Skip to main content
Log in

How do Service Providers and Clients Perceive Interorganizational Networks?

  • OriginalPaper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interorganizational networks are important structures for both service providers, who must navigate them as part of their organizational roles, and clients, who use them for the purposes of receiving benefits. This research develops and tests a conceptual model that explains some of the differences in the ways that these two groups perceive these networks. Drawing on surveys/interviews with 200 clients and 63 service providers of agricultural development training in Burkina Faso, this research demonstrates that clients perceive interorganizational networks differently than service providers. In particular, these results demonstrate that service providers perceive more organizations in the network, more competitive and collaborative ties among those organizations, and more competitive ties per organization than clients. From these results, we draw implications for social network, development communication, and organizational fields’ research.

Résumé

Les réseaux interorganisationnels sont d’importantes structures tant pour les fournisseurs de services, qui doivent s’y retrouver dans le cadre de leurs rôles organisationnels, que les clients qui les utilisent pour recevoir des prestations. Cette recherche développe et teste un modèle conceptuel qui explique certaines différences dans la façon dont ces deux groupes perçoivent ces réseaux. S’appuyant sur des enquêtes et des entretiens menés auprès de 200 clients et 63 fournisseurs de services de formation de développement agricole au Burkina Faso, cette recherche démontre que les clients perçoivent les réseaux interorganisationnels différemment des fournisseurs de services. Ces résultats démontrent, en particulier, que les prestataires de services perçoivent plus d’organisations dans le réseau, des liens de collaboration plus compétitifs parmi ces organisations et des liens plus compétitifs par organisation que les clients. Ces résultats prévoient des répercussions pour le réseau social, la communication sur le développement et la recherche sur les domaines organisationnels.

Zusammenfassung

Interorganisationale Netzwerke bilden wichtige Strukturen sowohl für Dienstleistungsanbieter, die diese im Rahmen ihrer organisationalen Rollen navigieren müssen, als auch für Kunden, die sie zum Zwecke des Leistungserhalts nutzen. Diese Studie entwickelt und testet ein Begriffsmodell, das erläutert, inwieweit die beiden Gruppen diese Netzwerke zum Teil unterschiedlich wahrnehmen. Die Studie stützt sich auf Umfragen bzw. Interviews mit 200 Kunden und 63 Dienstleistungsanbietern für Schulungen zur landwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung in Burkina Faso und zeigt, dass die Kunden die interorganisationalen Netzwerke anders wahrnehmen als die Dienstleistungsanbieter. Die Ergebnisse demonstrieren im Einzelnen, dass die Dienstleistungsanbieter mehr Organisationen im Netzwerk, mehr wettbewerbsfähige und kooperierende Verbindungen zwischen diesen Organisationen sowie mehr wettbewerbsfähige Verbindungen pro Organisation wahrnehmen als die Kunden. Beruhend auf diesen Ergebnissen ziehen wir Schlussfolgerungen für das soziale Netzwerk, die entwicklungspolitische Kommunikation und die Forschung organisationaler Bereiche.

Resumen

Las redes interorganizacionales son estructuras importantes tanto para los proveedores de servicios, que deben navegar por ellas como parte de sus roles organizacionales, como para los clientes, que las utilizan con el objetivo de recibir beneficios. La presente investigación desarrolla y pone a prueba un modelo conceptual que explica algunas de las diferencias en las formas en que estos dos grupos perciben estas redes. Recurriendo a encuestas/entrevistas con 200 clientes y 63 proveedores de servicios de formación en desarrollo agrícola en Burkina Faso, la presente investigación demuestra que los clientes perciben las redes interorganizacionales de manera diferente que los proveedores de servicios. En particular, estos resultados demuestran que los proveedores de servicios perciben más organizaciones en la red, lazos más competitivos y de colaboración entre dichas organizaciones, y lazos más competitivos por organización que los clientes. A partir de estos resultados, extraemos implicaciones para la investigación sobre redes sociales, comunicación del desarrollo, y campos organizacionales.

摘要

跨组织网络对于服务提供者和客户都是重要的结构。服务提供者必须利用跨组织网络确定他们的组织角色,而客户需要利用跨组织网络以获取利益。这项研究发展并测试了一个能够解释这两方对于这些网络不同认知方式的概念性模型。基于在布基纳法索进行的农业发展培训的200个客户和63个服务提供者的问卷调查和面试,本研究表示客户与服务提供者对于跨组织网络的认知是不同的。研究结果进一步表明,服务提供者比客户看重更多网络中的组织,更多组织间的竞争与协作关系网以及每个组织的竞争关系网。通过这些研究结果,我们可以为社交网络,传播学发展和组织领域的研究提供指导方向。

