasing predictability

b. Urbanization is a basic envl condition for the dev of orgs because it makes a greater heterogeneity of lifestyles acceptable

In relation to the dev or orgs, urbanization requires dealing w/ strangers, thus reducing the influence of ascriptive status & increasing the influence of achieved status

Impersonal rules are required in urban areas just as they are in orgs

c. A money econ is a basic envl condition for the dev of orgs because it facilitates the formation of free mkts

Money simplifies the calculation of advantages & disadvantages of the alt ways of doing this, allowing for new orgs to dev to exploit advantages

d. Orgl density is a basic envl condition for the dev of orgs because w/ greater density more people will be experienced in orgs & have ideas for new dev

For Stinchcombe, the concept of orgl density denotes that orgs often produces an exponential growth curve

e. Technology is a basic envl condition for the dev of orgs because to a certain extent tech itself offers limits & opportunities for orgl dev

When reviewing the hist or orgl dev, patterns emerge whereby orgs have become ever more complex, large, influential, & networked

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Orgl Env, Technology & Decision Making

External
Links

TECH IS UNIQUE IN DEC MKING BECAUSE IT IS HUMAN CREATED, CAN BE TRANSFORMATIVE, OFTEN NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD, & MAY CONTAIN UNKNOWN BENEFITS / COSTS

Technology is a basic envl condition for the dev of orgs because to a certain extent tech itself offers limits & opportunities for orgl dev

Orgs operating in an uncertain & dynamic techl env have different structures from those in techly stable envs

To deal w/ orgl uncertainly, orgs often estb separate divisions including R & D, indl engineering, mgt info systems

Tech is usually something external to an org, i.e. a resource, opportunity, threat, etc. that exists in the orgl env, but some tech orgs have tech as an internal factor over which they have greater control

Because tech & new ideas are part of the env, & since the sciences have norms of distribution, knowledge & scientific developments take a particular course to become useful to an org

Tech also exists in the managerial & administrative sciences in the form of the social sciences

Because orgs do not respond to tech through simple absorption, the control & dissemination of knowledge is a political process operating both in the env as well as in the org

Orgs have forces for stability & change & thus have their own internal "radical" & "reactionary" responses to tech, knowledge, etc.

In relation to the interorganizational relationships of orgs (IORs), orgs in highly complex techl envs are known to each other & can rank each other's performance

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Legal Env

External
Links

- Project: Changing the Legal Env

Link

LEGAL CONDITIONS ARE PART OF AN ORG'S ENV, THOUGH SOME ORGS DO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THE LAW

Many voluntary orgs have many less legal constraints as compared to businesses

Most orgs live w/in an env w/ fed, state, & local laws & regs, as well as some intl laws & regs

To deal w/ the legal env, many orgs have staffs of legal & other experts

Major shifts in the legal env have occurred as a result of major soc mvmts in the west, including the labor mvmt, the civil rights mvmt, the env mvmt, the women's mvmt, & more

The major shifts in the legal env caused by soc mvmt have been integrated into civil society & the env of orgs through legislative, judicial, & executive laws, decisions, & orders

Orgs are not benign recipients of their legal env, just as they are not benign recipients in relation to any envl factor; orgs attempt to shape their legal env, just as they attempt to shape their general env

SIGNIFICANT LEGAL SECTORS OF MANY ORG'S ENV INCLUDE LABOR, ENVL, CIVIL RIGHTS, FINANCIAL, CORP, ET AL LAWS & REGS

Orgs are important actors in the dev of laws & regs through their lobbying efforts

Legal mandates are an imp basis for encouraging or hindering interorganizational relations (IORs)

Labor laws & regs are a significant part of many org's legal env

See Also: Lobbying

Regulatory agencies such as OSHA, the USFS, the INS, the FDA, & many others experience a constant high level of political pressure as a result of other orgs in their env lobbying govt leaders to pass legislation or install new leaders to control the reg agencies

The most extreme form of political envl shock is a political revolution which Meyer, 1982, calls an envl jolt

As a result of a pol rev, the changed political system has ramifications for almost all orgs in that society, even cultural & voluntary orgs

Note that not all rev actually change anything more than the party in power, & thus under these revolutionary conditions, orgs may not experience much of a change

During the Cold War, many revs were significant in the cases of Cuba & Argentina

During the Cold War in Cuba, they totally remade the society, & thus the orgl climate as the system transitioned from capitalism to socialism

During the Cold War in Argentina, they totally remade the society, & thus the orgl climate as the system transitioned from socialism to capitalism

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Economic Conditions as an Orgl Env

External
Links

To most orgs, esp business leaders, the state of the econ is a crucial variable in starting up & operating an on-going enterprise

The nature & stability of the mkt system itself is important for orgs; in general business leaders would rather have weak econ conditions rather than uncertain econ conditions

Econ conditions do not affect all orgs equally in that different sectors of the econ experience their own cycles of bust & boom

Govt agencies do not necessarily experience a downturn when the econ goes down, rather they are subject to the cost cutting & tax cutting trends of the govt

Econ conditions are likely to make the priorities of the org more clear in that the less important or powerful depts will be the first to be cut

Because orgs are not & cannot be totally rational, they often cut depts in an inefficient manner

Competition is one of the most salient aspect of the econ env affecting org because it creates 'winners & losers' thus separating successful & unsuccessful orgs

Even corp philanthropy is affected by the econ env because it is often used as advertising & to win the loyalty of consumers

Public sector firms also experience their own type of competition as, for example, in education, all the colleges, secondary, & elementary schools often compete in state legislatures for money through their administrators who act as lobbyists

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Demographic Conditions as an Orgl Env

External
Links

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AFFECT ORGS BOTH IN HOW THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION AFFECT THE MEMBERSHIP BUT ALSO HOW THEIR ATTITUDES & BEHAVIORS IMPACT THE ECON & POL CLIMATE & OTHER ENVL FACTORS

Demographics is the study of the people where in demo means 'people' & graphic means 'study of'

In practice, as a discipline, demographics is the scientific study of populations

Orgs can generally predict its mkt from census data, but population shifts, such as those resulting from migration, are less predictable

Race, religion, ethnicity, & other characteristics of the general pop can change faster than the pop in general

One recent demographic change which has affected orgs is the growing & economically declining central cities

One recent demographic change which has affected orgs is the mvmt of significant numbers of people from the 'rust belt,' i.e. the northeast and the eastern midwest states to the southwest 'sunbelt'

Demographic changes affect not only consumption factors for orgs, but also supply factors

A demographic supply factor that affects orgs is the labor mkt

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Ecological Conditions as an Orgl Env

External
Links

Ecological conditions for orgs or any social grp can be divided into social ecology & physical ecology

Social ecology includes the number, types, varieties of social actors in the env

Physical ecology is the physical env conditions such as weather, geography, etc.

Both social & physical ecology impact orgs

Orgs in urban areas are likely to have contact w/ many other orgs & social actors while those in rural areas are less likely to have such contact

Orgs often choose particular social ecological niches such as a hi tech zone or a tourist destination

Many lobbyist firms or professional associations choose the centers of political & econ power such as Washington DC or NYC

In relation to the physical env, some orgs deal directly w/ the env, such as extractive industries, or those that regulate social actors in a particular env, such as the USFS, while other orgs seem to operate almost independently of the env, i.e. a hi tech firm

The physical env can affect all orgs when an envl crisis such as when a flood or storm occurs

Geographical Proximity

Geo prox is the spatial distance btwn orgs or their subunits & this distance may facilitate or inhibit interactions

It is more difficult for orgs to maintain & estb interorganizational relationships the greater the distance

The type of org involved in the IOR interacts w/ the spatial issue because mod communication techniques permit better communication & thus those types of orgs w/o this tech will have more difficulties w/ long distances IORs

The coordination of activities w/ other orgs in IORs is easier if the orgs are physically close

Proximity promotes the familiarity of domains

Familiarity can be seen in public safety orgs, such as police, fire, ems, etc., which share the same building

Familiarity can be seen in business concentration zones such as Silicone Valley, Hollywood, the Boeing Corridor, etc.

