PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/161887 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2017-06-19 and may be subject to change. Non Profit New For Nonprofit Organization | Nonprofit Quarterl (http://nonprofitquarterl.org/2016/05/23/conideration-ringing-virtual-takeholder-dialogue-organization/) Considerations on ringing Virtual takeholder Dialogue into Organizations PAUL H. DRIN, RORT A. W. KOK AND A HILLRAND | Ma 23, 2016 https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/05/23/considerationsbringingvirtualstakeholderdialogueorganizations/ 1/7 (http://nonprofitquarterl.org/wp-content/log.dir/56/file/2016/05/Dripping-phone.jpg) “ТЕЛЕFFОН” Y ANATAIIA GRYGORIVA / GRYGORIVA.COM (http://grgorieva.com/) ditor’ note: Thi article i an aridged and adapted verion of “Mechanim for takeholder Integration: ringing Virtual takeholder Dialogue into Organization (http://www.ciencedirect.com/cience/article/pii/0148296312002457) ,” originall pulihed in Journal of uine Reearch (Volume 66, Iue 9), in eptemer 2013. Ued with permiion from levier. Thi article i from the Nonprofit Quarterl’ pring 2016 edition, “trategic Nonprofit Management: Framework and caffolding.” Organization uild and maintain relationhip with their external takeholder, uch a cutomer, upplier, government, nongovernmental organization, and union. The engage in continuou communication with multiple takeholder. uch communication ha the character of a dialogue,1 which ha led to the emergence of the term takeholder dialogue.2 Organization engage in takeholder dialogue through o-called oundar panner: organizational memer and department that are directl https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/05/23/considerationsbringingvirtualstakeholderdialogueorganizations/ 2/7 engage in takeholder dialogue through o-called oundar panner: organizational memer and department that are directl involved in the dialogue with takeholder at the interface of the organization and it environment.3 oundar panner introduce takeholder iue into the organization. takeholder iue need coordination to enure that the are ditriuted to the right organizational memer, that oundar panner act upon promie to takeholder, and that oundar panner are prevented from contradicting each other in their communication to takeholder. Thu, takeholder integration i the comination of introducing takeholder iue into the organization and coordinating organizational effort to deal with thee iue. takeholder integration ha gained importance with recent technological development that increaed the eae of communication and the interconnectedne among takeholder. Virtual communication ha increaed the opportunit to have a dialogue with a great numer of takeholder at the ame time. ecaue of greater eae of communication, more and more divere takeholder group can and will join in takeholder dialogue, including takeholder that did not participate in the dialogue efore.4 The ue of the Internet reult not onl in more takeholder iue eing voiced (i.e., intenit of the dialogue) ut alo in more divere takeholder iue (i.e., richne of the dialogue). How can organization deal with the takeholder iue emerging from virtual takeholder dialogue? Depite the growing importance of takeholder integration in practice, the academic dicuion of uch integration i underdeveloped. Mot reearcher treat organization a lack oxe when tuding takeholder integration, reulting in a lack of attention to the internal coordination of the iue emerging from the takeholder dialogue.5 ven founding father of takeholder theor acknowledge that, while takeholder theor ha a lot to contriute on how to identif takeholder and their iue, it “doe fail to provide an algorithm for da-to-da managerial deciion making.”6 (Although deate could exit whether da-to-da managerial deciion making hould fall within the realm of takeholder theor, the managerial need for more concrete guidance in thi repect i eond deate.) The ojective of thi article i to preent ome organizational tructure to coordinate iue emerging from takeholder dialogue. While the coordination of takeholder iue ha received cant attention in takeholder theor, other area of reearch are intructive for invetigating internal coordination of thee iue. Innovation management literature ha extenivel dealt with the quetion of how organization hould coordinate variou organizational department involved in product development.7 a Hillerand and Wim ieman have noted that internal coordination and cooperation with external takeholder are interrelated, a ucceful relationhip with takeholder require the firm to internall coordinate the variou relationhip with thee takeholder.8 The literature ugget a numer of mechanim that organization can ue to coordinate. Two road categorie of coordination mechanim are ditinguihed: tructure and tem.9 In thi article, we will focu on tructure that are defined a configurational arrangement for deciion making. tructure a Mechanim for takeholder Integration The uitailit of pecific tructure in the context of virtual takeholder dialogue can e determined the effect that thee tructure have on organizational identification. Organizational identification refer to the degree to which internal and external takeholder hare elief aout the central and enduring characteritic of the organization, and reflect a ond etween the takeholder and the organization.10 Once takeholder trongl identif themelve with the organization, the are more likel to pread poitive word-of-mouth, to work in the organization, to financiall invet in the organization, and to u it product or ervice.11 In thi manner, organizational identification takeholder lead to increaed reource for the organization.12 In a virtual context, organizational identification i a particularl important organizational outcome, a uch identification repreent the “critical glue” that link takeholder to organization in the aence of phical meeting.13 Literature on organizational tructure ugget that the formal deign of role and adminitrative mechanim help to coordinate activitie among actor.14 tructure include ureaucratic control, temporar tak force, matrix tructure, and virtual team,15 and ma e characterized diperion of control.16 Diperion of control refer to the degree to which deciion making regarding takeholder iue i ditriuted throughout the organization or even eond the oundarie of the organization.17 In a tructure with high diperion of control, man organizational memer and external takeholder participate in deciion making. While mot tudie have focued on organizational tructure to coordinate tak within organization, thee tructure can extend eond the organizational oundar and even include external actor.18 Conequentl, thi article propoe four organizational tructure to enale the coordination of virtual takeholder iue. The following figure, partl aed on Hillerand and ieman, how the four tructure ranked from low to high diperion of control. (Note: The rectangular hape repreent the organizational oundar.) https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/05/23/considerationsbringingvirtualstakeholderdialogueorganizations/ 3/7 (http://nonprofitquarterl.org/wp-content/log.dir/56/file/2016/05/Organizational-tructure.jpg) Diperion of control ha a great impact on organizational identification. In general, participation in deciion making timulate haring organizational norm.19 In virtual takeholder dialogue, participating takeholder uild a hared undertanding of the organization, which lead to organizational identification.20 In a virtual context, active participation lead to increaed organizational identification, ecaue takeholder develop a ene of ownerhip during the creation of hared meaning.21 When control i dipered among takeholder, thi ene of ownerhip among takeholder i fotered. Therefore, we propoe that, in the context of virtual takeholder dialogue, organization with tructure characterized high diperion of control are more likel to have high organizational identification than organization with tructure characterized low diperion of control. We argue that organization hould match their coordination mechanim (including tructure) to the high intenit and richne of virtual takeholder dialogue. Organization without proper internal coordination are prone to act incoherentl on the iue raied their takeholder and likel to face poor organizational identification among their takeholder. Thee organization ma not live up to the expectation raied during the dialogue. Organization with poorl matching coordination mechanim are likel to e common practice: anecdotal oervation ugget that, encouraged the popular pre, conultant, and other organization in the indutr, man organization decide to engage in virtual takeholder dialogue. uch organization are likel to focu on organizing the virtual takeholder dialogue, for intance, uilding we communication platform. A major challenge for organization i to prepare internall for virtual takeholder dialogue, ecaue changing internal tructure ma prove to e difficult.22 Without uitale coordination mechanim, engaging in virtual takeholder dialogue i a uperficial attempt to preent a favorale appearance. Managerial practice that are onl adopted for ceremonial reaon have low effectivene.23 … Adopting virtual takeholder dialogue without uitale coordination mechanim ha detrimental performance conequence. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/05/23/considerationsbringingvirtualstakeholderdialogueorganizations/ 4/7 Adopting virtual takeholder dialogue without uitale coordination mechanim ha detrimental performance conequence. Further reearch hould addre the internal coordination apect of virtual takeholder dialogue to undertand when uch dialogue i likel to ucceed. A firt tep in thi reearch i to carefull document the conequence in cae where virtual takeholder dialogue wa not accompanied matching coordinating mechanim. A thi article i aed on a review of extant literature and a virtual takeholder dialogue i a nacent domain of tud, the inventor of tructure preented in thi article i unlikel to e exhautive. Organization at the forefront of virtual takeholder dialogue are likel to experiment with new tructure in order to deal with the new challenge. Through uch experimentation, thee organization will learn to hare control with takeholder in wa that are mutuall eneficial.24 Note 1. Michael L. Kent and Maureen Talor, “Toward a dialogic theor of pulic relation,” Pulic Relation Review 28, no. 1 (Feruar 2002): 21–37. 