Inter-Organizational Culture

Inter-Organizational Culture Linking Relationship Marketing with Organizational Behavior Fabiano Larentis Claudia Simone Antonello Luiz Antonio Slongo

Inter-Organizational Culture

Fabiano Larentis · Claudia Simone Antonello Luiz Antonio Slongo

Inter-Organizational Culture Linking Relationship Marketing with Organizational Behavior

Fabiano Larentis Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre, Brazil and Management Graduate Program Universidade de Caxias do Sul Caxias do Sul, Brazil Claudia Simone Antonello Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre, Brazil

Luiz Antonio Slongo Universidade de São Paulo São Paulo, Brazil and Marquette University Milwaukee, USA and Management Graduate Program Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre, Brazil

ISBN 978-3-030-00391-3 ISBN 978-3-030-00392-0  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00392-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018962245 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface and Acknowledgements

There is no doubt that Relationship Marketing involves strategies and practices that are suitable for organizations’ sustainability, in market and financial terms, in which mainly suppliers and customers comprehend and meet market needs and trends in partnership. Moreover, Relationship Marketing is about people and their interactions, including aspects related to trust, commitment, cooperation, learning, word of mouth and loyalty. It is about how to achieve joint results; it is therefore how to develop interdependency. It is also related to meanings, to ways to perceive the world and the market. It regards problem-solving, values, beliefs and associated symbols. In other words, it is about cultures and mainly organizational cultures, when we consider inter-organizational relationships. Our experiences at universities and other organizations, as professors, consultants and executives, have shown us the importance and contribution of relationships, within and across organizations, to their performances. We need to consider aspects associated with organizational behavior, since inter-organizational relationships are in essence about interpersonal relationships. It is paramount to take into account people from different organizations in partnership, their convictions, interests, experiences, paths, concerns, anxieties, capabilities, resistances and power. Relationships do not occur in a vacuum! This book is about organizational cultures, shaped through relationships. It is about meanings and symbols shared by people who interact in partnership practices. These interactions mainly occur in a place that we v

vi   

Preface and Acknowledgements

call organizational boundaries, and with people whom we call boundary spanners. Therefore, this book is about inter-organizational cultures, the cultures of boundaries or intersections. We emphasize that organizational culture does not mean meanings and symbols shared throughout a whole organization, but it may be associated with cultural perspectives specific to groups or to circumstances. This book has two objectives. The first one is to discuss the development of inter-organizational culture by deepening a framework we proposed in a previous research. The second is to provide a practical guide to people, mainly leaders, involved in inter-organizational relationships and relationship marketing strategies and practices, on how to deal with this culture and promote it across organizations in the face of opportunities and obstacles. We would like to thank our spouses, sons and daughters, for encouraging the development of this book and comprehending what kind of project this really is. Also, both Jacqueline Young and Marcus Ballenger, our editorial team at Palgrave Macmillan Publisher, for their invaluable support, since their first proposal to develop a book on research carried out in Brazil. We appreciate the indispensable observations and recommendations to make this project possible and viable. Porto Alegre, Brazil Caxias do Sul, Brazil Porto Alegre, Brazil São Paulo, Brazil Milwaukee, USA Porto Alegre, Brazil

Fabiano Larentis Claudia Simone Antonello Luiz Antonio Slongo

Further Praise for Inter-Organizational Culture

“Success of an organization depends on three basic pillars: philosophy, market strategy and process. As long as organizational culture effectively contributes to the integration between pillars, chances of success will be greater in searching for sustainability. However, organizational culture can be one of the main obstacles to execute market strategy. This book is an important guide to understand better these aspects, fill in a gap in the literature, both academic and executive points of view.” —Dr. Lino Nogueira Rodrigues Filho, Professor of Marketing, Economics and Administration Faculty, University of São Paulo, São Paulo-SP, Brasil, Business Association of Latin America Studies Member

vii

Contents

1 Introduction: Relationship Marketing and Organizational Culture—An Inter-organizational Perspective 1 1.1 Relationship Marketing and Organizational Culture: Key Aspects and Findings 3 1.2 The Inter-organizational Perspective of Organizational Culture 7 References 10 2 Inter-organizational Culture and the Cultural Perspectives 13 2.1 Perspectives of Integration and Differentiation of Suppliers and Customers 18 2.2 Perspective of Fragmentation Inside Supplier and Customer 20 2.3 Perspective of Fragmentation Originating Inter-organizational Culture 21 References 25 3 Development of Inter-organizational Culture: The Elements 27 3.1 Initial Elements 30 3.2 Intermediate Elements 34 3.3 Resultant Elements 37

ix

x   

Contents

3.4 Weakening Elements 3.5 Context Related to Inter-organizational Culture References

41 42 44

4 Promoting an Inter-organizational Culture 47 4.1 Role of Structure, Resources and Processes 49 4.2 Role of Leadership and Boundary Spanners 70 4.3 The Importance of Learning and Trust 82 4.4 The Dark Side of Inter-organizational Culture 88 References 91 5 Conclusion 97 References 100 Index 103

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Development of an inter-organizational culture (Source Larentis et al. [2018, p. 50]) Fig. 2.2 The ellipses and the cultural perspectives (Source Larentis et al. [2018, p. 50]) Fig. 3.1 The elements of an inter-organizational culture (Source Larentis et al. [2018, p. 50])

15 18 29

xi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Relationship Marketing and Organizational Culture— An Inter-organizational Perspective

Abstract  Organizations engaged in relationship marketing practices deal with market needs jointly, searching for value, cocreation and mutual benefits. However, is it possible that a culture that arises in an intersection of organizational cultures is dependent on relationships? Stemming from a study that investigated with a qualitative approach the emergence and development of an inter-organizational culture in a Brazilian context, in this chapter, we present some underlying concepts related to relationship marketing and organizational culture, along with some findings from our research. We conclude by discussing the definition of interorganizational culture, in which symbols and meanings, beliefs and values of people from different companies interact. Keywords  Relationship marketing · Organizational culture · Inter-organizational relationships · Inter-organizational culture Imagine two organizations engaged in a relationship, which together develop offers and deal with market needs jointly, searching for value co-creation and mutual benefits. They also present a great level of interdependency and realize the importance of trust, commitment and cooperation. People from both organizations interact with one another, solve problems jointly, learn from one another. This interaction allows them to know more and keep in touch with the organization’s paths, about their values, beliefs, meanings and symbols, that is, their organizational © The Author(s) 2019 F. Larentis et al., Inter-Organizational Culture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00392-0_1

1

2  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

cultures. However, does this relationship lead to a common culture to both organizations? In what way? With whom? The idea for this book originated from a doctoral dissertation, whose main findings are published as a paper (Organizational culture and relationship marketing: an inter-organizational perspective, Review of Business Management), in which two Brazilian cases (furniture and financial services industries) were studied in a qualitative research. The dissertation presents and discusses the emergence and development of an inter-organizational culture, in which symbols and meanings, beliefs and values of people from different companies interact. That study indicates that inter-organizational culture can be seen as a culture of intersection, because of the association of cultural perspectives between suppliers and intermediaries. These companies are located in the south of Brazil, from different industrial groups. Evviva Bertolini, the furniture company (www.evviva. com.br), was founded in the mid 1990s and belongs to Bertolini Group (http://www.bertolini.com.br/?idioma=en). The company manufactures customized furniture and deals with exclusive furniture stores as intermediaries, with an exclusive contract by region, similar to a franchising system. Racon Consórcios (https://www.racon.com.br) was founded in mid 1980s and belongs to Randon Companies (http://www. empresasrandon.com.br/EN). They provide financial services for real estate and vehicles purchase, through a franchising system. Evviva and Racon have been chosen to take part of the research because of the close relationship with their sales intermediaries (large number of interactions and the existence of trust, commitment and cooperation). The research (interviews and observation) was carried out in the dyads in four stages, with the participation of individuals from supplier companies and sales intermediaries involved in the relationships. This book contributes to a deeper understanding of a culture that arises in an intersection of organizational cultures, dependent on relationships. Despite consensus about the importance of role of organizational culture in relationship marketing, this subject is often neglected and under-researched by relationship marketing and organizational behavior literature (Iglesias, Sauquet, & Montaña, 2011), mainly when we consider organizational culture in three perspectives (integration, differentiation and fragmentation) and the existence and development of an inter-organizational culture.

1  INTRODUCTION: RELATIONSHIP MARKETING … 

3

Furthermore, current studies on organizational culture interface, in an inter-organizational context, generally emphasize more organizational culture differences rather than organizational culture compatibilities (Lu, Plewa, & Ho, 2016). In addition, research should consider how an organizational culture is constituted from the development of marketing activities over time, and how dissonant cultures and structures are aligned (Moorman & Day, 2016). Thus, we present some underlying concepts related to relationship marketing and organizational culture, along with some findings from our research. We conclude by presenting and exploring the definition of inter-organizational culture.

1.1  Relationship Marketing and Organizational Culture: Key Aspects and Findings Relationship marketing can be defined as a process of engagement and interaction which develops, establishes and maintains long-term cooperative and profitable relationships between partners, with benefits among them as a result (Hakansson & Snehota, 1995; Larentis, Antonello, & Slongo, 2018; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier, 2008). In this sense, the more both parties are encouraged to sustain the relationship, the lower the chance of relationship dissolution and the more willing they are to invest in that relationship, especially in nonrecoverable investments (Scheer, Miao, & Palmatier, 2015). Furthermore, relationship marketing increases the efficiency through cost reductions, qualifies market orientation and helps to manage dependency and uncertainty (Cannon & Perreault, 1999). We highlight trust, commitment and cooperation as relationships key elements (Agariya & Singh, 2011; Gummesson, 2017; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006). Trust increases information sharing and the feeling of stability, and it also reduces opportunism between partners (Palmatier et al., 2006), but it decreases in unstable environments (Kang & Jindal, 2015). Commitment reinforces the will to keep a relationship (Palmatier et al., 2006). Cooperation, influenced positively by trust and cooperation (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006), expands when partners favorably perceive past interactions and believe future actions to be constructive (Morgan, 2000).

4  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

The activities performed by Evviva and Racon along with their channel partners demand more closeness. Although there are binding agreements, we have identified that they do not seem to narrow the social benefits related to the relationship. Moreover, Evviva deals with furniture projects and assemblies, which mobilize consumers’ lives. They also deal with other professionals, such as interior designers and architects. Racon deals with several financial procedures and rules, which influence sales arguments. The relationships nurtured by Evviva and Racon rely on practices, on outcomes and on the concern to deliver what has been promised, through constant information sharing, team’s integration, reliability on what is being done, through the willingness to solve problems and to learn. Hence, we recognize the presence of trust, commitment and cooperation. Nevertheless, relationship development depends on time. Also, some customers do not want to maintain a close relationship with their suppliers and vice versa. For these reasons, relationships need to be stable enough to last, but dynamic enough to assure capability development (Batt & Purchase, 2004). That being said, a fundamental agent is the boundary spanner, the organization interpreter or representative of the external environment across organizational boundaries (Araujo, Dubois, & Gadde, 2003), e.g., buyers, sellers, and managers associated with inter-organizational relationships, once inter-organizational relationships can be perceived as pipelines across organizational boundaries (Ballantyne, Christopher, & Payne, 2003). Boundaries are lines or regions which set limits and divide, in which exchanges happen and differences meet (Halley, 2001). Boundaries stablish and keep expectations, habits and roles, as well as provide defense. They can change due to inter-organizational relationships (Araujo et al., 2003; Halley, 2001). Thus, boundary spanners are responsible for developing and maintaining strong relationships (Palmatier, 2008). However, one of the questions very much related to boundary spanners is the role conflict (Singh & Rhoads, 1991). Boundary spanners may experience conflicting expectations about how to perform their role as they interact with members of other groups, which may present negative results in their relationships (Friedman & Podolny, 1992). Research findings show us that the main relationship difficulties identified were associated with employee turnover level, mainly in the

1  INTRODUCTION: RELATIONSHIP MARKETING … 

5

intermediaries’ sales teams, whose members can be classified as boundary spanners. Turnover, combined with restricted available time for sales visits by Evviva and Racon, led to the relationship building mostly between owners or managers of the intermediaries. Another conflicting point was mutual understanding. The difficulty suppliers’ staff departments have to understand the intermediaries is evident, due to their knowledge shortcoming about intermediaries’ realities. However, some of these difficulties would be greater if companies were not open to listen to the intermediaries’ problems. Although the field of relationship marketing has been a relevant subject of research for over two decades, it becomes even more significant since relationships are considered multifaceted and complex (Payne & Frow, 2017). That happens because relationships require not only partner’s selection and resources, but they depend on the formation of commitment and trust and the development of collaborative actions, through qualified and frequent interactions, as well as compatible values (Hunt, Arnett, & Madhavaram, 2006; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006). Having said that, what happens among individuals, from distinct organizations, involved in these relationships? What is the role of organizational culture? How can we intertwine relationship marketing and organizational culture? The actions and practices of relationship marketing are developed on organizational boundaries, once Marketing can be considered a boundary area by nature, in which people from different organizations interact with each other—the boundary spanners. On the other hand, organizational culture is considered a system of common symbols and meanings shared in the organizational space, since individuals express their beliefs, make judgments and define their environment (Alvesson, 2013). Meanings are associated with the way an object or speech/expression is interpreted. Symbols relate to the manifestations of these meanings, because they condense a set of meanings in a specific object and announce it in a condensed way, such as in history, myths, language, artifacts, ceremonies and rituals (Alvesson, 2013; Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008). Therefore, culture is about collectivities; it affects interpretation and it guides behavior (Alvesson, 2013; Hogan & Coote, 2014; Van Maanen & Barley, 1985; Vetráková & Smerek, 2016; Yin, Lu, Yang, & Jing, 2014).

6  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

The emergence and growth of an organizational culture depend on learning, once the organization’s founders define a set of beliefs, however unclear they may be (Gagliardi, 1986). As determined groups learn how to cope with their issues of integration and adaptation, organizational culture develops, which is taught to new members (Schein, 1991). Moreover, culture does not necessarily establish consistency among large groups of people, but it conducts them to deal with ambiguity without much anarchy (Alvesson, 2013). Evviva and Racon have some other values in common, such as balance between emotion and reason, humbleness, flexibility, ethics, importance of the relationship and stability. As differences, Racon presents greater focus on learning and on client and more freedom to create. Compared to their groups of origin, Evviva and Racon are more dynamic, less traditional and give more relevance to relationship. An organizational culture is not a homogeneous and solid whole or an enduring arrangement of subcultures. It accounts for combinations of cultural expressions from different sorts and levels (Alvesson, 2013). Cavedon (2003) delineates organizational culture as a network of meanings flowing inside and outside the organizational space, being simultaneously contradictory, ambiguous, analogous, diverse and complementary, presenting the organizational homogeneity and heterogeneity. In this respect, Martin, Frost, and O’Neil (2006) propose four perspectives on organizational culture: perspective of integration, perspective of differentiation, perspective of fragmentation and a threeperspective framework. According to them, in the perspective of integration, organizational culture encompasses a solid set of symbols and meanings shared by all organizational members, which generate consensus among them. In the perspective of differentiation, culture is specific to determined groups, or subcultures and contexts, such as work groups and departments. In the perspective of fragmentation, cultural manifestations are neither clearly consistent nor clearly inconsistent: they are complex and present many contradictory elements; once consensus would not embrace the whole organization, neither would be restricted to subgroups. It would be transitory and specific to certain aspects, enabling short-term affinities. Lastly, Martin et al. (2006) present a three-perspective framework, in which some practices, values and interpretations allow consensus in all the organization, others cause conflict and some have not been well

1  INTRODUCTION: RELATIONSHIP MARKETING … 

7

established yet, which means a simultaneous presence of elements of power, integration, conflict and uncertainty.

1.2  The Inter-organizational Perspective of Organizational Culture Organizational culture from an inter-organizational perspective is evident: groups do not restrict themselves to one organization’s domain (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985). On the other hand, once interaction with people depends on cultural premises, relationship marketing strategies and practices depend on how much they are entrenched in organizational cultures, and they enable the development of meeting places of different cultures (Ellis, Lowe, & Purchase, 2006; Plewa, 2009; Winklhofer, Pressey, & Tzokas, 2006). Taking these points into account, the quality and frequency of interactions related to relationship marketing practices, which depend mainly on trust, commitment and cooperation, can make people from different organizations start comprehending each other in similar ways. This process enables them to share meanings and symbols, thus organizational culture aspects (Alvesson, 2013). Therefore, we reason that relationships may affect the involved organizational cultures, taking into account the cultural perspectives from Martin et al. (2006). Culture is constantly created and changed as groups of people socially interact with one another, as well as allows cohesion between people from distinct organizations, working as a connection factor (GruesoHinestroza & Antón-Rubio, 2015; Lee, Kim, & Park, 2015). Likewise, the higher the frequency and degree of communication in the relationships, the higher the probability of culture integration; the more cultural comprehension among the partners, the more relationship quality (Iglesias et al., 2011; Palmatier, 2008). Relationships are not chosen; they are built (Hunt et al., 2006). Inter-organizational relationships, as well as organizational cultures, rely on trust, commitment, communication, learning, ways to perceive and cope with reality, and shared meanings and symbols. Therefore, organizational cultures involved can be changed through specific systems of meanings and symbols because of inter-organizational relationships, due to relationship marketing processes and practices. Nonetheless, changes in culture do not necessarily include a redefinition of central

8  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

values and meanings (Alvesson, 2013; Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008). Yet, some aspects which are more ingrained in culture are difficult to change, and changes in behavior do not necessarily mean changes in beliefs and values (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008; Gagliardi, 1986; Ogbonna & Harris, 2014). Having considered this, as seen in our study, by culturally comparing the companies with the intermediaries, many commonalities have been found. Some of the companies’ features were previously appreciated by the intermediaries, such as stability, simplicity, ethics and emphasis given to relationships. The intermediaries who have a closer relationship are those who best meet these characteristics. One possible cause for that relates to the intermediaries with compatible values since the beginning of the relationships, and to the intermediaries that have already been company’s employees. Differences have been observed mainly due to the nature of business. The intermediaries deal with retailing and are more market-oriented, while the companies, mainly Evviva, are more industry-oriented. When we consider the contribution for cultural changes given by companies to intermediaries, compatible values, specifically meanings/values appreciated by intermediaries, have been identified. Interviewees highlighted the importance given to relationships and humbleness, reinforced through interaction. Cultural changes are also related to management procedures and practices, because of intermediaries’ lack of management knowledge. There is also the case of former employees of the companies who are now intermediaries. In this situation, the supplier’s characteristics of organizational culture interfered in the formation of the new company’s organizational culture, since it has been the foremost reference of organization, despite the constraints faced as entrepreneurs. A contribution from intermediaries to companies relates to a better understanding of market needs. In Racon, for example, there has been a change in its employee’s perception on franchises market in trainings delivered to franchises’ personnel. Another important issue is the contribution of the intermediaries’ past experiences with other suppliers brought into current businesses. In Evviva, one of the best-performing entrepreneurs in the store network, was an exclusive result-driven retailer of a competing brand for many years. This store owner, despite disapproving such an aspect, maintains a greater focus on performance than Company M, heritage of the former supplier. Furthermore, there was a

1  INTRODUCTION: RELATIONSHIP MARKETING … 

9

contribution from third parties like architects in Evviva’s case and franchising consultants in Racon’s case. On the other hand, a cultural aspect may allow or ease the rise or reinforcement of another cultural aspect. The companies’ openness level to new ideas allowed a better market orientation. In addition, a greater interaction of the companies with the intermediaries and the need to solve problems, mainly in Racon, enabled their departments to change their world perspectives despite their lack of direct contact with the market. The perceptions from the operational department became more similar to the ones from the sales department, leading to the rapprochement of company’s areas. Similarly, some evidence associated with asymmetry of power has been identified, considering the influence of more powerful individuals and groups on others’ interpretation about events (Lucas & Kline, 2008). In this regard, given the conservative and stable nature of the cultures, many of the meanings remain together within the companies and intermediaries. One example is the “Concept” from Evviva, a set of strategic and operational norms and procedures, vocabulary and store owners’ practices, whose designing manager had left the company. Although these guidelines had not been widely used, store owners still had them. Culture remains, even when people leave. In Company S, people management strategies and actions were influenced by a former director. Hence, the cultural changes identified probably occur due to interactive and collaborative moments, trust development, learning processes and commitment. These changes depended on a cultural context that had already been present in both companies. According to the findings, they could lead to the development of an inter-organizational culture, defined by us as a network of symbols and meanings which interact and flow across organizational boundaries, an interplay and combination between symbols and meanings that may result in new meanings. Saenz, Revilla, and Knoppen (2014) present inter-organizational culture as a set of values or norms shared by different organizations. Relationship marketing in an inter-organizational context, predominantly through trust, commitment and learning, can contribute to cooperative behavior and to changes in some features of the involved organizational cultures. As a consequence, one may also regard interorganizational culture as boundary spanners’ culture, which involves the connection of boundary spanners from different companies, mainly in those organizational areas in which they prevail, like marketing/sales. Therefore,

10  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

we state that inter-organizational culture takes place in inter-organizational relationships, such as those related to relationship marketing actions, but in a restricted and specific way. The cultural perspective of fragmentation predominates (Martin et al., 2006) because of the sharing of some meanings between people of different organizations, such as the sales and staff departments with the intermediaries, and the board of directors with the intermediaries. In the next chapter, we deepen the comprehension of the inter-organizational culture development, by considering a conceptual framework built based on the cultural perspectives of Martin et al. (2006).

References Agariya, A. K., & Singh, D. (2011). What really defines relationship marketing? A review of definitions and general and sector-specific defining constructs. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 10(4), 203–237. Alvesson, M. (2013). Understanding organizational culture. London, UK: Sage. Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2008). Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Araujo, L., Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. (2003). The multiple boundaries of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1255–1277. Ballantyne, D., Christopher, M., & Payne, A. (2003). Relationship marketing: Looking back, looking forward. Marketing Theory, 3(1), 159–166. Batt, P. J., & Purchase, S. (2004). Managing collaboration within networks and relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 169–174. Cannon, J. P., & Perreault, W. D., Jr. (1999). Buyer-seller relationships in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 436–460. Cavedon, N. R. (2003). Antropologia para administradores. Porto Alegre, Brazil: UFRGS. Ellis, N., Lowe, S., & Purchase, S. (2006). Towards a re-interpretation of industrial networks: A discursive view of culture. The IMP Journal, 1(2), 20–40. Friedman, R. A., & Podolny, J. (1992). Differentiation of boundary spanning roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 28–47. Gagliardi, P. (1986). The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 7(2), 117–134. Grueso-Hinestroza, M. P., & Antón-Rubio, M. C. (2015). Cultural values in inter-organizational networks: A proposal from the model of Shalom Shwartz (1992). Investigación y Desarrollo, 23(2), 369–390. Gummesson, E. (2017). From relationship marketing to total relationship marketing and beyond. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(1), 16–19. Hakansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London, UK: Routledge.

1  INTRODUCTION: RELATIONSHIP MARKETING … 

11

Halley, A. A. (2001). Applications of boundary theory to organizational and inter-organizational culture. In R. J. Stupak & P. M. Leitner (Eds.), Handbook of public quality management (pp. 135–147). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609–1621. Hunt, S. D., Arnett, D. B., & Madhavaram, S. (2006). The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory. Journal of Business Industrial Marketing, 21(2), 72–87. Iglesias, O., Sauquet, A., & Montaña, J. (2011). The role of corporate culture in relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 45(4), 631–650. Kang, B., & Jindal, R. P. (2015). Opportunism in buyer–seller relationships: Some unexplored antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 735–742. Larentis, F., Antonello, C. S., & Slongo, L. A. (2018). Organizational culture and relationship marketing: An inter-organizational perspective. Review of Business Management, 20(1), 37–56. Lee, S. J., Kim, J., & Park, B. I. (2015). Culture clashes in cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A case study of Sweden’s Volvo and South Korea’s Samsung. International Business Review, 24(4), 580–593. Lu, V. N., Plewa, C., & Ho, J. (2016). Managing governmental business relationships: The impact of organisational culture difference and compatibility. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 24(1), 93–100. Lucas, C., & Kline, T. (2008). Understanding the influence of organizational culture and group dynamics on organizational change and learning. Learning Organization, 15(3), 277–287. Martin, J., Frost, P. J., & O’Neil, O. A. (2006). Organizational culture: Beyond struggles for intellectual dominance. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed., pp. 599–621). London, UK: Sage. Moorman, C., & Day, G. S. (2016). Organizing for marketing excellence. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 6–35. Morgan, R. M. (2000). Relationship marketing and marketing strategy: The evolution of relationship marketing strategy within the organization. In J. Sheth & A. Parvatiyar (Eds.), Handbook of relationship marketing (Chap. 18, pp. 481–504). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2014). Organizational cultural perpetuation: A case study of an English premier league football club. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 667–686. Palmatier, R. W. (2008). Relationship marketing. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

12  F. LARENTIS ET AL. Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153. Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2017). Relationship marketing: Looking backwards towards the future. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(1), 11–15. Plewa, C. (2009). Exploring organizational culture difference in relationship dyads. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(1), 46–57. Saenz, M. J., Revilla, E., & Knoppen, D. (2014). Absorptive capacity in buyer– supplier relationships: Empirical evidence of its mediating role. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(2), 18–40. Scheer, L. K., Miao, C. F., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Dependence and interdependence in marketing relationships: Meta-analytic insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(6), 694–712. Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 243–253). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Singh, J., & Rhoads, G. K. (1991). Boundary role ambiguity in marketing oriented positions: A multidimensional, multifaceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 328–338. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 31–53). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Vetráková, M., & Smerek, L. (2016). Diagnosing organizational culture in national and intercultural context. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 19(1), 62. Winklhofer, H., Pressey, A., & Tzokas, N. (2006). A cultural perspective of relationship orientation: Using organizational culture to support a supply relationship orientation. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(1), 169–194. Yin, S., Lu, F., Yang, Y., & Jing, R. (2014). Organizational culture evolution: An imprinting perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(6), 973–994.

CHAPTER 2

Inter-organizational Culture and the Cultural Perspectives

Abstract  Relationships are cultural, because interactions depend on meanings and symbols, under different cultural perspectives. In this chapter, we present a framework that focuses on the development of inter-organizational culture, which is structured by considering, on the one hand, the three-perspective framework of organizational culture, proposed by Martin, Frost, and O’Neil (2006), and, on the other hand, its initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements. Specifically, we explain and discuss the framework’s part related to the cultural perspectives of integration, differentiation and fragmentation between supplier and customer, represented graphically by ellipses and the resultant overlaps. Inter-organizational culture occurs in the overlapping areas between organizations, in a cultural perspective of fragmentation. It can be seen as a culture of intersection, because of the association of cultural perspectives between suppliers and customers. Keywords  Development of inter-organizational culture · Perspective of integration · Perspective of differentiation · Perspective of fragmentation · Three-perspective framework Relationships are cultural: interactions are built on cultural premises (Ellis, Lowe, & Purchase, 2006). Benefits from relationships will depend on how much they are valued at the organizational level and rooted into organizational culture (Winklhofer, Pressey, & Tzokas, 2006). © The Author(s) 2019 F. Larentis et al., Inter-Organizational Culture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00392-0_2