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Cultural Conditions as an Orgl Env

External
Links

Culture may be defined as the shared content of society

Culture is the shared knowledge, beliefs, values, norms ( K B V N ) & the physical & abstract manifestations of that content

The FOUR components of culture are knowledge, beliefs, values, norms ( K B V N )

Intl culture, natl culture & local culture are not the only cultures affecting orgs because there are innumerable subcultures w/in a region, or that may even function internationally

For org theorists, it is not whether culture overrides other factors in the orgl env, though it seems certain that is some situations, culture is indeed the primary factor

Cultural orgl factors are unique because they will strongly impact every other envl factor

Cul factors are more significant when the env is more turbulent, that is when tech, legal, political, economic, demographic, & ecological factors are in flux

Culture is an imp factor to take into acct when designing orgl structure as well as orgl strategy

For orgs, culture is not a constant even in a single local setting

The media indicates how values can change in regard to a particular org

Culture is an imp factor in determining consumer tastes

Like the orgl env in general, the culture - org relationship is not a one way dynamic in that while culture affects orgs, orgs can also shape culture

Orgs attempt to shape cul values through their public relations efforts

The cultural conditions in an orgl env can support or repress interorganizational relations (IORs)

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Analytical Conditions of an Orgl Env

External
Links

- Project: Analytical Dimensions of the Orgl Env

Link

ANALYTICAL CONDITIONS THAT AFFECT THE ORGL ENV INCLUDE:

1. ENVL CAPACITY
2. DIFFERENTIATION
3. STABILITY
4. CONCENTRATION

5. CONSENSUS
6. TURBULENCE
7. STRUCTURE
8. COMPLEXITY

1. ORGL ENVL CAPACITY IS THE ABILITY OF THE ORG TO UTILIZE / EXPLOIT THE SOCIAL & PHYSICAL ENV

An orgl env may exhibit either high or low capacity, or some degree in btwn

Envl capacity indicates the richness or leanness or resources available in the env

An env w/ a high level of envl capacity is generally a good one for an org, but high envl capacity attracts other, usually competing orgs to the env

An env w/ a low level of envl capacity generally rewards those orgs w/ high efficiency & so may also provide a competitive advantage for a particular org

Orgs in an envl w/ low capacity, i.e. a lean env, can adapt to that env by either leaving it for a richer env, by becoming more efficient, or by joining forces w/ another org, through for example a joint venture, to either garner more resources or to become more efficient

The capacity of the env may relate to the availability of any resources in the env such as physical resources, supporting orgs (ancillary resources), outlets for their products or services (mkts), social resources (labor), & more

Depending on the opportunities & capabilities of other orgs in the the env, orgl capacity may increase org's interorganizational relations (IORs) or decrease them

If an org envl has a high capacity, if the orgs do not have the resources to dev or utilize that capacity, they may build IORs to utilize that capacity

If an orgs has the ability to utilize available orgl envl capacity, this may reduce IORs & dissuade other orgs from entering the env

2. ORGL ENVL DIFFERENTIATION IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ENV IS UNIFORM OR VARIABLE

An orgl env may be either differentiated or undifferentiated

Orgl differentiation is the degree of similarity or differentiation w/in the env; i.e. the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity in the env

A homogenous env is simpler for an org to operate in since standardized ways of responding can be dev

Orgs try to make their env more homogenous by limiting the products made, clients, served, mkts entered, rescues available, etc.

Envs can exhibit trends of either becoming more or less differentiated

An example of an env becoming more differentiated can be seen in fast food where consumer tastes have become ever more differentiated

An example of an env becoming less differentiated can be seen in computers where early on there were many types of operating systems & personal computers but today there is generally only Windows, Apple, Unix & a few other minor types

Undifferentiated, i.e. homogenous orgs have the capability for a wider range of IORs

A differentiated, i.e. heterogeneous org leads to growth in the number or orgl programs which contributes to a higher level of IORs

3. ORGL ENVL STABILITY IS THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE OR CONTINUITY IN THE ENV

An orgl env may be either stable or unstable

Orgl stability is the degree of turnover of elements or parts of the env

Stability permits standardization while instability leas to unpredictability, which orgs resist

Any aspect of an orgl env can be stable or unstable including the econ climate, the legal climate, the tech climate, the culture, & so on

An env can be stable for a long time & then slowly or rapidly become unstable, or via versa

A stable env can provide the org w/ resources & so the need for IORs is lower

A stable env provides resources & thus the org may have more slack w/ which it can pursue IORs as opportunities

4. ORGL ENVL CONCENTRATION IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH ONE ELEMENT DOMINATES THE ENV WHETHER THAT BE BUSINESSES IN A MONOPOLY OR OLIGOPOLY, CUSTOMERS IN A MONOPSONY OR OLIGOPSONY, ETC.

An orgl env may be either concentrated or dispersed in relation to any of the elements in the env

An orgl env may be concentrated because the entire env is highly populated or because one section of the env is highly populated

An orgl env may be dispersed because there are few elements in the env or because there are few elements in one section of the env

The concentration of elements in the env often results in an increase in IORs because the orgs w/o access to the concentrated resources must estb IORs to secure these elements

Size:

In relationship to IORs, size refers to several dimensions including the number of members in a network, the size of the orgs in the IOR, the number of ties in the IOR, etc.

While at a given time, the number of orgs in a network is finite, in practice orgs may enter & leave a given network so rapidly as to make the actual number of members in the network impossible to determine

Furthermore, the nature of the boundaries, i.e. the criteria that determine who is, & is not, in a given IOR are so porous that the membership in a given determinant in a network because different orgs use different criteria as to who is, & is not, in the network

In general, the number of orgs in a network is related to the complexity faced by any single org

Large numbers of orgs in a network weakens the quality of the relationships

An increase in the numbers of orgs in the network affects dependencies, domains, & the potential rewards or resources for participating in the network

Many ties reduce the likelihood of each tie being strong, so that there would be a greater proportion of superficial linkages in a large network than in a smaller network

In a large network, there is a large number of superficial linkages, though there may be an equally number of strong relationships

In the contemporary, modern era, in individual relationships it is apparent that people have a much larger number of secondary relationships

See Also: Primary & Secondary Relationships

In premodern eras, people lived in small communities & had only primary relationships in that they might spend there entire life interacting only w/ people from their village

In the contemporary, modern era, the anonymity of urban life came to prevail & people have estb a much larger number of secondary relationships, but it is not clear whether people have less primary relationships

It is clear that in the contemporary, modern era that some people have less primary relationships in that they have little or no primary relationships, but many people probably have an equal or greater number of primary relationships than existed in the past

For orgs, it is clear that many contemporary, modern orgs have a much greater of secondary relationships & it appears that they also have a much greater number of primary relationships in that almost all orgs exist in an env of networks whereas in the past orgs were much more independent

While a large network may dissipate resources & actions, it may provide many alternatives for an org in the areas of resources, clients, etc.

The number of IORs increases exponentially as the network size increases

5. ORGL ENVL CONSENSUS IS THE AMT OF SIMILARITY IN SUCH FACTORS AS STRATEGY, MKT SHARE, ACCESS TO RESOURCES, TECH, ETC.

An orgl env may have consensus or dissensus; i.e. elements & actors in the env may either agree or disagree to the recognition of claims made by actors in the env to elements in the env

The ownership or possession of elements in the orgl env may be in dispute or may be agreed to

Historically there has always been dispute over ownership as seen in the conquering of the Am West, the contemporary battle over the EM band, patent & copyright rights over knowledge, access to public resources, etc.

Orgs attempt to secure domain consensus through laws & regs, or outside agreements w/ other actors in the env

An example of orgl consensus can be seen in auto makers agreeing to limit imports to a particular mkt

Orgl consensus in the env may be an issue for public orgs as seen when the FS & BLM dispute over who should regulate particular resources; or when the FBI & the CIA dispute over who should be able to conduct foreign & domestic terrorism

Domain consensus often contributes to more IORs because orgs feel secure in their "ownership" of there domains & thus can pursue IORs as opportunities

Many times domain consensus is estb simply along geographic areas served by the org, such as the "service area" or "catchment area"

Domain is estb along principle that 'possession is nine tenths of the law'

Today, domain is usually estb in advance, which in the past orgs would physically & orgl competitor over domains

Domain consensus or dissensus is more possible when orgs have estb numerous IORs

Since many IORs are informal, there may be misunderstandings or conflict over who has domain over particular elements of the env, whether those elements be resources, clients, or whatever

In IORs, the roles that different orgs play for each other are often critical for both orgs & and conflict in this arena can hurt efficiency

Domain dissensus refers to the degree to which an org's claim to elements in the env, including other orgs, is disrupted by another org

Domain consensus or dissensus can occur simply when orgs disagree over ownership of elements in the env, but simple disagreement may not upset orgl functioning since it is possible that an element in the env may be large enough so that several orgs can claim ownership

Ideological domain consensus or dissensus is imp in the sense that an org's claim to an element in the env may not be actually threatened by another orgl actor entering that domain; however, the perception that another org has taken some possession of another org's domain may make that org appear weak, thus inviting more encroachment in the domain

Because of the dynamics of ideological domain consensus, orgs will often try to drive out competitors, or any org threatening their domain, to prevent said orgs from 'estbing a toe hold'

Ideological domain consensus is also imp in the sense that orgs which have domain, or are seeking domain, in areas not typical for them or their goals raises imp operational issues for themselves & for other actors in the orgl env

An example of ideological domain dissensus occurs when a women's homeless shelter decides to open a mixed gender homeless shelter which competes w/ existing homeless shelters

	6. ORGL ENVL TURBULENCE IS WHETHER THE ENV IS TURBULENT OR PLACID W/ RESPECT TO POPULATION OF ACTORS, MKT SHARE, TECH, GOVT REGS, ETC.
	Turbulence is the increasing causal interconnection among the elements in an orgl env
	An orgl env may be turbulent or placid w/ relation to the number & nature of causal interconnections w/ other elements in the env
	A turbulent env has tight coupling w/ many elements & the nature of that coupling may vary widely, i.e. is unstable
	A placid env has loose coupling w/ few elements & the nature of that coupling is stable
	Under conditions of turbulence, there is a greater rate of interconnection among the orgs in a system
	As turbulence increases there is a higher rate of IORs
	7. ORGL ENVL STRUCTURE IS WHETHER THE ENV IS ORGANIZED OR UNORGANIZED IN RELATIONSHIPS AMONG COMPETITORS, CUSTOMERS, GOVT REG (AS IN LOCAL, STATE, FED, INTL), CUSTOMER COOP, ETC.
	An orgl env may be highly organized or mostly unorganized
	A highly organized orgl env has both tight & loose couplings in a relatively well patterned structure w/ orgl actors filling relatively fixed roles
	An unorganized orgl env has mostly loose couplings in a relatively unpatterned structure where few actors fill the same roles in any given situation
	Localized Dependence
	Localized dependence is an imp aspect of the orgl envl structure
	Localized dependence is the degree to which orgs in close geographic proximity are dependent upon a local area for their resources as compared to those that are more independent of their local area
	If a local org w/ localized dependence is successful in commanding localized resources, they are powerful or central in the network of orgs in that community
	If a local org w/ localized dependence has weak access to localized resources, they are vulnerable to the power of other orgs & are a peripheral member of the network
Link	Figure: Orgl Envl Dimensions: Envl Analytical Categories & Envl Content Conditions
	The Figure on Organizational Environmental Dimensions: Envl Analytical Categories & Envl Content Conditions demonstrates that the orgl env embodies well over 196 different indicators which may significantly impact an orgs strategy, structure, & so on
	In any given situation, the org env for a given org may be described by delineation of over 196 dimensions some of which may change in the short term, some in the medium term, & some in the long term
	Because of the dynamic interaction of the orgl envl dimensions, it is impossible to say that any one factor is central in understanding orgs & their env
	Because of the dynamic interaction of the orgl envl dimensions, a given factor may be central to understanding one situation while it is unimportant in another situation
	8. ORGL COMPLEXITY IS THE DEGREE OF MIXTURE OF ALL THE FACTORS IN THE ORGL ENVL IN THAT A SEEMINGLY BENIGN MIXTURE MAY PROVE TO BE VOLATILE, & VICE VERSA
	Orgl complexity, versus orgl simplicity, refers to the the mixture of all the orgl analytical categories & orgl envl conditions, depending the characteristics of the intl structure, strategy, & operation of the org, which would make the env difficult to deal w/ or easier to deal w/
	Thus, orgl complexity is, to a large degree, a perception of the org itself & is not a characteristic that is "out there" in the env
	An orgl env that is complex for one org may be simple for another because of that orgs ability to act w/in & shape that env
	As the level of orgl complexity rises, the number of nonroutine activities & situations rises
	Orgs deal w/ complexity by specializing in a limited range of activities
	Loosely coupled systems are one strategy & structure that many orgs use to deal w/ orgl complexity
	Aldrich suggest that orgs are not tightly bound to one another & thus estb & maintain interorganizational relationships (IORs) only to the extent that they need each other for survival or to achieve some other goal
	Other researchers suggest that orgs estb IORs to deal w/ orgl complexity whether that complexity comes from the legal, econ, stability, etc. factors in the env
	Orgl complexity often leads to increased IORs because it is a primary method of dealing w/ orgl complexity

Top

Figure: Orgl Envl Dimensions: Envl Analytical Categories & Envl Content Conditions

Analytical
Categories -->

Content
Conditions \/

1. Orgl Envl Capacity

2. Orgl Envl Differentiation

3. Orgl Envl Stability

4. Orgl Envl Concentration

5. Orgl Envl Consensus

6. Orgl Envl Turbulence

7. Orgl Envl Structure

8. Org Envl
Complexity

1. Technical
Conditions

Hi capacity
Lo capacity

Hi tech Lo tech

Hi Diff
Lo Diff

Hi tech Lo tech

Stable Unstable

Hi tech Lo tech

Concentrated
Dispersed

Hi tech Lo tech

Consensus Dissensus

Hi tech Lo tech

Turbulent Placid

Hi tech Lo tech

Structured Unstructured

Hi tech Lo tech

Complex
Simple

Hi tech
Low Tech

2. Legal
Conditions

Hi capacity
Lo capacity

Legalized Traditional

Hi Diff
Lo Diff

Legalized Traditional

Stable Unstable

Legalized Traditional

Concentrated
Dispersed

Legalized Traditional

Consensus Dissensus

Legalized Traditional

Turbulent Placid

Legalized Traditional

Structured Unstructured

Legalized Traditional

Complex
Simple

Hi tech
Low Tech

3. Political
Conditions

Hi capacity
Lo capacity

Left Right

Hi Diff
Lo Diff

Left Right

Stable Unstable

Left Right

Concentrated
Dispersed

Left Right

Consensus Dissensus

Left Right

Turbulent Placid

Left Right

Structured Unstructured

Left Right

Complex
Simple

Hi tech
Low Tech

4. Economic
Conditions

Hi capacity
Lo capacity

Boom Bust

Hi Diff
Lo Diff

Boom Bust

Stable Unstable

Boom Bust

Concentrated
Dispersed

Boom Bust

Consensus Dissensus

Boom Bust

Turbulent Placid

Boom Bust

Structured Unstructured

Boom Bust

Complex
Simple

Hi tech
Low Tech

5. Demographic
Conditions

Hi capacity
Lo capacity

Various Demog Conditions

Hi Diff
Lo Diff

Various Demog Conditions

Stable Unstable

Various Demog Conditions

Concentrated
Dispersed

Various Demog Conditions

Consensus Dissensus

Various Demog Conditions

Turbulent Placid

Various Demog Conditions

Structured Unstructured

Various Demog Conditions

Complex
Simple

Hi tech
Low Tech

6. Ecological
Conditions

Hi capacity
Lo capacity

Various Eco Conditions

Hi Diff
Lo Diff

Various
Eco Conditions

Stable Unstable

Various Eco Conditions

Concentrated
Dispersed

Various Eco
Conditions

Consensus Dissensus

Various Eco Conditions

Turbulent Placid

Various Eco Conditions

Structured Unstructured

Various Eco Conditions

Complex
Simple

Hi tech
Low Tech

7. Cultural
Conditions

Hi capacity
Lo capacity

Various
Cul Conditions

Hi Diff
Lo Diff

Various
Cul Conditions

Stable Unstable

Various
Cul Conditions

Concentrated
Dispersed

Various
Cul Conditions

Consensus Dissensus

Various
Cul Conditions

Turbulent Placid

Various
Cul Conditions

Structured Unstructured

Various
Cul Conditions

Complex
Simple

Hi tech
Low Tech

The Figure on Orgl Envl Dimensions: Envl Analytical Categories & Envl Content Conditions demonstrates that the orgl env embodies well over 196 different indicators which may significantly impact an orgs strategy, structure, & so on

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on Organizational Boundaries

External
Links

ORG BOUNDARIES ARE THE LINES OF DIVISION BTWN ORGS, & BTWN ORGS & THEIR ENV, WHICH ARE NOT ALWAYS CLEAR

Boundaries distinguish btwn an org & the env

Nearly every group & org is in a network of some type in that they share resources, goals etc.

Because orgs are reified, so are boundaries

The reification & nature of orgs & boundaries makes developing typologies difficult

Different types of orgs have different types of org boundaries & vice versa

Generally, rational, closed orgs have clear boundaries

Generally, open systems, networks, adhocracies, NGOs, etc. have less defined boundaries

Boundaries shift due to forces in the env & to the actions of other orgs

Some orgs attempt to control their boundaries, access into & out of the org

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Orgl Perception of the Orgl Env

External
Linkso

Like any actor - env relationship, the manner in which the actor perceives the env is paramount in understanding the org - env relationship

In the case of orgs & orgl envs, the env also perceives the org, & the manner in which the orgl env perceives the env is paramount in understanding the org - env relationship

Orgs perceive the env based on the info that comes into the org from the env & like all info, it is based on communications coming into the org

In addition to the typical commo problems of noise, extraneous info, mis sent commo, misreceived info, etc. orgl commo is subject to the power of gate keepers & boundary spanner, envl scanners, & other orgl actors who garner info from the env

The actions of gate keepers & boundary spanner, envl scanners, & other orgl actors who garner info from the env raise the problem of orgl boundaries in that these orgl actors tend to try to control the boundaries of the org, while other orgl actors may disagree w/ their determination of the location of the orgl boundary

Efficient env orgl scanners select those aspects of the env w/ which it is going to deal in order to avoid becoming overwhelmed w/ envl info

The selection of which aspects of the env to scan is in part shaped by the selection process of other orgs in that if a competitor or similar org is scanning a particular element in the env, then other similar orgs will tend to follow suit

The knowledge of who is scanning whom is exchanged via interorganizational relationships (IORs)

Because orgs limit which aspects of the env to scan, & because they choose which aspects of the env to scan, orgs are in effect constructing their env, or at least their perception of the env

The scope of the domain of the org affects it operation in that narrow domain claims are associated w/ stability, while broad & inconsistent claims are associated w/ loss of functions

The perception of certainty or uncertainty in relation to any of the over 196 orgl envl dimensions adds even more complexity to an env & to the discussion of the perception of the env

