Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Management of Network Organizations pp 181–195Cite as

Structural Pathology in Inter-organizational Networks and the Decision-Making Autonomy of Its Members

  • Chapter

Abstract

In inter-organizational networks, organizations choose to set up multilateral relations when cooperation creates significant opportunities which can be achieved only collectively. However, members operating within network structures are obliged to bear specific costs, which are linked to the reconciliation of the self-interest of the network members with preferences resulting from joint operations. Often, the interests of individual firms—belonging to the network—are mutually contradictory. Therefore, the settlement cost may appear in the overall costs of the decision-making process of the network members. The decision-making autonomy of the network member depends on several conditions: a strong position in the network structure, access to both strategic (for the network members) or scarce resources, innovativeness, control of resource flow, operational interdependence, and the character of ties between nodes. Companies opt for cooperation in the inter-organizational network, if the benefits derived from participation are higher than the costs relating to operations within that business constellation. However, numerous pathologies can be detected in inter-organizational networks. They are identified in various areas of network activities; however the most spectacular pathologies are of a structural nature as they quickly eliminate benefits achieved as a result of collective and multilateral cooperation. The main structural pathologies concern: position in the network structure, the formalization and strength of ties within the network, and the density thereof. The chapter clearly demonstrates that structural pathologies in inter-organizational networks may result in the erosion of benefits gained from multilateral cooperation. These pathologies also increase the cost of functioning in the network, including a significant or even total loss of decision-making autonomy for network members.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achrol, R. S. (1997). Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: Toward a network paradigm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 56–71. doi:10.1007/BF02894509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. doi:10.2307/2667105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of co-operation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bankvall, L. (2014). Activity interdependence in industrial networks—Exploring the structural interconnectedness of activities and resources. The IMP Journal, 8(1), 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergenholtz, C. (2011). Knowledge brokering: Spanning technological and network boundaries. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(1), 74–92. doi:10.1108/14601061111104706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00087-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. 1. A Revolutionary mindset that combines competition and cooperation. 2. The game theory strategy that’s changing the game of business, currency. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1976). Position in networks. Social Forces, 55(1), 93–122. doi:10.1093/sf/55.1.93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1992). Towards a structural theory of action. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capaldo, A. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 585–608. doi:10.1002/smj.621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M., & Della Giusta, M. (2008). The economics of networks. The International Library of critical writing in economics (Vol. 221). Cheltenham: An Elgar Reference Collection.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100–134. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9602161567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., & Hwang, Y.-S. (2008). Network pattern and linkage strength in standard competition. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 3(4), 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke-Hill, C., Li, H., & Davis, B. (2003). The paradox of cooperation and competition in strategic alliances: Towards a multi-paradigm approach. Management Research News, 26(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1108/01409170310783376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K., & Emerson, R. (1984). Exchange networks and the analysis of complex organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 3, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R. (2005). Network models in innovation and knowledge diffusion. In S. Breschi & F. Malerba (Eds.), Clusters, networks, and innovation (pp. 29–53). Oxford University Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cygler, J. (2010). Co-opetition in network relations between businesses. Organization and Management, 139(1), 59–71. doi:10.2478/v10166-010-0005-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cygler, J., & Sroka, W. (2014). Structural pathologies in inter-organizational networks and their consequences. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 52–63. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.847.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R. A., & Gunther, R. (1995). Hypercompetitive rivals. Competing in highly dynamic environments. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 35–51. doi:10.2307/1251829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfman, R., Samuelson, P. A., & Solow, R. M. (1958). Linear programming and economics analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1997). Alliance capitalism and global business. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J., & Hatch, N. W. (2006). Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 701–719. doi:10.1002/smj.543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elg, U., & Johansson, U. (1997). Decision making in inter-firm networks as a political process. Organization Studies, 18(3), 361–384. doi:10.1177/017084069701800302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Social Review, 27, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1979). Centrality of social networks. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, P., & Egri, C. (1991). The political process of innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 229–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemünden, H. G., Ritter, T., & Walter, A. (Eds.). (1998). Relationships and networks in international markets. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. (2001). Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 431–445. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gössling, T., Oerlemans, L., & Jansen, R. (Eds.). (2007). Inside networks. A process view on multi-organizational partnerships, alliances and networks. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabher, G., & Stark, D. (1997). Organizing diversity: Evolutionary theory, network analysis and postsocialism. Regional Studies, 31(5), 533–544. doi.10.1080/00343409750132315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (2006). A relational approach to organization design. Industry and Innovation, 13(2), 151–172. doi:10.1080/13662710600684316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H., Rowley, T., & Shipilov, A. (2014). Network advantage. How to unlock value from your alliances and partnerships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, T. M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111. doi:10.2307/2667032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J. B., & Miner, A. S. (1992). The shadow of the future: Effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of contact on buyer-seller cooperation. Academy of Management, 35(2), 265–291. doi:10.2307/256374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 63–84. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hite, J. M. (2005). Evolutionary process and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(1), 113–144. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00072.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501. doi:10.2307/256589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, S. L. (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1233–1259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00540.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarillo, J. C. (1998). Strategic networks. Creating the borderless organization. Oxford: Batterworth Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 275–293. doi:10.5465/AMR.2002.6588029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittel, B., & Luhan, W. J. (2013). Decision making in networks: An experiment on structure effects in a group dictator game. Social Choice and Welfare, 40, 141–154. doi:10.1007/s00355-011-0594-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2009). Innovation networks in knowledge-based firms. Developing ICT-based integrative competences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance competence, resources, and alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158. doi:10.1177/03079459994399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledeneva, A. (2009). From Russia with blat: Can informal networks help modernize Russia? Social Research, 76(1), 257–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leick, B. (2011). Barriers to co-operation and competitive advantage: Crossborder business networks of Saxon and Northern Bohemian firms. Journal of East European Management Studies, 16(2), 162–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J. L., & Fang, S.-C. (2009). Network embeddedness and technology transfer performance in R&D consortia in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 763–774. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Jiang, S., Chen, H., Larson, C., & Roco, M. (2014). Nanotechnology knowledge diffusion: Measuring the impact of the research networking and a strategy for improvement. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 16(9), 2612–1627. doi:10.1007/s11051-014-2613-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, S., Simmons, L. C., & Kali, R. (1999). Guanxi versus the market: Ethics and efficiency. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2), 231–248. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482–501. doi:10.1093/sf/63.2.482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1033–1055. doi:10.1002/smj.484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38. doi:10.2307/1252308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 377–401. doi:10.2307/256367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivier, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. doi:10.5465/AMR.1991.4279002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. (2001). The politics of organizational decision making. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City: Doubleday & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, A. (1988). Experiments with n-person social traps I. Prisoner’s dilemma, weak prisoner’s dilemma, volunteer’s dilemma, and largest number. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(3), 457–472. doi:10.1177/0022002788032003003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raub, W., & Weesie, J. (1990). Reputation and efficiency in social institutions: An example of network effect. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 626–654. doi:10.1086/229574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, G. B. (1972). The organization of industry. The Economic Journal, 82(327), 883–896. doi:10.2307/2230256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A. (2000). Organizational trust and interfirm cooperation: An examination of horizontal versus vertical alliances. Marketing Letters, 11(1), 81–95. doi:10.1023/A:1008107011529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalera, D., & Zazzaro, A. (2011). Do inter-firm network make access to finance easier? Issues and empirical evidence. In F. Caffaggi (Ed.), Contractual networks, inter-firm cooperation and economic growth (pp. 39–65). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sroka, W., Cygler, J., & Gajdzik, B. (2014). Knowledge transfer in networks—the case of steel enterprises in Poland. Metalurgija, 53(1), 101–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbings, H., & Braganza, A. (2009). Exploring continuous organizational transformation: Morphing through network interdependence. Journal of Change Management, 9(1), 27–48. doi:10.1080/14697010902727161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G., & Weber, D. (1984). A transaction cost approach to make and buy decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296. doi:10.2307/2393356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaqub, M. Z. (2009). Antecedents, consequences and control of opportunistic behavior in strategic networks. Journal of Business and Economics Research, 7(2), 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from network: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 809–825. doi:10.1002/smj.482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. doi:10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland

    Joanna Cygler

Authors
  1. Joanna Cygler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Cygler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, University of Dąbrowa Górnicza, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland

    Włodzimierz Sroka

  2. Department of Management Theories, University of Žilina, Žilina, Slovakia

    Štefan Hittmár

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cygler, J. (2015). Structural Pathology in Inter-organizational Networks and the Decision-Making Autonomy of Its Members. In: Sroka, W., Hittmár, Š. (eds) Management of Network Organizations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17347-4_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation