Interdependence

Interdependence is the mutual reliance between two or more groups. This concept differs from the reliance in a dependent relationship, where some members are dependent and some are not. There can be various degrees of interdependence.

In an interdependent relationship, participants may be emotionally, economically, ecologically and/or morally reliant on and responsible to each other. An interdependent relationship can arise between two or more cooperative autonomous participants (e.g. a co-op). Some people advocate freedom or independence as the ultimate good; others do the same with devotion to one's family, community, or society. Interdependence can be a common ground between these aspirations.

History of interdependence of nations

Authors and leaders have written and spoken about interdependence throughout history, including Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandhi, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Stephen Covey. Karl Marx first used the term interdependence in the Communist Manifesto (1848) in describing the universal interdependence of nations in comparison to the old local and national seclusion of independence and self-sufficiency.

The various classical civilizations over the ages established vast trading networks with one another. The exchange of goods and ideas occurred from the time of the early Indian Empire on the Indus River, all the way up to the Roman Empire on the Mediterranean.

Today, international interdependence is often said to be strong and to have increased. International trade is taken to be an indicator of interdependence, and its high and, with some interruptions, rapidly growing values are accepted as evidence of the increasing interdependence of nations. Between 1820 and 1992, world population increased 5-fold, income per head 8-fold, world income 40-fold, and world trade 540-fold.[1] Sometimes international financial flows are taken as the measure of interdependence.

Measuring international interdependence

International disintegration is entirely consistent with a high degree of international interdependence. For interdependence exists when one country by unilateral action can inflict harm on (or provide benefits to) other countries. Competitive protectionism, devaluation, deflation, or pollution of the air and sea beyond national boundaries are instances.

Interdependence is measured by the costs of severing the relationship (or the benefits of developing it). The higher the costs to one country, the greater is the degree of dependence of that country. If a small country benefits more from the international division of labor than a large country, its dependence is greater. If both partners to a transaction were to incur high costs from severing economic links, there would be interdependence.[2]

Role of interdependence in feminist philosophy

In the ethics of care approach to morality, Nel Noddings emphasizes the interdependence of people.[3] She saw it as a hidden fact not often seen or discussed in male-dominated, justice-based, and judgment-based approaches to ethics. Carol Gilligan was an early proponent of the view that interdependence, rather than rules, underlay the basis of morality.[4]

Interdependencies in organizational structures

There is a view that computer technology has allowed greater communication, interaction and interdependence. It is thought that this has massively helped the introduction and start up of new ideas and enterprises. This is supported by the work of Stephen Covey.[5] Covey maintains that we function best as innovators when we recognise, and work towards, the role of interdependence.

In business people and departments must rely on one another to share information, financial resources, equipment and more, making interpersonal communication highly valuable to a company and oneself in order for a successful outcome.

Interdependencies exist when actions in one sub-unit of the organization affect important outcomes in another sub-unit.[6][7] In a business or firm this can occur for example in terms of product quality, product cost and customer satisfaction.

According to the definition of complexity by Eppinger,[8] interdependencies increase organizational complexity. He illustrated this by means of a design structure matrix.[8] The reason Eppinger gives for increased complexity is that many cross-unit interdependencies require frequent coordination and information exchange. Managers of sub-units need to manage these interdependencies.

Four levels of interdependence in organizational structure

Pooled interdependence is the lowest form of interdependence resulting in the least amount of conflict. Departments do not directly depend or interact with one another, however they do draw resources from a shared source. Every separate department contributes to an overall goal, the outputs of each department are then pooled at an organizational level. Although the success and failure of each department do not directly affect one another, it does affect the overall success of the company therefore indirectly affecting one another. Pooled interdependence requires standardization in rules and operating procedures. An example of pooled interdependence is the clothing retail store The Gap. Each store acts as its own separate department with its own resources (operating budget, staff, etc.) While each store rarely interacts with one another, the success or failure of each store affects the company overall, which then affects each individual store.[9][10][11]