ملخص

الشبكات المشتركة بين المنظمات هي هياكل هامة لكل من مقدمي الخدمات، الذين يجب أن يوجهوهم كجزء من أدوارهم التنظيمية، والعملاء، الذين يستخدمونهم لأغراض تلقي الفوائد. هذا البحث يطور ويفحص النموذج المفاهيمي الذي يفسر بعض الإختلافات في طرق رؤية هاتين المجموعتين لهذه الشبكات. إستنادا˝ على إستطلاعات الرأي/المقابلات مع 200 من العملاء و 63 من مقدمي خدمات التدريب للتنمية الزراعية في بوركينا فاسو، يبرهن هذا البحث أن العملاء ينظرون إلى الشبكات المشتركة بين المنظمات بشكل مختلف عن مقدمي الخدمات. على وجه الخصوص، هذه النتائج تثبت أن مقدمي الخدمات يلاحظون منظمات أكثر في الشبكة، أكثر تنافسية وعلاقات تعاونية بين تلك المنظمات، وعلاقات أكثر قدرة على المنافسة في المنظمات عن العملاء. من هذه النتائج، نستنتج الآثار المترتبة على الشبكة الإجتماعية، تطويرالإتصالات ، وبحث المجالات التنظيمية.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Griskevicius, V., et al. (2006). They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry) From out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17(10), 836–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backer, T. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1993a). Introduction. In T. E. Backer & E. M. Rogers (Eds.), Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? (pp. 1–10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backer, T. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1993b). Synthesis. In T. E. Backer & E. M. Rogers (Eds.), Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? (pp. 214–227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. (2005). Competitive environment, market orientation, and the use of relational approaches to the marketing of charity beneficiary services. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R., & Killworth, P. D. (1977). Informant accuracy in social network data II. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., & Sailer, L. (1982). Informant accuracy in social-network data V. An experimental attempt to predict actual communication from recall data. Social Science Research, 11(1), 30–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer M. B. (2010). Intergroup relations. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1021–1040). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • CIA. (2012). CIA world factbook. Langley, VA: Central Intelligence Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, K., & Shumate, M. (2012). Interorganizational collaboration explored through the bona fide network perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 623–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’aunno, T., Succi, M., & Alexander, J. A. (2000). The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 679–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flora, J. A., Jatilus, D., Jackson, C., & Fortmann, S. P. (1993). The Stanford-five city heart disease prevention project. In T. E. Backer & E. M. Rogers (Eds.), Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? (pp. 101–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugenberg, K., Miller, J., & Claypool, H. M. (2007). Categorization and individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit: Toward a solution to an insidious problem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 334–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugenberg, K., Young, S. G., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2010). The categorization-individuation model: An integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1168–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J. (2011). Cotton dependence in Burkina Faso: Constraints and opportunities for balanced growth. In P. Chuhan-Pole & M. Angwafo (Eds.), Yes Africa can: Success stories from a dynamic continent (pp. 107–124). Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J., Headey, D., & Bernard, T. (2011). The Burkinabè cotton story 1992–2007: Sustainable success or Sub-Saharan mirage? World Development, 39(8), 1460–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J., & Thomas, A. (2011). Land use, production growth, and the institutional environment of smallholders: Evidence from Burkinabe cotton clients. Land Economics, 87(1), 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(9), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64, 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killworth, P. D., & Bernard, H. R. (1976). Informant accuracy in social network data. Human Organization, 35(3), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killworth, P. D., & Bernard, H. R. (1980). Informant accuracy in social network data III: A comparison of triadic structure in behavioral and cognitive data. Social Networks, 2(1), 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive social structures. Social Networks, 9(2), 109–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. (2012). Keynote: The fallacy of unjustifiably large scales of analysis in social networks. Redondo Beach, CA: Sunbelt XXXII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. E., Porter, L. W., & Tennenbaum, A. (1968). Managers’ attitudes toward interaction episodes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(6), 432–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel, C., Corneille, O., & Rossion, B. (2007). Race categorization modulates holistic face encoding. Cognitive Science, 31(5), 911–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management where have we been and where are we going? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, T. M., Carpenter, S. L., Sedikides, C., & Li, F. (1993). Differential processing of in-group and outgroup information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. H. (1996). Managing an interorganizational network: A framework of the institutional mechanism for network control. Organization Studies, 17(5), 795–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., & Hastie, R. (1987). Perceptions of variability in category development: Instance- versus abstraction-based stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 621–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6), 1051–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilny, A., & Shumate, M. (2012). Hyperlinks as extensions of offline instrumental collective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 260–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proulx, J., Bourque, D., & Savard, S. (2007). The government–third sector interface in Quebec. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(3), 293–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., Beagles, J. E., Mercken, L., & Leischow, S. J. (2013). Awareness of evidence-based practices by organizations in a publicly funded smoking cessation network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, M., & Badea, C. (2012). They’re all the same!…but for several different reasons: A review of the multicausal nature of perceived group variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 367–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saab, D. J., Tapia, A., Maitland, C., Maldonado, E., & Tchouakeu, L. M. N. (2013). Inter-organizational coordination in the wild: Trust building and collaboration among field-level ICT workers in humanitarian relief organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 194–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme. (2013). The rise of the South: Human progress in a diverse world. NY: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2008). The neural substrates of in-group bias a functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1131–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., Du Bois, C., & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walk, M., Schinnenburg, H., & Handy, F. (2013). Missing in Action: Strategic Human Resource Management in German Nonprofits. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 1–31.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Feed the Future Legume Innovation Lab (formerly known as the Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program) and by the Bureau for Food Security, United States Agency for International Development under the terms of Grant No. EDH-A-00-07-00005-00 (to JBB and BRP). The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. government. Support has also come from the ADM Institute for the Prevention of Postharvest Loss at the University of Illinois Champaign Urbana (to JBB and BP)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Ihm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ihm, J., Shumate, M., Bello-Bravo, J. et al. How do Service Providers and Clients Perceive Interorganizational Networks?. Voluntas 26, 1769–1785 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9515-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9515-5

Keywords

Navigation