Content uploaded by Michelle Shumate
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michelle Shumate on Nov 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Interorganizational Communication
MICHELLE SHUMATE
Northwestern University, USA
YANNICK ATOUBA
University of Texas at El Paso, USA
KATHERINE R. COOPER
Northwestern University, USA
ANDREW PILNY
University of Kentucky, USA
Interorganizational communication is an umbrella term for the study of a variety of
entities and organizing acts. ese entities include alliances, collaborations, networks,
coalitions, consortiums, partnerships, joint ventures, and relationships. Organizing
acts typically studied include bridging, contracting, networking, cooperating, referring,
collaborating, outsourcing, coordinating, co-branding, sharing information, creating
new knowledge, and joint problem solving. Interorganizational communication is
dened as the structures, forms, and processes created by the exchange of messages
and the co-creation of meaning among organizations and their stakeholders. Each
part of this denition encapsulates important dimensions of scholarly research on the
topic.
First, interorganizational communication research examines the structures, forms,
and processes of interorganizational relationships.estructures include the information
communication technology (ICT) used to maintain collaborations, the role of bound-
ary spanners in managing communication ow, the structure of bona de groups that
manage collaborative relationships through representational leadership, and network
linkages that result in interdependencies among organizations. e forms range from
communities of practice, where individuals primarily share information, to more robust
alliance relationships, where resources, sta, and outcomes are shared. e processes
include the identication of potential partners, the creation of messages for the public
about relationships, the maintenance of relationships, the management of intellectual
propertyanddisclosure,andthedissolutionofrelationships.Eachoftheseprocesses
highlights the varied role of communication in connecting organizations across socially
constructedandoenlegallyrecognizedentityboundaries.
Second, interorganizational communication research examines the exchange of mes-
sages not only between representatives of organizations, but also between agents and
ICT systems, as well as between organizations and their stakeholders. Most research on
message exchange notes that intraorganizational communication relationships benet
from established norms, common metagoals, and a common macroculture. In contrast,
e International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Craig R. Scott and Laurie Lewis (Editors-in-Chief),
James R. Barker, Joann Keyton, Timothy Kuhn, and Paaige K. Turner (Associate Editors).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc117
2INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
interorganizational message exchange faces a variety of barriers not experienced within
organizations. First, there is a tension between the desire to collaborate and share infor-
mation and the reality of competition and the need to protect information to maintain
competitive advantage. Second, in order to share information, organizational represen-
tatives need to bridge semantic distances, since organizations oen develop specialized
language. ird, there are oen infrastructure challenges that impede interorganiza-
tional communications, including when organizations are using dierent ICT systems
and/or in contexts that hamper the free ow of messages.
ird, interorganizational communication research examines the co-creation of
meaning, not only between organizational representatives but also between publics and
organizations about the existence and character of the interorganizational relationship.
Whereas the exchange of messages focuses on communication ow, interorganizational
communication research that focuses on the co-creation of meaning describes the
ways that relationships are socially constructed and understood by organizational
agents and their stakeholders.
Finally, interorganizational communication includes not just organizational lead-
ers and employees. In addition, a host of stakeholders, or people who are invested in
and/or aected by organizations, receive and co-construct messages about organiza-
tional aliation. ese stakeholders both enable and constrain relationships among
organizations.
Origins of interorganizational communication research
e study of interorganizational communication has its origins in sociology and man-
agement. Over time, interest in the topic has expanded, not only in organizational com-
munication, but also in community psychology, implementation science, social work,
public administration, and organizational psychology. is interdisciplinary eld of
researchhascommonorigins–rstinthestudyoforganizationalinterlocksandthen
in the study of boundary spanners. Although research in each of these topics is ongo-
ing, most interorganizational communication research has turned to the third topic,
interorganizational communication networks.
Organizational interlocks
One of the rst topics investigated in interorganizational communication research,
broadly dened, was organizational interlocks. Interlocks, at the most general level,
describe overlapping memberships among organizations. Scholarly research about
corporate interlocks dates back to 1905. Most research focuses on interlocking
directorates, where individuals are members of more than one organizational board.
ere are three dominant views about the reason for organizational interlocks. e
resource dependence view suggests that interlocks may be a mechanism for collusion,
cooptation, or monitoring, each of which is an activity designed to control an uncertain
environment. In contrast, social class research views underlying social relations as
the root cause of interlocks. Such a view points to systems of clubs or society that
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 3
promotesocialcohesionandcontrolamongtheelite.Accordingtoinstitutionaltheory,
corporate interlocks are formed because organizations seek legitimacy. Association
with other prominent organizations through, for example, board membership can
enhance an organization’s stature with stakeholders. Increasingly, researchers have
emphasized the compatibility of resource dependence, social class, and institutional
views.
Institutional and information theories have been the most prominent frameworks
for the study of outcomes of organizational interlocks in general and interlocking
directorates specically. Exposure to other corporations’ activities leads rms to
imitate others’ behaviors. Some research has supported such imitation in diverse
areas – for example, corporate acquisition, philanthropy, and option backdating.
However, research on protability and debt/equity has been inconclusive, leading
critics to assert that interlocking directorates fail to explain strategic behavior. Some
critics suggest that studies of interlocking directorates minimize the complexities and
dynamics of boards and their strategic decision making processes.
Boundary spanners
A second thread of interorganizational communication research was the study of
interorganizational boundary spanners. Boundary spanners are individuals who
interact with individuals or entities in other organizations. ey maintain and monitor
theenvironment,makeexchangeswithothers,andrepresenttheorganization.Because
of their unique role, boundary spanners oen experience competing demands from
their own and other organizations with which they are aliated. Although early
research on boundary spanners largely considered them as individuals, more recent
research has opened up the possibility of considering whole interagency teams as
boundary spanners.
Muchoftheresearchonboundaryspannershasfocusedontheirindividualperfor-
mances. Variables such as self-monitoring (i.e., one’s sensitivity to social cues and ability
to adapt in response to those cues), trust, and the individual’s identication with both
organizations inuence the boundary spanner’s performance. However, an integrative
model of factors that inuence such performance is sorely needed.
Interorganizational communication networks
A third thread in early interorganizational communication research was the study of
interorganizational communication networks. Eisenberg and colleagues (1985) were
among the rst to describe the communication linkages that occur among organiza-
tions. In doing so, they separated interorganizational communication networks as a
study within the eld of interorganizational relations more broadly and distinguished
them from the study of organizational interlocks and boundary spanners.
Early studies on interorganizational communication networks were preoccupied
with dierences in interorganizational forms. In these studies, interorganizational
communication networks were seen as a challenge to traditional hierarchical models of
organizing. In particular, scholars were fascinated by Japanese kyoryokukai, or supply
4INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
chains. ey posited that eective supply chain and interorganizational knowledge
network management can lead to enhanced network learning, where the network as a
whole gains important knowledge to improve production.
