Advertisement

Complex Problems in Need of Inter-organizational Coordination: The Importance of Connective and Collaborative Professionalism Within an Organizational Field of Rehabilitation

  • Tone Alm AndreassenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Rehabilitation processes of working-age citizens involve several organizations and professions, and require inter-organizational and inter-professional coordination and collaboration across hospitals, community healthcare, and employment services. Institutional perspectives on organizations and professions can contribute to understanding the conditions that facilitate or impede coordinated services. Since the services apparently belong to a joint organizational field of rehabilitation, one should expect that the field supports collaboration and coordinated services across agencies. However, both knowledge sharing and joint action seem hindered by infrastructure deficits, knowledge transfer from hospitals that does not meet the needs of frontline professionals, and ‘pure’ forms of professionalism. Connective and collaborative forms of professionalism, including boundary-spanning tasks, seem necessary to ensure smooth transitions, undisrupted pathways, and coordinated services for injured citizens.

References

  1. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, P. S., Kwon, S.-W., & Heckscher, C. (2008). Perspective–professional work: The emergence of collaborative community. Organization Science, 19(2), 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andelic, N., Hammergren, N., Bautz-Holter, E., Sveen, U., Brunborg, C., & Røe, C. (2009). Functional outcome and health-related quality of life 10 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 120(1), 16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2008.01116.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andelic, N., Soberg, H. L., Berntsen, S., Sigurdardottir, S., & Roe, C. (2014). Self-perceived health care needs and delivery of health care services 5 years after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. PM&R, 6(11), 1013–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antunes, V., & Moreira, J. P. (2011). Approaches to developing integrated care in Europe: A systematic literature review. Journal of Management & Marketing in Healthcare, 4(2), 129–135.  https://doi.org/10.1179/175330311X13016677137743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Battilana, J., & D’Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 31–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvalho, T. (2014). Changing connections between professionalism and managerialism: A case study of nursing in Portugal. Journal of Professions and Organization, 1(2), 176–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism: Occupational change in the modern world. International Sociology, 18(2), 395–415.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580903018002005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Garrow, E. E., & Grusky, O. (2012). Institutional logic and street-level discretion: The case of HIV test counseling. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gröne, O., & Garcia-Barbero, M. (2001). Integrated care: A position paper of the WHO European office for integrated health care services. International Journal of Integrated Care, 1(2), e21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harsløf, I., Håvold, O. K., & Slomic, M. (2019). Establishing individual care plans for rehabilitation patients: Traces of self-targeting in the Norwegian, universal welfare state. Nordic Journal of Social Research 10(1).Google Scholar
  17. Håvold, O. K. (2018). Opportunity talk, work talk and identity talk: Motivating strategies used by the Norwegian labour and welfare offices. Nordic Social Work Research, 8(2), 158–170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2017.1405836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Håvold, O. K. (2019). All roads lead to Rome: Discretionary reasoning on medically objective injuries at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Offices. Professions & Professionalism, 9(1). http://doi.org/10.7577/p2283.
  19. Håvold, O. K., Harsløf, I., & Alm Andreassen, T. (2017). Externalizing an ‘asset model’ of activation: Creative institutional work by frontline workers in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service. Social Policy and Administration, 52(1), 178–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kellogg, K. C. (2014). Brokerage professions and implementing reform in an age of experts. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 912–941.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414544734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindsay, C., & Dutton, M. (2012). Promoting healthy routes back to work? Boundary spanning health professionals and employability programmes in Great Britain. Social Policy & Administration, 46(5), 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mur-Veeman, I., van Raak, A., & Paulus, A. (2008). Comparing integrated care policy in Europe: Does policy matter? Health Policy, 85(2), 172–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muzio, D., & Kirkpatrick, I. (2011). Introduction: Professions and organizations – A conceptual framework. Current Sociology, 59(4), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muzio, D., Brock, D. M., & Suddaby, R. (2013). Professions and institutional change: Towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 699–721.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nolte, E., Knai, C., & McKee, M. (Eds.). (2008). Managing chronic conditions: Experience in eight countries. Brussels/Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies/World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  28. Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From ‘pure’ to ‘hybrid’ professionalism: Present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration and Society, 39(6), 761–785.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707304434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noordegraaf, M. (2011). Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. Organization Studies, 32(10), 1349–1371.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611416748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noordegraaf, M. (2013). Reconfiguring professional work: Changing forms of professionalism in public services. Administration and Society, 48(7), 783–810.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713509242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. (2012). Organizational discourse: Domains, debates, and directions. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 435–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1).  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00171.
  33. Scott, W. R. (2008). Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organization Studies, 29(2), 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slomic, M., Soberg, H. L., Sveen, U., & Christiansen, B. (2017). Transitions of patients with traumatic brain injury and multiple trauma between specialized and municipal rehabilitation services – Professionals’ perspectives. Cogent Medicine, 4(1).  https://doi.org/10.1080/2331205X.2017.1320849.
  35. Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Los Angeles: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wade, D. T., & de Jong, B. A. (2000). Recent advances in rehabilitation. British Medical Journal, 320(7246), 1385–1388.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of ProfessionsOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations