What Determines Strength of Ties? Organizational Cultures as Key Antecedents

2014 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 67-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyungoo Ko
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-85
Author(s):  
Andreea Alexandra Hleșcu ◽  
◽  
Bianca Hanganu ◽  
Irina Smaranda Manoilescu ◽  
Andreea Elena Bîrlescu ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 027507402110103
Author(s):  
Emily Rose Tangsgaard

Many situations in public service delivery are characterized by uncertainty about the potential negative consequences following decisions. These risky situations make the behavior of frontline professionals particularly important. But what shapes the risk perception and subsequent behavior of frontline professionals in risky situations? This article explores the idea that organizational culture provides part of the answer. To examine this, a comprehensive qualitative study with participant observations and interviews at five public hospital wards was conducted. The findings demonstrate the importance of organizational culture on risk perception and behavior in risky situations. Basic cultural assumptions related to professional discussion, administering medicine, grading of adverse events, and prioritizing follow-up activities matter to behavior in risky situations. In organizational cultures with high levels of trust and dialogue about decision-making, the health professionals rely on each other and ask for second opinions, when making decisions in risky situations. Conversely, in organizational cultures with little trust and professional discussion, the health professionals are less likely to ask for second opinions and follow up on risky situations, which increases the possibility of unintended, negative consequences. In this way, organizational culture can be a driver of risk-reducing and risk-seeking behavior among frontline professionals.


2021 ◽  
pp. 009365022110161
Author(s):  
Adam J. Saffer ◽  
Andrew Pilny ◽  
Erich J. Sommerfeldt

Recent interorganizational communication research has taken up the question: why are networks structured the way they are? This line of inquiry has advanced communication network research by helping explain how and why networks take on certain structures or why certain organizations become positioned advantageously (or not). Yet, those studies assume relationships among organizations are either present or absent. This study considers how the strength of ties and multiplex relationships among organizations may reveal a more complex explanation for why networks take on certain structures. Our results challenge some long held assumptions about the mechanisms that influence network formation. For instance, our results offer important insights into the consequences of closure mechanisms, the applicability of preferential attachment to real-world networks, and the nuances of homophily in network formation on multidimensional relationships in a communication network. Implications for interorganizational networks are discussed.


Author(s):  
Joseph Soeters

Organizational cultures in military organizations consist of symbols, practices, habits, hidden assumptions, and beliefs about what needs to be done, and what is appropriate and what is not, before, during, and after operations. Generally speaking, organizational cultures in military institutions are similar to those in any other work organization. Upon closer examination, however, it appears that the military’s 24/7, communal life outside society, its emphasis on hierarchy and discipline, and in particular its license to use large-scale force make it different. Relatedly, the way in which the military’s organizational cultures are created and recreated has aspects and emphases that are less common in conventional work organizations. Recruiting and socialization patterns of new organizational members in the military have been studied frequently because they are so distinctive in the armed forces. Military organizational cultures are not identical worldwide. Military organizations differ internationally, as military organizations are still strongly connected to their national backgrounds, including the languages, legal regimes, political atmospheres, and general ways of living in the many nations across the globe. National societies and their histories shape military organizational cultures in multiple ways. Dramatic experiences at the national level, for instance during World War II, may lead to a continuation or, just the opposite, the disruption of armed forces’ organizational cultures. Yet despite the differences, something of a world culture impacting on the use of force seems to emerge as well. In an era when international alliances carry out most missions, different national backgrounds influence strategic decision making and the way operations are conducted. Most of the time, national armed forces operate separately, in their own area (or time) of operations, sometimes guiding troops from smaller and less wealthy partnering nations. The coordination of actions between the various areas of operation is generally not very well elaborated. This applies not only to combat operations but also to peace missions. A full integration of national armed forces, such as in a United Nations security force or a European army, is an ideal that some may dream of, but it is still far from reality. The greatest degree of integration is likely to be found in international headquarters.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document