Sequential interdependence is an asymmetrical chain of one way interactions. The output of one unit become the input for another unit. There is an increase in communication increasing the potential for conflict. People in the early part of the chain would remain more independent but the people in the latter part of the chain would be highly dependent on the first part. A major concern would be performance variability in the first part of the chain because it has a direct effect on the productivity of the later parts. Managing an environment with sequential interdependence would require adaptive planning and scheduling. An example of sequential interdependence would be Nissan. The engine and other separate parts of the car are assembled in separate plants and then are shipped to one site to build the final product. If the engine plant is running behind and not shipped in time, it affects the final product being completed.[9][10][11]

Reciprocal interdependence has the highest potential for conflict because it requires the most amount of communication having the output and input of activities flow both ways between units. This network of two way relationships requires departmental dependency to create a successful outcome. The direct interaction between co-workers can cause a tight interconnection causing high level of productivity or can cause a high level of conflict. Managing a reciprocal interdependent work environment would require thorough constant information sharing. An example would be the Marriott hotel. The front desk is dependent on housekeeping to provide clean rooms to guests when they arrive and housekeeping is dependent on the front desk to share the information on what rooms need to be cleaned.[9][10][11]

Comprehensive interdependence is an even tighter network of reciprocal interdependence. The potential for conflicts is very high due to the complexity of the interdependence. With an increase in frequent and intense communication, and a greater duration of time spent with one another, a difference in opinions or goals is very likely. The loss or addition of a team member can greatly affect the performance of the group. An example would be a brand management firm that depends on the all the departments for information. The market research department would need to work with product design as well as the sales department and vice versa to achieve effective and efficient productivity.[9][10][11]

Factors to determine the degree of work process interdependency[6]

If interdependencies are low of uncertainty and importance, then sub-units enjoy stable and isolated conditions. As uncertainty and importance increase, so does the intensity of communication and collaboration between sub-units and the possibility of conflict[12]

If interdependencies are very high in both uncertainty and importance, then they are likely to produce chaotic situations.

Managing work process interdependencies between sub-units

There are four options to manage interdependencies between sub-units[6]

  1. Eliminate an interdependency
  2. Add a new interdependency
  3. Change the degree of an interdependency between sub-units by altering its uncertainty and/or criticality. Hereby, the need for coordination is reduced[13]
  4. Introduce coordination mechanisms, such as phone calls, fax, emails, occasional meetings, regular meetings, committees, liaison officers or integration managers, and cross-functional teams[6]

Usually, the main advice for handling an interdependency has been to introduce a coordination mechanism.[14][15] The right coordination mechanism needs to be chosen depending on the degree of criticality and uncertainty.

Types of interdependencies[6]

  1. Activity interdependencies
  2. Commitment interdependencies
  3. Resource interdependencies
  4. Governance interdependencies
  5. Social network interdependencies

Activity interdependencies

Steps to describe them
  1. Describe the various tasks or actions involved in a specific work process.
  2. Put in a flow chart the routing of information among sub-units
Managing activity interdependencies

Commitment interdependencies

Managing commitment interdependencies[6]

Governance interdependencies[6]

Managing governance interdependencies

It is possible that there are either too few (underrepresentation) or too many interdependencies (micromanagement – loss of autonomy). The strategies that are then to be undertaken are:

Resource interdependencies

Managing resource interdependencies[6]

Social network interdependencies

  • The informal ties are created by individuals who represent the sub-unit in his or her interactions with other organizational members[25]
  • The informal ties help sub-units to gather or share knowledge across the organization[26]
Managing social network interdependencies