Theories of interorganizational communication
ere are various dierent explanations for the emergence, maintenance, pattern, and
outcomes of interorganizational communication. Although early theoretical work on
the topic was derived largely from other disciplines – namely, economics and manage-
ment – more recently, theories have been developed that give primacy to communica-
tion mechanisms.
Resource dependence
e early literature on interorganizational relationships suggests that organizations
form interorganizational relationships to compensate for resource dependencies and
uncertainty. Interdependence is the most common explanation for the formation of
interorganizational communication relationships. Resource dependence theory, which
was developed by Pfeer and Salancik (1978), is based on the assumption that the most
important goal of an organization is to survive, and that survival requires dierent
types of resources that cannot all be generated internally. Organizations thus depend
on their environments for those resources.
Resource dependence theory is an approach rooted in an open system framework,
which argues that organizations must engage in exchanges with their environment to
obtain resources. In other words, the exchange of resources (e.g., monetary, informa-
tion, political) constitutes the major rationale for organizations engaging in interorgani-
zational relationships in general and interorganizational communication relationships
in particular. Organizations voluntarily involve themselves in collaborative relation-
ships to gain resources or advantages oered by other organizations’ resources.
To successfully manage their dependence on other organizations, resource depen-
dence theorists argue that organizations must (1) acquire control over critical resources
as a way of reducing their dependence on other organizations, and (2) acquire con-
trol over resources that other organizations need, to increase the dependence of other
organizations on them. In other words, according to this approach, organizations form
relationships with other organizations in order to obtain access to critical resources and
to increase their power relative to other organizations in their environment.
Domain approaches
Another approach to interorganizational communication relationships, especially in
the nonprot sector, is domain theory. Domain theory emphasizes the dynamics of
interorganizational domains, which are dened in terms of sets of common problems
facing organizations. is problem centered approach draws explicitly on the work
of Emery and Trist (1965), who introduced the notion of turbulent environments
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 5
where challenges or problems characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and unclear
boundaries cannot be addressed by single organizations operating alone.
According to domain approaches, interorganizational relations occur and interorga-
nizational domains emerge because dierent organizations perceive themselves to be
connected to common problems and issues. Interorganizational communication rela-
tions are conceptualized as a socially negotiated order that evolves through a process
of joint appreciation about a domain. Interorganizational domains are not objective,
static, predetermined structures, but processes of negotiation, cognitive structuring,
social construction, meaning creation, and sensemaking, wherein social order is con-
stantly negotiated and enacted. As members of dierent organizations come to share a
vision of the problems, issues, and participants that constitute the domain, their shared
perception of connection through common problems and issues leads to the creation
of an identity for the domain and mutually agreed upon rules, procedures, directions,
and boundaries, which may be perceived and experienced as a permanent structure.
Transaction cost economics
Organizational economists have used transaction cost economics to explain the for-
mation of interorganizational alliances as alternative organizational forms to the more
traditional markets and hierarchies. Transaction cost economics (TCE) theory argues
that transactions are aligned with organizational structures so as to eect a discrimi-
nating – essentially transaction cost economizing – match. According to TCE, the costs
(production costs and transaction costs) associated with various organizational struc-
tures constitute the critical factor determining the choice of transacting mode. e
production costs of organizations vary as a result of a number of factors, such as the
scale of their operations, their sizes, geographical location, learning/experience eects,
and proprietary inuences such as trade secrets and patents. Transaction costs also vary,
and include costs associated with the management, arrangement, and monitoring of
transactions across markets. In sum, this perspective, which assumes rational choice by
actors, views the existence of particular interorganizational relations as a product of a
relatively complex economic calculus, where the goals are to minimize the sum of both
the production and the transaction costs and the risks associated with the governing
arrangement.
Stakeholder theory
e stakeholder approach to interorganizational alliance formation views organizations
atthecenterofanetworkofstakeholders.Anorganization’sstakeholdersrefertoany
group of individuals who can aect or are aected by the organization. ese include the
organization’s employees/members, its investors, its customers, its suppliers, its com-
petitors, the local communities in which it serves and operates, the regulatory agencies
that oversee its operations, and so on. us, according to stakeholder theory, organiza-
tions are vehicles for coordinating stakeholder interests.
e stakeholder perspective is based on the idea that organizations are, by nature,
cooperative systems. As a result of their cooperative nature, organizations therefore
6INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
tend to form ties with stakeholders to achieve common objectives. ese relationships,
variously referred to as constellations, networks, or alliances, can serve as powerful
mechanisms for aligning the interests of various stakeholders and can also help an orga-
nization reduce environmental uncertainty.
Homophily
One of the most important factors inuencing the pattern of relationships in inter-
organizational communication networks is homophily.erationaleforthetheoryof
homophily is that “similarity breeds” connections. In other words, homophily suggests
that contact or relationships between similar organizations occur at a higher rate than
among dissimilar organizations. Atouba and Shumate (2015) distinguish among three
types of interorganizational homophily: attribute based homophily, geography based
homophily, and institutional homophily.
Attribute based homophily refers to homophily based on general characteristics or
attributes across which organizations can be similar and that can aect their network-
ing patterns. When organizations share certain key attributes (e.g., age, interests, mis-
sion, operating systems, culture), the similarity provides inducement and opportuni-
ties to form communication ties with particular organizations. is is the traditionally
researched aspect of interorganizational homophily eects. e operating mechanism
for this type of homophily is the desire by organizations to nd predictable, compatible,
or trustworthy partners. In other words, attribute based homophilous organizations are
motivated to build communication ties with each other because their similarity is per-
ceived to facilitate communication ows and interactions, make ties easier to manage,
and help reduce the risks of relational failure. Minimizing the risks of relational failure
or maximizing the likelihood of relational success are important goals of organizations
involved in interorganizational communication relationships.
Geography based homophily refers to homophily based upon embeddedness in a com-
mon meaningful space or sociocultural environment. Although somewhat related to
proximity theories, geography based homophily describes a tendency for organizations
to select others in a larger space or geographical area than those in which proximity
mechanisms typically operate. Unlike proximity theories, which suggest that organiza-
tions are likely to interact if they are close to each other (in terms of physical distance),
geography based homophily is not primarily based on distance or physical proximity,
but on organizations’ operations in and identication with common political, socio-
economic, and cultural environments. In other words, this type of homophily occurs
because organizations that operate in or identify with common environments tend to
confront similar issues, problems, and stakeholders, and thus have more incentives to
build communication ties with each other.
Institutional homophily refers to homophily that is induced by or based on the eect
of institutional forces on organizations.Institutional forces constrain organizations to
become more alike by conforming to similar standards, adopting similar practices, and
behaving in similar ways. Such “constrained” or “manufactured” similarity in turn cre-
ates opportunities, incentives, or mandates to build interorganizational communication
ties. Institutional homophily is similar to structural homophily,whichsuggeststhattwo
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 7
organizations are more likely to form a communication relationship when they share
a common partner. However, institutional homophily is also more encompassing than
structural homophily in that it also takes into account the eects of power, resource
dependency, and institutional constraints in explaining partner selection among orga-
nizations. For instance, in the nonprot sector, organizations are oen more likely to
build ties to other organizations when they have a common tie to a powerful partner,
suchasafunderorgovernmentagency.Insum,communicationrelationshipsformed
as a result of institutional homophily may be formed by choice or may be induced or
mandated.
Learning and innovation approaches
Learning and innovation approaches to interorganizational communication suggest
that organizations form ties to capitalize on opportunities for organizational learning
and innovation. Indeed, the organizational learning framework focuses on interorga-
nizational collaboration and alliances as a response by organizations to environmental
changes demanding improvement in their knowledge base, their technological capa-
bilities, or both. erefore, learning and innovation approaches to interorganizational
communication ties argue that such collaboration can facilitate the exploitation and
transfer of existing knowledge as well as the creation of new knowledge.
According to March (1991), organizational learning that occurs in interorganiza-
tional alliances can be divided into two types of activities: exploitation and exploration.
Exploitation is associated with increasing organizational performance through reduc-
ing costs and improving existing capabilities. In this context, organizations oen form
alliances to increase economies of scale with the goal of reducing costs or improving
the eciency of distribution channels. Exploration, on the other hand, is associated
with developing new opportunities for wealth creation, which may involve invention,
innovation, research to build new capabilities, discovering new markets, or improving
absorptive capacity. In this context, organizations oen form alliances to create new
technologies and develop new products.
Ecological approaches
Organizational ecology focuses on the reasons for and ways in which organizations
adapt to existing markets and regulatory environments and work to better t their
identied market niches. According to organizational ecology theorists, most organiza-
tions experience extensive inertia, and change occurs through an evolutionary process
of variation–selection–retention. Vari at i o n, the source of evolutionary change, refers
to the change of routines, activities, or traits and could include blind (random) and
intentional variations. e selection processisperformedtoselectoptimalvariations
(routines or organizational traits) to help organizations better cope with environmental
changes. In response to such environmental changes then, organizations might learn
how to face novel challenges and thus enhance their knowledge and capabilities. e
retention process entails the standardization of the newly selected variations.
8INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
According to Hannan and Freeman (1977) a principle of isomorphism leads
organizations to match the characteristics of the environments in which they operate.
us, the ecological perspective suggests that, as environments shi, organizations
develop other interorganizational communication relationships that better t the
changed context.
Institutional theory
According to institutional theory, an organization’s life chances are signicantly
improved by its demonstrations of conformity to the norms and social expectations of
the institutional environment in which it operates. In other words, institutional theory
suggests that institutional environments impose pressures on organizations to appear
legitimate and conform to prevailing social norms.
In a business context, institutional theorists argue that institutional forces motivate
organizations to engage in activities or behavior that will increase their legitimacy
and the appearance that they are in conformity with the prevailing rules, standards,
and norms of their business environments. e development of interorganizational
communication ties constitutes one way rms can gain legitimacy or demonstrate con-
formity with the prevailing rules, standards, and norms of their business environments.
As a strategy of acceptance and survival, conformity to institutional environments
oen involves imitating or mimicking industry norms, standards, and successful prac-
tices. As a result, many organizations engage in interorganizational communication
relationships simply because other successful organizations in their environments are
doing so.
In the third sector, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) oen form ties with
other organizations to meet necessary legal or regulatory requirements. Indeed, man-
dates from higher authorities (e.g., government agencies, donors, legislation, or profes-
sional regulatory bodies) oen provide the impetus for collaborative relationships that
otherwise might not have occurred voluntarily.
Collective action
In a general sense, collective action simply refers to the phenomenon of any related
action taken by more than one person. eories of collective action (e.g., public
goods, critical mass) mostly seek to explain this phenomenon and oer strategies
on understanding the conditions that will make collective action more or less likely
to emerge. Collective action is widely interdisciplinary, being studied in various
elds like economics, political science, psychology, sociology, computer science, and
communication.
Applied to interorganizational relationships, most communication research has
viewed collective action as the creation and maintenance of a public good. A public
good is any type of resource or commodity that is accessible to any member of
the public and that emerges out of collective action. Public goods are traditionally
dened by two characteristics: (1) complete inclusiveness for anybody to use the
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 9
public good (i.e., impossibility of exclusion), and (2) that one person’s use of the
public good does not diminish the good for another person. Fulk and colleagues
(1996) view interorganizational relationships as both connective and communal
public goods. Connective public goods are the dierent types and structures of
interorganizational relationships themselves, because they allow the possibility of
communication and coordination to happen in the rst place (i.e., they connect orga-
nizations together). On the other hand, interorganizational relationships as communal
public goods are when organizations create relationships based on sharing information
into an accessible medium like an electronic shared database (i.e., mediated ow
communication).
e most recent trends pertaining to collective action theory deal with the changing
role of technology. e increasing use of technology by organizations (e.g., social
media), some argue, has complicated traditional collective action tenets. For example,
given the ease of communication in multiple mediums, the levels and structures of
coordinating interorganizational collective action can take many dierent forms, from
a loose decentralized form that uses low levels of coordination (e.g., online social
movement), to a hierarchical bureaucratic structure that uses heavy coordination
from organizations taking a leadership role (e.g., creation of an interorganizational
federation).
Bona fide collaborating groups and network perspectives
e bona de collaborating groups perspective highlights the importance of commu-
nication between group members that represent organizations. is concept derives
from the understanding of bona de groups, in which communication researchers were
encouraged to consider stable but permeable boundaries, as well as group interdepen-
dence with the environment. Bona de groups’ emphasis on uid boundaries enabled
further study of the dierent types of communication processes that shaped group pro-
cess and behavior.
Researchers utilized the term “bona de collaborative groups” to reect the inter-
organizational nature of collaboration. Previously, interorganizational communication
research tended to assume that “groups” referred to those who shared the same
employer, location, or had other organizational characteristics in common. In contrast,
bona de collaborating groups referred to dierent ways of working – for example,
collaboratorswhomightsharethesameemployer,butnotthesamelocation,or
those who coordinated some of their activities virtually. In bona de collaborating
groups – as in the case of bona de groups – researchers argued for the need to explore
the dynamics within the group as well as those outside the group, as well as how the
twoimpactedoneanother.
e bona de network perspective was developed in response to existing models of
interorganizational collaboration and suggests that boundaries of collaboration pertain
to social issues as opposed to formal membership structures. Additionally, the bona de
network perspective emphasizes the presence of multiplex relationships within collab-
oration and environmental factors that inuenced interorganizational communication.
10 INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
Finally, the perspective suggests that outcomes of organizational networks occur at
organizational and network levels.
Symbiotic sustainability model
e symbiotic sustainability model, introduced by Shumate and O’Connor (2010), is a
predictive model focusing on the pattern and outcomes of nonprot, nongovernmental
organization, and for-prot corporation alignment. Corporate–NGO relations include
corporate sponsorship of charitable events, licensing nonprot and corporate brands,
causemarketing,NGOcertication,andcollectiveimpactpartnerships.emodel’s
central assertion is that the communication of the existence and character of the cross-
sector relationship to stakeholders, rather than the resources exchanged within the rela-
tionship,isofprimaryimportance.Assuch,themodelfocusesoninterorganizational
representational communication, rather than interorganizational communication ow
or anity relationships (see description below). Communication is the constitutive ele-
ment by which organizations convince stakeholders of the legitimacy and character of
the alliance in an attempt to mobilize capital.
e symbiotic sustainability model includes six testable propositions. Proposition
1 states that “the existence, character, and valuation” of NGO–corporate alignment
is “communicatively co-constructed” by the organizations and their stakeholders.
is proposition draws attention to the role of external stakeholders in the symbolic
creation and interpretation of NGO–corporate alignment. Stakeholders include
consumers, activists, and legislators. According to proposition 2, the communication
of the NGO–corporate partnership triggers stakeholders to mobilize or restrict capital.
Proposition 3 focuses on partner choice, suggesting that it is determined by the poten-
tial partner’s perceived ability to mobilize stakeholders and their associated capital. In
short, the proposition suggests that the partners’ accumulated capital and position in
the cross-sector interorganizational network provide evidence of the potential value of
the relationship. Proposition 4 states that corporations and nonprots face diminishing
returns for accumulating partners. Communication of a limited number of unique
partners has greater value than communication of many cross-sector relationships.
e risk and rewards of NGO–corporate alignment are the focus of propositions 5 and
6, respectively. Since the organizations take on new organizational activities by creating
the relationship, or bridging, they gain access to the capital that stakeholders associate
with their partners. Alternatively, they also may trigger stakeholders to restrict capital
because of perceptions of that partner. In this way, NGOs and corporations may inherit
the other’s friends and enemies.
Types of interorganizational communication
e theories described above have been applied to various dierent types of interorga-
nizational communication. Many of these theories have been applied without regard
to the type of interorganizational communication being studied. Shumate and Con-
tractor (2013) introduced a typology to describe the dierent relations that constitute
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 11
organizational networks: (1) anity, (2) ow, (3) representational, and (4) semantic.
Moreover, Shumate and Contractor suggest that certain theories are more likely to
apply to particular types of organizational communication networks than others. is
classication can be extended to interorganizational communication research more
generally.
Flow interorganizational communication represents the exchange or transmission
of messages or information, as exemplied by classic information approaches to
communication. In contrast, anity interorganizational communication emphasizes
enacted relationships rather than messages or resources being shared. Anity based
interorganizational communication accounts for the social construction of relations
that enable actors to describe enduring relationships between organizations. ese
enduring relationships may be viewed positively, negatively, or with a mix of positive
and negative elements. Representational interorganizational communication describes
aliation related messages among actors that are communicated to a third party or to
apublic.Nomessageisexchangedbetweentheactors.Instead,actorscommunicate
about the existence and character of the relationship to a larger audience. Finally,
semantic relations emphasize shared meaning or symbol use. Interorganizational
communication research has typically focused on anity ties, while relatively few
studies have examined ow, representational, or semantic relations.
Affinity interorganizational communication
Interorganizational anity relations refer to socially constructed relationships that
have either a negative or positive valence. Unlike interorganizational ow relationships,
interorganizational anity relations do not explicitly indicate the ow, transmission,
or exchange of messages, data, and information among actors. Rather, these relations
refer to more enduring connections among organizations, and communication is
assumed to be implicit in those relations. Communication is essential in the initiation,
maintenance, and dissolution of anity relationships. us, anity relations, though
not explicitly referring to message ows, are essentially communicative in nature.
ere are dierent types of socially constructed anity relationships. In organiza-
tional research, the interorganizational anity relations that have received the most
attention include collaboration and alliances among organizations. In each case, the
relationship is enduring and socially constructed by one or both parties.
Interorganizational collaboration
Interorganizational collaboration has been conceptualized and examined in a variety
of ways, depending on approaches, elds, and authors. Scholars and practitioners
generally agree about ve aspects. First, interorganizational collaboration is used as a
positive term in contrast to negative interorganizational relations, such as interorga-
nizational conicts. Second, interorganizational collaboration entails more than just
information sharing, and has to be more than resource sharing with mutual obligations.
ird, interorganizational collaboration creates or constitutes an opportunity (actual or
12 INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
perceived) for joint value creation among participating organizations. e joint value
creation comes out of reciprocal exchanges and mutual adjustment and interactions.
Fourth, interorganizational collaboration can take a multitude of forms (e.g., consortia,
networks, coalition) and does not conform to just one approach or formula. In other
words, collaborative arrangements can be more or less formalized depending on the
context and the parties or actors involved. Fih, interorganizational collaboration is
constituted through communication. In other words, interorganizational collaboration
is enacted, produced, negotiated, and sustained through communication.
Interorganizational alliances
Interorganizational alliances, also referred to as strategic alliances or joint ventures, are
partnership agreements between two or more parties, usually rms, to share resources,
knowledge,orriskstopursueasetofagreeduponobjectiveswhileremaininginde-
pendent organizations. Alliance partners may share or contribute resources such as
products, technology, knowledge, intellectual property, distribution channels, capital
equipment, and manufacturing infrastructure. rough interorganizational alliances,
rms complement their internal assets, capabilities, and operations by accessing needed
resources or capabilities from other organizations.
Although the concepts of interorganizational collaboration and interorganizational
alliance are sometimes used interchangeably, the latter is mostly used when referring to
partnerships involving rms or business organizations. However, an alliance between
organizations does entail some degree of collaboration between those organizations,
even though, in many alliances, such collaboration may be purchased. is may be the
case, for instance, in an alliance that might occur between a rm and its suppliers.
Cross-sector affinity relationships and considerations
Due to the growing importance and complexity of societal problems and challenges,
organizations have increasingly developed anity relationships across the three main
societal sectors – business, government, and civil society. In these cross-sector part-
nerships, organizations jointly address challenges such as education, health care, eco-
nomic development, community capacity building, poverty alleviation, and environ-
mental degradation. Cross-sector anity relationships can be organized or classied
into four types: nonprot–business, nonprot–government, business–government, and
trisector.
Nonprot–business relationships represent partnerships between nonprot organi-
zations and businesses that encompass social problems and issues. ese partnerships
tend to center on economic development initiatives and environmental issues, but also
address health, education, and other social issues such as domestic violence and hunger.
Nonprot–government relationships represent partnerships between government
agencies and nonprot organizations. ese partnerships encompass governments
contracting out public services to nonprots and third-way public policy approaches.
In third-way policy approaches and governance, governments seek active engagement
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 13
with nonprots in the elaboration of social programs and policies, as well as the
delivery of social services.
Business–government relationships represent partnerships between government
agencies and businesses. e main form here is the public–private partnership. ese
types of partnerships generally do not concentrate directly on social issues or causes.
ey tend to focus on issues such as infrastructure development, technology, energy,
defense, and public services such as electricity and water that have important social
implications.
Trisector partnerships refer to partnerships that involve organizations from all three
sectors. ese partnerships tend to focus on large-scale local, national, international,
or global multisector projects. Additionally, these partnerships generally address issues
of economic and community development, environmental sustainability, famine and
malnutrition, social services, and health.
Central concepts/findings
Research on interorganizational anity relationships can be organized in two main
categories: antecedents and processes. Antecedents refer to the factors that inuence
the emergence and conguration of anity relationships. Processes describe research
that examines how interorganizational anity relationships change over time. Unfor-
tunately, communication scholars have so far not examined the outcomes of anity
networks among organizations. Outcomes refer to the eects, impact, or consequences
of anity relationships.
Antecedents
Research on antecedents of interorganizational anity relations suggests that three fac-
tors may inuence the emergence and conguration of anity ties: interdependent
network structures, node homophily, and node status. Interdependent network struc-
tures describe the ways in which the social construction of relationships is a coordinated
eort across actors. Network structures that have been found to inuence the congu-
ration of anity relationships include reciprocity, transitivity, and centralization.
Second, communication researchers have found homophily to be an important pre-
dictor of the presence of anity ties among organizations. For instance, Atouba and
Shumate (2015) found that various sources of homophily (e.g., age, region, global hemi-
sphere, funding partners) inuenced the conguration of anity ties among infectious
disease international NGOs. Similarly, Taylor and Doerfel (2003) found that founda-
tional members of a collective action tend to be more central in anity networks. eir
research suggests that node status external to the network examined may play an impor-
tant role in its structuring.
Processes
To date, there has been very little research on processes of interorganizational anity
relations. e few studies that have been done in this area have shown that past anity
14 INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
relationships are the best predictors of future anity relationships among organizations.
In other words, organizations tend to collaborate with the same partners over time.
Additionally, recent research has also shown that closure is an important mechanism
in the evolution of nonprot anity networks. Essentially, a closure mechanism sug-
gests that nonprots that have anity ties with the same partners are more likely to
themselves form anity ties.
Flow interorganizational communication research
Interorganizational communication as the study of ow examines complex transactions
of information, messages, and data that are sent and received between organizations.
Flow bears the most similarity to classical models of communication as information
transmission (as reected in information theory, which is popular in computer sci-
ence). Metaphorically, a ow can be thought of as a pipeline between organizations,
where interorganizational communication is characterized as realized connections that
serve as avenues for information, messages, and data to ow from one organization to
another. For instance, when two political interest group organizations routinely share
information about potential candidates for oce, they contribute to an interorganiza-
tional system of communication ow.
If ow represents pipelines that aord the possibility of message transaction between
organizations, then one can examine the dierent types of pipelines that organizational
communication research has examined. In current examinations of interpersonal com-
munication, three types of ow have been of particular interest: interpersonal, contrac-
tual, and mediated ow.
Interpersonal flow
Interpersonal interorganizational ow refers to any situation in which members of
dierent organizations communicate messages, information, and data face-to-face.
Boundary spanners mediate the ow between organizations and build relationships
with other external organizations in the environment. For instance, when an individual
boundary spanner creates connections to other organizations by attending larger
conferences and sitting in on joint meetings, they are creating interpersonal ow ties
with other boundary spanners from other organizations.
Contractual flow
Contractual interorganizational ow refers to any situation in which information, mes-
sages, and data are transmitted based on pre-existing contractual obligations between
organizations. Sometimes referred to as “market relationships” (Uzzi, 1997), contrac-
tual ow typically has an economic motivation (e.g., a franchise) and is oen desig-
nated by third parties. e type of information that ows in contractual relationships
is oen characterized as workow, referring to the information regarding procedures,
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 15
operations, and terms of the contract. For example, when two organizations enter into
a joint contract, they establish contractual ow to maintain that agreement.
Mediated flow
Mediated interorganizational ow refers to any situation where a technological medium
is used to broker communication ow between organizations. More specically, it refers
to the use of ICT to retrieve information and maintain relationships. Examples include
knowledge management tools like data repositories and wikis. For instance, when two
organizations create a shared data folder (e.g., Dropbox), the technology mediates com-
munication ow between those two organizations.
Central concepts/findings
ere are two concepts that are central in studying interorganizational ow: (1) how
communication ow is measured and (2) the relationship of communication ow to
goals. With respect to the rst issue, there is a discrepancy in how researchers have been
measuring ow networks, either as perceived or observed ow. Interorganizational com-
munication measures of perceived ow typically ask organizations, either via surveys
or interviews, to indicate those with whom they regularly communicate. Interorgani-
zational communication measured as observed ow nds ways to gather unobtrusive
information about organizational communication, oen using what is known as trace
data (e.g., email, phone calls, meeting archives). e big issue is that the two ways of
measuring ow, though sometimes correlated, are not the same. In other words, the
organizations with which they think they have ow relationships are oen not the same
organizations in which they were observed to have ow relationships. Most researchers
continue to either neglect this important point or implicitly make generalizations on
observed ow while analyzing perceived ow.
A second important point regards the nature of goals within interorganizational ow,
being emphasized more by either individual or joint goals. Joint goals are more likely
in collective action eorts taken up by organizations dedicated to preserving some sort
of public good (e.g., nonprots, interest groups); individual goals are more likely in
eorts taken up by rms where individual prot is the primary motivation to establish
interorganizational ow ties. Not surprisingly, theories to help explain the emergence
of interorganizational ow ties will likely dier depending on whether joint or individ-
ualgoalsareemphasizedmore.Jointgoalsaremorelikelytobeexplainedbytheories
with a cooperative focus like theories of collective action (e.g., public goods theory);
conversely,individualgoalsaremorelikelytobeexplainedbytheories–suchasof
self-interest – with an individual focus (e.g., structural hole theory).
e research on outcomes of interorganizational ow is not as extensive as other
relationships(e.g.,anity).However,acommonndingregardingtheseoutcomesis
imitation as predicted by theories emphasizing contagion (i.e., institutional theory,
social learning, diusion). at is, the more contact organizations have with one
another via interorganizational ow, the more likely they are going to be exposed to
16 INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
other organizations’ behaviors and practices, and the more likely they are going to
learn and be inuenced by those practices.
Finally, there is also some evidence that interorganizational ow has a relationship
with outcomes oen related to organizational performance. However, it is not simply
establishing ow ties that makes the dierence, but an organization’s quality of
interorganizational ow and position in a larger network of interorganizational ow.
Some studies have found evidence demonstrating the impact of quality patterns like
long-term orientation of ow and centrality and diversity of ties with organizational
performance.
In general, the study of communication ow is much more common when the units
of analysis are individuals rather than organizations. Studying ow among individu-
alsallowsforappealinganalysesofsocialinuenceanddiusion,forexample.One
of the reasons for such a paucity of research may be that organizations might rarely
communicate with one another if they do not already collaborate (i.e., anity ties) or
publicly endorse (i.e., representational ties) one another. As such, when researchers
study interorganizational ow, the focus is the actual content, rather than mere pres-
ence, of interorganizational ow.
Representational interorganizational communication
Interorganizational communication may also be thought of in terms of representa-
tional communication. Representational relations dier from the aforementioned types
of communication; unlike ow, no messages are shared between actors, and, unlike
anity,noenduringrelationshipisimpliedbetweenactors.Representationalrelations
suggestaconnectionbetweenactorsthatiscommunicatedtothepublic,ortoathird
party. A similar idea was described by McPhee and Zaug (2001) as institutional posi-
tioning, which refers to “external communication to gain recognition and inclusion in
the web of social transactions” (p. 588). Representational links have been described as
“name-dropping”; as such, they are distinct from other types of relationships in that
they do not require the knowledge of the partner being named. Representational rela-
tions also dier from other communication networks in that there is no cost on the
receiving end of representational linkages. Below, we will explore types of interorga-
nizational representational communication, as well as related theories and key themes
from this research.
Representational relations represent a smaller body of interorganizational commu-
nication research compared to other forms of relationships, such as anity. However,
there are two distinct types of representational linkages between organizations: hyper-
links and interorganizational endorsements.
Interorganizational hyperlinks
e most frequently cited example of representational networks within organizational
communication research is hyperlinks. Consistent with representational relations’
characterization as “name-dropping,” organizations may link to other websites without
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 17
having any formal relationship between the organizations. However, researchers have
suggestedthathyperlinkstructuresareindicativeofotherformsofrelations.us
far, the research on hyperlinks has included governmental, corporate, and nonprot
organizations, though the majority of research considers nonprot or social movement
websites.
Interorganizational endorsements
Apart from hyperlinks, the most common type of representational relations to be
explored in research is organizational naming or endorsement of another actor. is
may reect a desire on behalf of the organization to accumulate more resources or to
appear legitimate or credible to a third-party audience. In particular, researchers have
focused on connections between nonprot organizations and corporate organizations.
Central concepts/findings
Compared to other forms of interorganizational communication, the study of rep-
resentational networks is in a relatively early stage. us far, most of the research
within organizational communication pertains to either hyperlink networks or
corporate–nonprot relationships as depicted in the symbiotic sustainability model
developed by Shumate and O’Connor (2010).
Hyperlink research has been developed in three areas. First, scholars have explored
hyperlink relationships within the context of broader networks to suggest that cer-
tain patterns – such as reciprocal linkages – are common within a network. Second,
researchers have used homophily as a theoretical framework for exploring whether
organizational similarities (e.g., similar goals, location, or political aliation) inuence
linking. ird, research has explored whether hyperlinks are connected to other rela-
tions, and has suggested that, in fact, online linking is inuenced by oine relationships
or exchanges.
e symbiotic sustainability model explores connections around social issues
between nonprot or nongovernmental organizations and corporations. In particular,
the model highlights communication of these partnerships to an external audience
for the purpose of mobilizing capital (e.g., economic, social, cultural, or political).
Subsequent work by Shumate and O’Connor has explored both the frequency of these
relationships – suggesting that federated NGOs or foundations were more likely than
local NGOs to have relationships with multiple corporations – and the types of social
issues that are more likely to prompt collaboration between NGOs and corporations.
Regardless of the context in which the research takes place, interorganizational com-
munication research on representational relations results in two ndings. First, repre-
sentational networks are common, depending on other characteristics of a group of
actors–whichmaybeoutsidethenetworkoramongtheactorsthemselves.Second,
networks typically have highly skewed indegree distributions (i.e., a few organizations
have many ties directed to them, but most have only a few ties), likely due to the fact
that there is no cost to receiving representational ties. However, research has not yet
explored the outcomes of representational relations.
18 INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
Semantic interorganizational communication
Semantic interorganizational communication focuses on shared meaning or symbol use
among organizations. Communication scholars introduced semantic network analysis
in the 1980s as one way of understanding shared meanings among actors in general.
However, very little work has been done in this area. In the work that has been done,
shared organizational mission statements or similar “about us” texts have been used
to predict other types of communication relationships. ese studies demonstrate that
shared meaning positively inuences the formation of both anity and representational
interorganizational communication relationships.
A small, but growing, eort to understand how organizations jointly create meaning
has arisen out of the communicative constitution of organizations approach. e most
notable work in this area is that of Koschmann (2013), who argues that textual abstrac-
tion of interorganizational communication is used to create collective identity in an
interorganizational collective. In other words, shared meaning occurs via the process
of the joint creation of interorganizational texts.
Emerging research
A number of new areas for research are developing in the study of interorganizational
communication. ese areas have mixed results, but represent important new frontiers
for future research, which will expand the study of interorganizational communication
in general and produce new paths of inquiry.
Macrolevel outcomes of interorganizational communication
One of the most promising areas for interorganizational communication research is the
outcomes of these relationships, which have been previously been studied at the indi-
vidual, group, and organization levels. ese have been described in previous sections.
However, recent research has signaled that important outcomes of interorganizational
communication may occur at the collaboration and whole network levels.
Atthelevelofthecollaboratinggroup,thereareanumberofoutcomesthathave
been proposed, largely through case study research, as important considerations. Some
of these are about the relationship between the parties themselves. For example, the
enduringnatureofthecollaboratinggroup,thesatisfactionwiththeprocessofcollabo-
ration, the degree to which conict is satisfactorily managed in the collaborating group,
and the trust developed among the partners can all be seen as outcomes of interorga-
nizational communication. Although much of the research to date has focused on such
positive outcomes, many scholars have noted that most collaborations fail and some
may even produce negative outcomes for the organizational members.
Collaborations may produce institutional outcomes as well. ese contributions
include the creation of frameworks for the formation of new institutions. Examples
of such institutions include technologies, practices, and rules that can be activated by
organizational partners or used in other collaborating groups in the future. Moreover,
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19
collaborating groups oen lay the groundwork for larger and more inclusive collabo-
rative networks to follow. Many scholars have noted that most successful large-scale
interorganizational networks grew out of the fertile eld of previous successful
collaborating groups.
Of increasing interest, particularly among those who study interorganizational com-
munication around a social problem or community, are outcomes at the whole network
or community levels. ese outcomes include the generation of solutions to “wicked”
problems, community reliance, client satisfaction, and the eective provision of service.
e preliminary set of results on factors that predict these outcomes is mixed. On
the one hand, some empirical work has suggested that both the structural character-
istics of interorganizational communication networks and the process of maintaining
interorganizational anity relationships positively impact client satisfaction, quality of
life, and quality of service. In addition, research suggests that collective goals of these
groups were more likely to achieve common goals, improve the working experience of
front-line workers in various institutions, generate more quality programs, and pro-
vide greater access to services. On the other hand, a number of studies, particularly
of networks designed to improve early childhood education, suggest that collaborat-
ing negatively impacts the quality of services oered and has no impact on achieving
outcomes for clients.
ICT and infrastructure as facilitators of interorganizational communication
Another area of emerging interorganizational communication research is the inuence
of information communication technologies or infrastructure. Increasingly, scholars
are studying the contextual or environmental factors that help to encourage or inhibit
communication between organizations. Although there is a rich body of research con-
cerning organizational use of ICTs, previous studies have primarily focused on individ-
ual or team level use of the technologies themselves. Likewise, prior research empha-
sizes organizational structure rather than infrastructure that sustains organizational
networks or partnerships. In recent years, however, studies have suggested the impor-
tanceofstudyingbothICTsandinfrastructure.Forexample,thebonadenetworkper-
spective highlights the signicance of environmental constraints. e framework has
been applied to describe collaborations in the developing countries that were hindered
by incompatible operating systems and limited infrastructure to sustain collaborative
work. e unreliability of – or in some cases, a lack of access to – Internet connections
and phone lines limited interorganizational communication and ultimately shaped the
interactions between collaborating organizations.
Other research has pointed to the importance of exploring the uses of ICTs across
organizations in response to a disaster or crisis. Scholars have highlighted the impor-
tance of ICTs such as cellphones and websites in an interorganizational communication
context by suggesting that organizations relied upon a mix of these technologies to con-
nect to each other during times of upheaval. e limited availability of technologies and
weakened infrastructure led to dierent patterns of interorganizational communication
than were observed during periods of stability.
20 INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
Such studies have perhaps focused on extreme examples by concentrating on contexts
or circumstances where infrastructure was already limited – such as the aermath of a
disaster. However, even in “routine” contexts, the relationships between organizations
are constrained or enabled by the presence or absence of various technologies or struc-
tures, and increasingly addressed by scholars of interorganizational communication.
Multiplexity in interorganizational communication relationships
A third area of emerging interorganizational communication research is the study
of multiplexity in interorganizational communication relationships. Multiplexity
exists when organizations are embedded in more than one type of communication
relationship and oen refers to the inuence of one relationship on another (Lee
& Monge, 2011). In other words, multiplexity can be dened as the occurrence or
interaction of two or more dierent types of communication relationships between
the same two actors. For instance, in interorganizational networks, two organizations
may simultaneously be partners or on a project (anity tie), exchange informa-
tion, messages, and ideas (ow tie), endorse each other publicly (representational
tie), and adopt similar visions or conceptions of a given problem or phenomenon
(semantic tie). Each of those relationships or ties between the two organizations
can inuence the other relationships. For example, two organizations that do not
sharesimilarvisionsofagivenproblemmaybelesslikelytoworktogether,or
publicly endorse each other. us, the concept of interorganizational multiplexity
essentially rests on three important premises: (1) organizations are simultaneously
embedded in dierent types of relationships, (2) these relationships are interdependent
(i.e., they interact or inuence each other), and (3) this interdependence inuences
organizations.
Althoughtheideaofmultiplexityinnetworkshasintriguedresearchersforalong
time, only recently has there been a growing interest in investigating and theorizing
about multiplex relations among organizations. In general, there are two types of
multiplexity that could be of particular interest to interorganizational communication
researchers. e rst is multiplexity among various types of interorganizational
communication relations – the various ways that communication ow, anity,
representational, and semantic relations are mutually inuential. e second type
of multiplexity that could be of interest is the relationship between infrastructure
networks and communication networks. Infrastructure networks, including tech-
nology (e.g., the Internet) networks, physical proximity (e.g., collocation) networks,
and aliation (e.g., membership and co-membership) networks, oen serve as
necessary, but insucient conditions for the formation of communication ow or
anity ties and inuence the formation of representational and semantic network ties
among organizations. us, examining the various ways in which interorganizational
communication networks across types and infrastructure networks mutually inuence
one another and combine to inuence interorganizational outcomes represents one
of the most important opportunities for communication research and theory moving
forward.
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 21
The evolution of interorganizational communication relationships
A fourth emerging area of interorganizational communication research is the study
of the evolution of interorganizational communication relationships. Indeed, inter-
organizational communication relationships and the resulting networks they comprise
are not static, but rather are dynamic systems. In other words, communication ties
among organizations change over time. However, despite the early recognition of
the dynamic nature of interorganizational communication ties, communication
research on the evolution of these ties has been relatively rare. ree main reasons
have generally been oered to explain the paucity of research on the evolution of
interorganizational communication networks: methodological determinism, the
inaccessibility of techniques or methods for the study of network evolution, and the
perceived scope of eort required from the researcher. Methodological determinism
refers to the idea that researchers tend to exclusively use the methods they know best
or with which they are most familiar in examining social phenomena. Unfortunately,
the statistical and analytical methods that many communication scholars were trained
in and that have dominated empirical communication research so far are usually not
suitable for the study of network evolution. Moreover, techniques like event history
analysis, exponential random graph modeling, and time series analysis are seen by
many communication scholars as arcane and dicult. Finally, collecting longitu-
dinal data is oen perceived to be too time consuming, burdensome, and dicult,
thereby discouraging many communication researchers from the study of network
evolution.
Nonetheless, in recent years there has been a growing interest in the study of inter-
organizational network evolution among communication scholars. is growth has
come as a result of communication scholars expanding their horizons and becoming
more familiar with methods, tools, and approaches for the study of network evolu-
tion. us, though research on the evolution of interorganizational communication
relationships is still in many ways in its infancy, a few scholars have started to tackle
the topic. For instance, recent research on the evolution of interorganizational anity
ties has shown that past anity ties among organizations generally inuence future
anity ties among those organizations. However, there has been no research to
date on the dynamics of either ow, representational, or semantic networks among
organizations.
Representational interorganizational communication and public relations
A nal fruitful area for emerging research is bridging the divide between representa-
tional interorganizational communication and the study of public relations. Cheney and
Christensen (2001) note that the external communication of organizations, especially
to publics, has long been considered the domain of public relations. However, the link-
age between internal communication and external communication for organizations,
grounded in a consistent organizational identity, suggests that the divisions between
these disciplines are tenuous at best.
22 INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
As organizational communication scholars move into the study of representational
interorganizational communication, they would do well to interrogate important pub-
lic relations theories regarding the two-way communication between stakeholders and
organizations, excellence theory, and the public issues life cycle. Each of these theories
provides explanations for the ways that organizations are likely to communicate about
their interorganizational communication relationships with publics.
SEE ALSO: Environment; Information and Communication Technologies in Organiza-
tions; Mergers and Acquisitions; Networks; Organization–Society Relationship; Public
Relations; Stakeholder Communication; Strategic Communication; Structure
References
Atouba, Y. C., & Shumate, M. (2015). International nonprot collaboration examining the
role of homophily. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 587–608. doi:10.1177/
0899764014524991
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and
external communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), e new handbook of organi-
zational communication (pp. 231–269). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenberg,E.M.,Farace,R.V.,Monge,P.R.,Bettinghaus,E.P.,Hawkins,R.K.,Miller,K.I.,
& Rothman, L. (1985). Communication linkages in interorganizational systems: Review and
synthesis. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 231–261).
Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). e causal texture of organizational environments. Human
Relations, 18, 21–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103
Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., Kalman, M. E., Monge, P. R., & Ryan, T. (1996). Connective and com-
munal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication eory, 6, 60–87.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00120.x
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). e population ecology of organizations. American Journal
of Sociology, 85, 929–964. doi:10.1086/226424
Koschmann, M. A. (2013). e communicative constitution of collective identity in interor-
ganizational collaboration. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 61–89. doi:10.1177/
0893318912449314
Lee, S., & Monge, P. (2011). e coevolution of multiplex communication networks in
organizational communities. Journal of Communication, 61, 758–779. doi:10.1111/j.1460-
2466.2011.01566.x
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Sci-
ence, 2, 71–87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2001). Organizational theory, organizational communication, orga-
nizational knowledge, and problematic integration. Journal of Communication, 51, 574–591.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02897.x
Pfeer, J., & Salancik, R. (1978). e external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective.NewYork,NY:HarperRow.
Shumate, M., & Contractor, N. S. (2013). Emergence of multidimensional social networks. In L.
L.Putnam&D.K.Mumby(Eds.),e SAGE handbook of organizational communication (pp.
449–474). ousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION 23
Shumate, M., & O’Connor, A. (2010). e symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualiz-
ing NGO–corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 63, 577–509.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01498.x
Taylor, M., & Doerfel, M. L. (2003). Building interorganizational relationships that build nations.
Human Communication Research, 29, 153–181. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00835.x
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interrm networks: e paradox of embed-
dedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 109–125. doi:10.2307/2393808
Further reading
Adams, J. S. (1980). Interorganizational processes and organizational boundary activities. Orga-
nizational Behavior, 2, 321–355.
Cooper, K., & Shumate, M. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration explored through
the bona de network perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 623–654.
doi:10.1177/0893318912462014
Doerfel, M. L., Chewning, L. V., & Lai, C. (2013). e evolution of networks and the resilience
of interorganizational relationships aer disaster. Communication Monographs, 80, 533–559.
doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.828157
Doerfel, M. L., Lai, C., & Chewning, L. V. (2010). e evolutionary role of interorganiza-
tional communication: Modeling social capital in disaster contexts. Human Communication
Research, 36(2), 125–162. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01371.x
Garner, J. T. (2006). Masters of the universe? Resource dependency and interorganizational
power relationships at NASA. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 368–385.
doi:10.1080/00909880600911249
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American
Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493. doi:10.1086/210179
Isbell, M. G. (2012). e role of boundary spanners as the interorganizational link in
nonprot collaborating. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 159–165. doi:10.1177/
0893318911423641
Kanter, R. M., & Myer, P. S. (1991). Interorganizational bonds and interorganizational behavior.
In A. Etzioni & P. R. Lawerence (Eds.), Socioeconomics: Toward a new synthesis (pp. 329–344).
NewYork,NY:M.E.Sharpe.
Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional eects of interorganizational
collaboration: e emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1),
281–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069297
Lewis, L., Isbell, M. G., & Koschmann, M. (2010). Collaborative tensions: Practitioners’
experiences of interorganizational relationships. Communication Monographs, 77, 460–479.
doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.523605
Miller, K. I., Scott, C. R., Stage, C., & Birkholt, M. J. (1995). Communication and coordination
in an interorganizational system: Service provision for the urban homeless. Communication
Research, 22, 679–699. doi:10.1177/009365095022006006
Monge, P. R., Fulk, J., Kalman, M. E., Flanagin, A., Parnassa, C., & Rumsey, S. (1998). Produc-
tion of collective action in alliance based interorganizational communication and information
systems. Organization Science, 9(3), 411–433. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.3.411
Ognyanova, K., & Monge, P. (2013). A multitheoretical, multilevel, multidimensional network
model of the media system. In E. L. Cohen (Ed.), Communication yearbook 37 (pp. 67–93).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Stohl, C., & Walker, K. (2002). A bona de perspective for the future of groups: Understanding
collaborating groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 189–231). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24 INTERORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
Weber, M. S. (2012). Newspapers and the long-term implications of hyperlinking. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 187–201. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01563.x
Michelle Shumate is founding director of Network for Nonprot and Social Impact
(NNSI), which is dedicated to answering the question: How can nonprot networks
be rewired for maximum social impact? She is an associate professor in communica-
tion studies at Northwestern University. Her research has created new trajectories for
organizational communication research. She introduced theory and research inaugu-
rating the bona de network perspective, a public communication centered model of
corporation–nonprot relationships, and a typology of communication networks. She
was awarded a National Science Foundation CAREER award for her work on inter-
organizational networks and nonprot capacity.
Yannick Atouba is assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the Uni-
versity of Texas at El Paso. His research focuses on interorganizational forms, processes,
and outcomes, especially among nonprots; and on the examination of organizational
stakeholders’ behaviors and attitudes, and their impact on organizations and organiz-
ing. He primarily uses quantitative methods and social network analysis to examine
organizational and interorganizational phenomena. His work has appeared in the Jour-
nal of Communication,Communication Yearbook,Management Communication Quar-
terly,Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, and many other communication and
nonprot journals.
Katherine R. Cooper is research associate at Northwestern University, where she serves
as the associate director of the Network for Nonprot and Social Impact (NNSI). Her
main research interest is cross-sector collaboration in response to social problems. In
particular, she focuses on nonprot participation in these eorts, as well as stakeholder,
organizational, and community outcomes of collaboration.
Andrew Pilny is assistant professor in the Department of Communication at
the University of Kentucky. His main areas of research are a blend between
organizational/small group communication and network/computational social
science. He mostly develops and tests theories to understand, predict, and further
advance organizing systems. He is also interested in communication and behavior in
virtual worlds, including massive multiplayer online video games and experimental
gaming designs. He also specializes in social network analysis.
