Interorganizational network theorists have been working on a strand of literature relating to group processes (Borgatti & Foster, 2003) with their basis in social psychology, and have begun to examine affective factors that affect common beliefs, attitudes and interactions (Friedkin & Johnson, 1990, 1999; Carley, 1991). These researchers position the theory that homogeneity of beliefs are generated from the influence that individuals have on each other (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002).
Homophily theory has been positioned within this body of literature as an explanation for the structuring of interactions, where those with greater similarities in individual characteristics are more likely to work effectively as a group and on an individual basis (Mc-
Chapter Three: Interorganizational Collaboration
53
Pherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001). This is true whether as a result of choice or environmental context, as efficiency in knowledge transfer, coordination and reduction in conflict boosts performance (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). However important consideration must be given to the benefits of diversity of knowledge and perception (Krackhardt & Stern, 1988). Group structure and development, and group stability and trust have also recently emerged in the literature having originated from social psychology theory (Burt, 2000). These studies tend to explore the way in which these factors develop over time and change, as the interorganizational interaction progresses (Borgatti & Foster, 2003).
In a review of interorganizational collaboration and the dynamics involved, the complexity of interpersonal dynamics have been found to significantly impact upon the success of the collaboration (Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa & Bagherz, 2014). Understanding how individuals and groups working in these interorganizational collaborations manage such complexities is still required (Majchrzak et al., 2014). Marion, Eddleston, Friar & Deeds (2015) suggest that cognitive and psychological considerations are useful in building on interorganizational relationships theory, following from Ring & Van de Ven’s (1994) assertion that the relationships are entirely at the mercy of individual actions. The building of these relationships are viewed as iterative cycles rather than processual (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994), and it has been recommended that although many interorganizational relations commentators seek further understanding at the network level of analysis, factors at the individual level require examination in the literature in order to understand contributing psychological and affective factors individual, role and task level (Macneil, 1980; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994).
Interpersonal relationships have been a focus for some interorganizational collaboration researchers, and in particular the embeddedness of these relationships (Berends et al., 2011). Interorganizational relations allow mutual access to resources and knowledge therefore allowing for more innovation to occur and for that innovation to be more likely to be successful
54
(Aiken & Hage, 1968; Van de Ven, 1976; Powell et al., 1996). Embeddedness can also be seen as useful in future interorganizational relationships (Gulati, 2007; Powell et al., 2004).
Embeddedness shapes the relationship interactions and dynamics at the individual level within a single organization (Barden & Mitchell, 2007; Granovetter, 1985). The strength of individual, interpersonal ties shape the strength of relationship dynamics at play within an interorganizational project (Granovetter, 1985). At the organizational level, cross-boundary relationships between individuals also generate interorganizational level embeddedness (Hagedoorn, 2006). However research examining relationships and interaction at both the individual and interorganizational level within networks is sparse (Brass et al., 2004; Gulati, 2007; Marchington & Vincent, 2004) and where it has been carried out it has suffered from limitations with sampling and scope (Gulati & Sytch, 2008; Gulati & Westphal, 1999).
Interorganizational collaboration begins with an interorganizational agreement to collaborate which requires at the least, relationships between boundary-spanning employees (Van de Ven, 1976). However, it is possible that these relationships may not be formed through agreement and may solely exist for advice purposes (Liebeskind et al., 1996). Therefore, the idea of partial collaboration must be a significant consideration in interorganizational research (Rousseau, 1985) as the relationship may not be as structured as theorised in the literature. This is of particular relevance to the UK healthcare context.
There may be a balance to be established between factors such as mutuality of benefits, trust, commitment and room for understanding. It has been found that trust may be established between the individuals involved in collaborating or between the collaborating organizations themselves (Zaheer et al., 1998). However, more research at all of the multi-level perspectives available in the interorganizational research context has been called for (Brass et al., 2004), particularly interpersonal and interorganizational relationships (Gulati, 2007).
Chapter Three: Interorganizational Collaboration
55
Marion, Eddleston, Friar & Deeds (2015) examined longitudinal case studies (n=14) in order to explore the development and maintenance of interorganizational relationships involved in new product development (NPD). The earlier relationships outside the origin organization were formed, the more likely the relationship emerged into successful ventures. The case studies also revealed strong social and emotional ties, which led to potential issues with the future of the venture and its success.
The importance of interorganizational collaboration has been noted in relation to supporting the innovation process which occur within organizations (Deeds and Rothaermel, 2003; Dodgson, 1993; Hagedoorn, 2002). It has been found that performance in firms that work collaboratively with a diverse assortment of partners improves, with higher proportion of turnover from new and developed products being realised as a consequence (Faems, et al., 2005). Integration of structures and processes supporting the innovation within the firm is a necessary success factor (Gann & Salter, 2000) as is the inclusion of end users and customers (Greer & Lei, 2012; Shah & Robinson, 2007).
The choice of running projects with interdependency inevitably brings with it challenges (Newell, Goussevskaia, Swan, Bresnen & Obembe, 2008). A recent feature in much of the interorganizational collaboration literature is interorganizational trust (Maurer, 2010) which has been found as a success factor and also a barrier to interorganizational innovation. This is an interesting addition to the interorganizational literature as traditionally organizational trust and trust in teams has formed a large part of the work psychology and organizational behaviour research, a discipline which has contributed towards the development of this research project and which is presented in the previous and following chapters.