See also

References

  1. ↑ Madison. 1995
  2. ↑
  3. ↑
  4. ↑
    • Gilligan, Carol. In A Different Voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1982.
    • Jagger, Alison. “Caring as a Feminist Practice of Moral Reason.” in Virginia Held (Editor), Carol W. Oberbrunner (Editor) Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics.
  5. ↑ Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey (1989)
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Worren, Nicolay (2012). Organisation Design: Re-defining complex systems. Pearson. ISBN 978-0273738831.
  7. ↑ Natividad, G. & E. Rawley (2015). "Interdependence and Performance: A Natural Experiment in Firm Scope". Strategy Science. 1 (1): 12 – 31.
  8. 1 2 Eppinger (2001). "Innovation at the speed of information". Harvard business review. 79 (1): 149–58.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Griffin, Ricky W., and Moorehead, Gregory. Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organization. Cenage Learning. 2011.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Wagner, John, and Lollenback, John. Organizational Behavior: Securing competitive advantage. Taylor and Francis. 2009.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Murray, Lotoya. Three Types of Interdependence in an Organizational Structure. Houston. Hearst Communications. 4 December 2012.<http://smallbusiness.chron.com>
  12. ↑ Miles, R. M. (1979). Organizational conflict and management. In Miles, R. H. And Randolph, W.A., The Organisation Game, pp. 204-21. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
  13. ↑ von Hippel, Eric. "Task partitioning: An innovation process variable". Research Policy. 19 (5): 407–418. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(90)90049-C.
  14. ↑ Galbraith, Jay R. (1993). Competing With Flexible Lateral Organizations. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0201508369.
  15. ↑ Lawrence, Paul R.; Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0875840642.
  16. ↑ Baldwin, Carliss Y.; Clark, Kim B. (1999). Design rules ([Online-Ausg.] ed.). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262024662.
  17. ↑ Kay, John (2004). Foundations of corporate success how business strategies add value (1. pbk. ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780198289883.
  18. ↑ Kahn, W. A.; Kram, K. E. (1994). "Authority at work: internal models and their organizational consequences.". Academy of Management Review. 19 (1): 17–50. doi:10.5465/amr.1994.9410122007.
  19. ↑ Slywotzky, Stephan H. Haeckel ; foreword by Adrian J. (1999). Adaptive enterprise creating and leading sense-and-respond organizations ([Repr.] ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 9780875848747.
  20. ↑ Scherr, A. L. "A new approach to business processes". IBM Systems Journal. 32 (1): 80–98. doi:10.1147/sj.321.0080.
  21. ↑ Shaw, R. B. (1992). The capacity to act: creating a context for empowerment. In Nadler, D. A. et al. (eds), Organizational Architecture, 155-74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
  22. 1 2 McCann, JE; Ferry, DL (Jan 1979). "An approach for assessing and managing inter-unit interdependence.". Academy of Management Review. 4 (1): 113–9. PMID 10240341. doi:10.5465/amr.1979.4289199.
  23. 1 2 Pfeffer, Jeffrey; Salancik, Gerald R. (2003). The external control of organizations : a resource dependence perspective ([Nachdr.] ed.). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Business Books. ISBN 9780804747899.
  24. ↑ Bower, Joseph L. (1986). Managing the resource allocation process : a study of corporate planning and investment (Rev. ed.). Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 9780875841281.
  25. ↑ Bonacich, Phillip. "Simultaneous group and individual centralities". Social Networks. 13 (2): 155–168. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(91)90018-O.
  26. ↑ Hansen, Morten T. "The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits". Administrative Science Quarterly. 44 (1): 82. doi:10.2307/2667032.
  27. 1 2 Sheppard, B. H.; Sherman, D. M. (1 July 1998). "THE GRAMMARS OF TRUST: A MODEL AND GENERAL IMPLICATIONS.". Academy of Management Review. 23 (3): 422–437. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.926619.
  28. ↑ Drath, Robert E. Kaplan with Wilfred H.; Kofodimos, Joan R. (1991). Beyond ambition : how driven managers can lead better and live better (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 9781555423155.
  29. ↑ Burt, Ronald S. (1995). Structural holes : the social structure of competition (1. Harvard Univ. Press paperback ed.). Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]: Harvard Univ. Press. ISBN 9780674843714.
  30. ↑ Walker, Orville C. "The adaptability of network organizations: Some unexplored questions". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 25 (1): 75–82. doi:10.1007/BF02894511.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.