2. Jeffre Unerman and Mark ennett, “Increaed takeholder dialogue and the internet: toward greater corporate accountailit or reinforcing capitalit hegemon?” Accounting, Organization and ociet 29, no. 7 (Octoer 2004): 685–707. 3. Ruth Maria tock, “Interorganizational Team a oundar panner etween upplier and Cutomer Companie,” Journal of the Academ of Marketing cience 34, no. 4 (Octoer 2006): 588–99. 4. Roert L. Heath, “New communication technologie: An iue management point of view,” Pulic Relation Review 24, no. 3 (Autumn 1998): 273–88; and Unerman and ennett, “Increaed takeholder dialogue and the internet.” 5. Paul H. Drieen and a Hillerand, “Integrating Multiple takeholder Iue in New Product Development: An xploration,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 30, no. 2 (March 2013): 364–79. 6. Roert A. Phillip, R. dward Freeman, and Andrew C. Wick, “What takeholder Theor I Not,” uine thic Quarterl 13, no. 4 (Octoer 2003): 479–502. 7. Aie Griffin and John R. Hauer, “Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and anali of the literature,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 13, no. 3 (Ma 1996): 191–215. 8. a Hillerand and Wim G. ieman, “Link etween Internal and xternal Cooperation in Product Development: An xplorator tud,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 21, no. 2 (March 2004): 110–22. 9. Jod Hoffer Gittell, “Coordinating Mechanim in Care Provider Group: Relational Coordination a a Mediator and Input Uncertaint a a Moderator of Performance ffect,” Management cience 48, no. 11 (Novemer 2002): 1408– https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/05/23/considerationsbringingvirtualstakeholderdialogueorganizations/ 5/7 Performance ffect,” Management cience 48, no. 11 (Novemer 2002): 1408– 26; Griffin and Hauer, “Integrating R&D and marketing”; and Andrew H. Van De Ven, Andre L. Delecq, and Richard Koenig Jr., “Determinant of Coordination Mode within Organization,” American ociological Review 41, no. 2 (April 1976): 322–38. 10. . hattachara and Kimerl D. lach, “U Veru Them: The Role of Organizational Identification and Diidentification in ocial Marketing Initiative,” Journal of Pulic Polic & Marketing 21, no. 1 (pring 2002): 26–36; and Iaelle Maignan and O. C. Ferrell, “Corporate ocial Reponiilit and Marketing: An Integrative Framework,” Journal of the Academ of Marketing cience 32, no. 1 (Decemer 2004): 3–19. 11. Michael Ahearne, C. . hattachara, and Thoma Gruen, “Antecedent and Conequence of Cutomer– Compan Identification: xpanding the Role of Relationhip Marketing,” Journal of Applied Pcholog 90, no. 3 (Ma 2005): 574–85. 12. Maignan and Ferrell, “Corporate ocial Reponiilit and Marketing.” 13. atia M. Wieenfeld, umita Raghuram, and Raghu Garud, “Communication Pattern a Determinant of Organizational Identification in a Virtual Organization,” Organization cience 10, no. 6 (Novemer/Decemer 1999): 777– 90. 14. Henr Mintzerg, The tructuring of Organization (nglewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979). 15. ee Tom urn and G. M. talker, The Management of Innovation (London: Tavitock Pulication, 1961); ee alo ric M. Olon, Orville C. Walker Jr., and Roert W. Ruekert, “Organizing for ffective New Product Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativene,” Journal of Marketing 59, no. 1 (Januar 1995), 48–62. 16. Griffin and Hauer, “Integrating R&D and marketing.” 17. ee alo Arnold . Tannenaum, Control in Organization (New York: McGrawHill, 1968). 18. a Hillerand and Wim G. ieman, “The relationhip etween internal and external cooperation: literature review and propoition,” Journal of uine Reearch 56, no. 9 (eptemer 2003): 735–43. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/05/23/considerationsbringingvirtualstakeholderdialogueorganizations/ 6/7 Reearch 56, no. 9 (eptemer 2003): 735–43. 19. Arnold . Tannenaum, “Control in Organization: Individual Adjutment and Organizational Performance,” Adminitrative cience Quarterl 7, no. 2 (eptemer 1962): 236–57. 20. Nicola tokurger-auer, “rand communit: Driver and outcome,” Pcholog & Marketing 27, no. 4 (April 2010): 347–68. 21. Wieenfeld, Raghuram, and Garud, “Communication Pattern a Determinant of Organizational Identification in a Virtual Organization.” 22. Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman, “tructural Inertia and Organizational Change,” American ociological Review 49, no. 2 (April 1984): 149–64. 23. Tatiana Kotova and Kendall Roth, “Adoption of an Organizational Practice uidiarie of Multinational Corporation: Intitutional and Relational ffect,” Academ of Management Journal 45, no. 1 (Januar 2002): 215–33. 24. a Hillerand, Paul H. Drieen, and Oliver Koll, “takeholder marketing: theoretical foundation and required capailitie,” Journal of the Academ of Marketing cience 43, no. 4 (Jul 2015): 411–28. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/05/23/considerationsbringingvirtualstakeholderdialogueorganizations/ 7/7
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
