How do Service Providers and Clients Perceive Interorganizational Networks?

  • Jennifer Ihm
  • Michelle Shumate
  • Julia Bello-Bravo
  • Yannick Atouba
  • Niango Malick Ba
  • Clémentine L. Dabire-Binso
  • Barry Robert Pittendrigh
OriginalPaper
  • 293 Downloads

Abstract

Interorganizational networks are important structures for both service providers, who must navigate them as part of their organizational roles, and clients, who use them for the purposes of receiving benefits. This research develops and tests a conceptual model that explains some of the differences in the ways that these two groups perceive these networks. Drawing on surveys/interviews with 200 clients and 63 service providers of agricultural development training in Burkina Faso, this research demonstrates that clients perceive interorganizational networks differently than service providers. In particular, these results demonstrate that service providers perceive more organizations in the network, more competitive and collaborative ties among those organizations, and more competitive ties per organization than clients. From these results, we draw implications for social network, development communication, and organizational fields’ research.

Keywords

Interorganizational networks Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) Development communication Organizational fields Cognitive social structures 

Résumé

Les réseaux interorganisationnels sont d’importantes structures tant pour les fournisseurs de services, qui doivent s’y retrouver dans le cadre de leurs rôles organisationnels, que les clients qui les utilisent pour recevoir des prestations. Cette recherche développe et teste un modèle conceptuel qui explique certaines différences dans la façon dont ces deux groupes perçoivent ces réseaux. S’appuyant sur des enquêtes et des entretiens menés auprès de 200 clients et 63 fournisseurs de services de formation de développement agricole au Burkina Faso, cette recherche démontre que les clients perçoivent les réseaux interorganisationnels différemment des fournisseurs de services. Ces résultats démontrent, en particulier, que les prestataires de services perçoivent plus d’organisations dans le réseau, des liens de collaboration plus compétitifs parmi ces organisations et des liens plus compétitifs par organisation que les clients. Ces résultats prévoient des répercussions pour le réseau social, la communication sur le développement et la recherche sur les domaines organisationnels.

Zusammenfassung

Interorganisationale Netzwerke bilden wichtige Strukturen sowohl für Dienstleistungsanbieter, die diese im Rahmen ihrer organisationalen Rollen navigieren müssen, als auch für Kunden, die sie zum Zwecke des Leistungserhalts nutzen. Diese Studie entwickelt und testet ein Begriffsmodell, das erläutert, inwieweit die beiden Gruppen diese Netzwerke zum Teil unterschiedlich wahrnehmen. Die Studie stützt sich auf Umfragen bzw. Interviews mit 200 Kunden und 63 Dienstleistungsanbietern für Schulungen zur landwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung in Burkina Faso und zeigt, dass die Kunden die interorganisationalen Netzwerke anders wahrnehmen als die Dienstleistungsanbieter. Die Ergebnisse demonstrieren im Einzelnen, dass die Dienstleistungsanbieter mehr Organisationen im Netzwerk, mehr wettbewerbsfähige und kooperierende Verbindungen zwischen diesen Organisationen sowie mehr wettbewerbsfähige Verbindungen pro Organisation wahrnehmen als die Kunden. Beruhend auf diesen Ergebnissen ziehen wir Schlussfolgerungen für das soziale Netzwerk, die entwicklungspolitische Kommunikation und die Forschung organisationaler Bereiche.

Resumen

Las redes interorganizacionales son estructuras importantes tanto para los proveedores de servicios, que deben navegar por ellas como parte de sus roles organizacionales, como para los clientes, que las utilizan con el objetivo de recibir beneficios. La presente investigación desarrolla y pone a prueba un modelo conceptual que explica algunas de las diferencias en las formas en que estos dos grupos perciben estas redes. Recurriendo a encuestas/entrevistas con 200 clientes y 63 proveedores de servicios de formación en desarrollo agrícola en Burkina Faso, la presente investigación demuestra que los clientes perciben las redes interorganizacionales de manera diferente que los proveedores de servicios. En particular, estos resultados demuestran que los proveedores de servicios perciben más organizaciones en la red, lazos más competitivos y de colaboración entre dichas organizaciones, y lazos más competitivos por organización que los clientes. A partir de estos resultados, extraemos implicaciones para la investigación sobre redes sociales, comunicación del desarrollo, y campos organizacionales.