While much of the env scanning that occurs is certain, the depth & extent of uncertainty on even one dimension can be organizationally catastrophic

However the perception of uncertainty is fraught w/ difficulties for orgs & individuals & thus the degree of danger from a given uncertainty is even more unknown

The perceptions of individuals & orgs are shaped by their experiences

Starbuck (1976) believes that orgs may be more realistic than individuals in assessing uncertainty because of their constant comparisons w/ & sharing personnel among comparable orgs

Hall notes that it has not been clearly shown that orgs are more perceptive of uncertainty than are individuals

For orgs, perceivers of the env are individuals

AWARENESS

Orgs operate in a "field" of other orgs & orgs vary in their awareness of the field around them

Awareness varies simple in the recognition that orgs have of each other as well as by the extent to which the orgs are interdependent w/ each other

Interorganizational relationships (IORs) do not occur automatically & one factor which affects how often they occur, & how effective they are when the do occur is the awareness that the orgs have of each other

The greater the awareness orgs have of each other, the more likely it is that they will form IORs

There is a hierarchy of awareness in the orgl env that runs from no info to a lot of info

At one end of the hierarchy of awareness is a general awareness of the existence of other orgs & their activities

Another level of the hierarchy of awareness involves mutual acquaintanceamong the directors of the orgs, or of any actors w/in the org

Another level of the hierarchy of awareness involves specific interactions & joint board membership among directors

Orgl awareness is affected by the extent to which boundary spanners in the orgs are knowledgeable about the goals, services, & resources present in other orgs

The awareness which boundary spanners have of other orgs provides their org w/ alternative sources of services & resources

Orgl awareness is affected by the number & level of interpersonal ties among orgl personnel

Orgl interpersonal ties might be "old school" ties, membership in common professional orgs, membership in common religious or fraternal orgs, friendships, or work contacts

Interpersonal contacts are imp in general for grp cohesion, but are also imp for IORs in times of envl turbulence

The quality of of ties is imp in IORs in that friendships often yield enhanced collaboration & mitigate competition

The strength of IORs, the length of time have been in existence, the possibility of alternative IORs, etc. all

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the Impact of the Orgl Env on the Org

External
Links

Orgs vary in their vulnerability to the 196+ orgl envl dimensions, & this vulnerability is shaped by internal features of the org & by the strength of the orgl envl factors

In general, the more dependent the org is on any single envl dimension or grp of dimensions, the more vulnerable it is

The ability of an org to control the key dimensions in the env make it less vulnerable to the env

Competitors & threats in the env make an org more vulnerable

Lack of opportunities & lack of strengths make an org more vulnerable

When an org is vulnerable, it reacts as opposed the acting in the env

Strong envl pressures often result in increased formalization & a general tightening of the org meaning that slack resources are utilized & low priority projects are eliminated

Hall notes that it is odd that envl pressure causes orgs to become more tightly coupled since it is often loosely coupled orgs that are more innovative, but orgs who are innovative face a greater risk of failure when under conditions of envl pressure

While orgs vary in the vulnerability to the env, all orgs are in some manner dependent on the env

Contingency theory suggests that there is no best way to cope w/ envl pressure because the pressure may be the result of almost any combination of the 196+ dimensions of a typical orgl env

There is no single best way to deal w/ envl pressure because of the myriad combinations of envl pressure, because each org has its own unique set of tools to deal w/ env pressure, because each org has its own internal politics which will influence its decision, & because each org has its own unique perception of the problem & its solutions

One major strategy for dealing w/ envl pressure is to attempt to shape the env itself

Orgs more typically try to illegally shape their env when the org is doing well, rather than, as common sense might indicate, when the org is going poorly

It is well known that orgs try to gain & maintain power over env conditions that are of strategic importance to them

Orgl envs are subject to actual, attempted & even unintentional manipulation by the orgs w/in them

Internal
Links

Top

Outline on the TVA & Organizational Cooptation

External
Links

- Project: Cooptation in Everyday Life

Link

Cooptation is a common method of launching a attack against a soc mvmt