摘要

跨组织网络对于服务提供者和客户都是重要的结构。服务提供者必须利用跨组织网络确定他们的组织角色,而客户需要利用跨组织网络以获取利益。这项研究发展并测试了一个能够解释这两方对于这些网络不同认知方式的概念性模型。基于在布基纳法索进行的农业发展培训的200个客户和63个服务提供者的问卷调查和面试,本研究表示客户与服务提供者对于跨组织网络的认知是不同的。研究结果进一步表明,服务提供者比客户看重更多网络中的组织,更多组织间的竞争与协作关系网以及每个组织的竞争关系网。通过这些研究结果,我们可以为社交网络,传播学发展和组织领域的研究提供指导方向。

要約

組織間ネットワークは、組織の役割の一部を担うサービスプロバイダーと利益を享受する目的で用いるクライアントにとって重要な構造である。本研究では、2つのグループがこれらのネットワークの相違を説明する概念モデルを開発してテストする。研究調査では、ブルキナファソにおける農業開発トレーニングでの63件のサービスプロバイダーと200件のクライアントのインタビューを行い、クライアントがサービスプロバイダーとは異なる組織間ネットワークを有することを提示する。これらの結果から、特にサービスプロバイダーはネットワークにおける組織を理解して、組織において競争力と協力関係を結んでいることがわかった。結果から、研究開発コミュニケーション、社会的ネットワーク、開発コミュニケーション、組織分野の研究には密接な関わりがあることがわかった。

ملخص

الشبكات المشتركة بين المنظمات هي هياكل هامة لكل من مقدمي الخدمات، الذين يجب أن يوجهوهم كجزء من أدوارهم التنظيمية، والعملاء، الذين يستخدمونهم لأغراض تلقي الفوائد. هذا البحث يطور ويفحص النموذج المفاهيمي الذي يفسر بعض الإختلافات في طرق رؤية هاتين المجموعتين لهذه الشبكات. إستنادا˝ على إستطلاعات الرأي/المقابلات مع 200 من العملاء و 63 من مقدمي خدمات التدريب للتنمية الزراعية في بوركينا فاسو، يبرهن هذا البحث أن العملاء ينظرون إلى الشبكات المشتركة بين المنظمات بشكل مختلف عن مقدمي الخدمات. على وجه الخصوص، هذه النتائج تثبت أن مقدمي الخدمات يلاحظون منظمات أكثر في الشبكة، أكثر تنافسية وعلاقات تعاونية بين تلك المنظمات، وعلاقات أكثر قدرة على المنافسة في المنظمات عن العملاء. من هذه النتائج، نستنتج الآثار المترتبة على الشبكة الإجتماعية، تطويرالإتصالات ، وبحث المجالات التنظيمية.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Feed the Future Legume Innovation Lab (formerly known as the Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program) and by the Bureau for Food Security, United States Agency for International Development under the terms of Grant No. EDH-A-00-07-00005-00 (to JBB and BRP). The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. government. Support has also come from the ADM Institute for the Prevention of Postharvest Loss at the University of Illinois Champaign Urbana (to JBB and BP)

References

  1. Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Griskevicius, V., et al. (2006). They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry) From out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17(10), 836–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backer, T. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1993a). Introduction. In T. E. Backer & E. M. Rogers (Eds.), Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? (pp. 1–10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Backer, T. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1993b). Synthesis. In T. E. Backer & E. M. Rogers (Eds.), Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? (pp. 214–227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, R. (2005). Competitive environment, market orientation, and the use of relational approaches to the marketing of charity beneficiary services. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard, H. R., & Killworth, P. D. (1977). Informant accuracy in social network data II. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., & Sailer, L. (1982). Informant accuracy in social-network data V. An experimental attempt to predict actual communication from recall data. Social Science Research, 11(1), 30–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  10. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brewer M. B. (2010). Intergroup relations. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1021–1040). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100–134.Google Scholar
  14. CIA. (2012). CIA world factbook. Langley, VA: Central Intelligence Agency.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, K., & Shumate, M. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration explored through the bona fide network perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’aunno, T., Succi, M., & Alexander, J. A. (2000). The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flora, J. A., Jatilus, D., Jackson, C., & Fortmann, S. P. (1993). The Stanford-five city heart disease prevention project. In T. E. Backer & E. M. Rogers (Eds.), Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? (pp. 101–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hugenberg, K., Miller, J., & Claypool, H. M. (2007). Categorization and individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit: Toward a solution to an insidious problem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hugenberg, K., Young, S. G., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2010). The categorization-individuation model: An integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1168–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaminski, J. (2011). Cotton dependence in Burkina Faso: Constraints and opportunities for balanced growth. In P. Chuhan-Pole & M. Angwafo (Eds.), Yes Africa can: Success stories from a dynamic continent (pp. 107–124). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  24. Kaminski, J., Headey, D., & Bernard, T. (2011). The Burkinabè cotton story 1992–2007: Sustainable success or Sub-Saharan mirage? World Development, 39(8), 1460–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaminski, J., & Thomas, A. (2011). Land use, production growth, and the institutional environment of smallholders: Evidence from Burkinabe cotton clients. Land Economics, 87(1), 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(9), 36–41.Google Scholar
  27. Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64, 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 275–293.Google Scholar
  29. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Killworth, P. D., & Bernard, H. R. (1976). Informant accuracy in social network data. Human Organization, 35(3), 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Killworth, P. D., & Bernard, H. R. (1980). Informant accuracy in social network data III: A comparison of triadic structure in behavioral and cognitive data. Social Networks, 2(1), 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive social structures. Social Networks, 9(2), 109–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krackhardt, D. (2012). Keynote: The fallacy of unjustifiably large scales of analysis in social networks. Redondo Beach, CA: Sunbelt XXXII.Google Scholar
  34. Lawler, E. E., Porter, L. W., & Tennenbaum, A. (1968). Managers’ attitudes toward interaction episodes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(6), 432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michel, C., Corneille, O., & Rossion, B. (2007). Race categorization modulates holistic face encoding. Cognitive Science, 31(5), 911–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management where have we been and where are we going? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
  40. Ostrom, T. M., Carpenter, S. L., Sedikides, C., & Li, F. (1993). Differential processing of in-group and outgroup information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Park, S. H. (1996). Managing an interorganizational network: A framework of the institutional mechanism for network control. Organization Studies, 17(5), 795–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Park, B., & Hastie, R. (1987). Perceptions of variability in category development: Instance- versus abstraction-based stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 621–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6), 1051–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pilny, A., & Shumate, M. (2012). Hyperlinks as extensions of offline instrumental collective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 260–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Proulx, J., Bourque, D., & Savard, S. (2007). The government–third sector interface in Quebec. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(3), 293–307.Google Scholar
  47. Provan, K. G., Beagles, J. E., Mercken, L., & Leischow, S. J. (2013). Awareness of evidence-based practices by organizations in a publicly funded smoking cessation network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.Google Scholar
  50. Rubin, M., & Badea, C. (2012). They’re all the same!…but for several different reasons: A review of the multicausal nature of perceived group variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saab, D. J., Tapia, A., Maitland, C., Maldonado, E., & Tchouakeu, L. M. N. (2013). Inter-organizational coordination in the wild: Trust building and collaboration among field-level ICT workers in humanitarian relief organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. United Nations Development Programme. (2013). The rise of the South: Human progress in a diverse world. NY: UNDP.Google Scholar
  53. Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2008). The neural substrates of in-group bias a functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1131–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., Du Bois, C., & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walk, M., Schinnenburg, H., & Handy, F. (2013). Missing in Action: Strategic Human Resource Management in German Nonprofits. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 1–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Ihm
    • 1
  • Michelle Shumate
    • 1
  • Julia Bello-Bravo
    • 2
  • Yannick Atouba
    • 3
  • Niango Malick Ba
    • 4
  • Clémentine L. Dabire-Binso
    • 5
  • Barry Robert Pittendrigh
    • 2
  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.University of IllinoisUrbana-ChampaignUSA
  3. 3.University of TexasEl PasoUSA
  4. 4.International Crop Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropic (ICRISAT)NiameyNiger
  5. 5.Laboratoire Central d’Entomologie Agricole de Kamboinsé, Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA)OuagadougouBurkina Faso

Personalised recommendations