13

14  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Therefore, relationships involve the meeting point of different cultures (Plewa, 2009). In this regard, it is from the compatibility of values, which precedes trust and commitment (Morgan, 2000; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), that one can identify similarities between organizations (past experiences, current actions and future expectations). On the other hand, the development of a culture is a learning process, since the organization’s founders (Dauber, Fink, & Yolles, 2012; Gagliardi, 1986) consider a set of beliefs, although it may be unclear. As certain groups learn how to deal with their problems of adaptation and integration, organizational culture is developed and taught to new members provided it is considered and felt to be correct (Schein, 1991). Responses to an organization by its members are formulated to solve a problem and also to decrease the anxiety related to it (Gagliardi, 1986). Nonetheless, more powerful individuals and groups can influence others’ interpretation of events (Lucas & Kline, 2008), which is related to asymmetry of power. Ambiguity and complexity are reasons for cooperation to take place because interdependent organizations with similar interests, generate a degree of familiarity and solutions together, despite different views (Pitsis, Kornberger, & Clegg, 2004). Based on compatible values, trust, commitment, cooperation and ways to perceive and deal with reality, it is possible to notice that relationships may interfere in the involved organizational cultures, considering the cultural perspectives from Martin et al. (2006), which eventually leads to the development of an inter-organizational culture. However, one can state the existence of an inter-organizational culture, in a specific and restrict way, which depends mainly on the interorganizational relationships, with predominance of the cultural perspective of fragmentation (Martin et al., 2006). Hence, it may be noted that inter-organizational culture is not necessarily the only culture for partner organizations (perspective of integration). In this regard, the perspective of differentiation, perspective of fragmentation or the three-perspective framework might be considered (Martin et al., 2006). These relations are represented in the proposed conceptual framework (Fig. 2.1), originated from our research, in which the three-perspective framework may be identified (Martin et al., 2006) in the development of an inter-organizational culture (Larentis, Antonello, & Slongo, 2018).

2  INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 

15

Development of an Inte- organizational Culture (IC)

Supplier’s Culture (a)

Perspective of Integration

Perspective of Fragmentation inside supplier

Supplier’s Departments Culture (c)

Perspective of Differentiation

Inter-organizational Culture (IC) Perspective of Fragmentation

Customer’s

Perspective of

Customer’s

Fragmentation Departments inside Culture (d) Perspective of customer Perspective of Culture (b)

Integration

Differentiation

Initial Elements of IC *Shared meanings *Shared symbols *Openness to new ideas *Frequency and quality of the interactions *Role of boundary spanners *Past experiences and paths *Role of leadership *Asymmetry of power

Intermediate Elements of IC *Trust related to information, to actions and to people *Commitment to actions, to results and to people *Learning processes and results

Weakening Elements of IC *Level of boundary spanner turnover *Non-shared meanings

Resultant Elements of IC *Cooperative practices *Meanings (new, redefined, strengthened) *Symbols (new, redefined, strengthened) *Reduction of boundary spanner role conflict *Approximation of companies’ organizational areas

*Non-shared symbols

Context Cultural aspects beyond the involved organizations Environmental Dynamics (economic, social, natural, technological, legal, political)

Fig. 2.1  Development of an inter-organizational culture (Source Larentis et al. [2018, p. 50])

We consider four ellipses to represent the cultural manifestations, two from supplier (“a” and “c”) and two from customer (“b” and “d”). In our research, the customer has been represented by the suppliers’ intermediaries (furniture stores and financial services franchisee). Ellipses “a” and “b” represent respectively “supplier’s culture” and “customer’s culture” in

16  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

a perspective of integration, when organizational members deal with the same problems and when a common system of understanding is adopted (Martin et al., 2006; Van Manne & Barley, 1985). Ellipses “c” and “d” represent respectively “supplier’s department culture” and “customer’s department culture,” in a perspective of differentiation, when culture is restricted to determined workgroups or departments (subcultures) (Martin et al., 2006). The use of overlapping areas, or intersections, serves to represent places of blending, that we also call “meeting places.” These intersections occur inside organizations (both supplier and customer) as well as between organizations. We consider that the perspective of fragmentation develops in these overlaps, both inside an organization and between organizations. Consensus would be specific to a determined issue or context, once individuals share meanings, regardless of the group to which they belong due to its complex and transitory nature (Cavedon, 2003; Martin et al., 2006). We choose the overlaps because we understand that the intersection between the perspectives of integration and differentiation lead to many contradictory elements and consensus is transitory and specific to certain issues. In these places of blending, the circulation of meanings and symbols, which interact and combine with one another, can generate and lead to new meanings and symbols. On the one hand, these new meanings and symbols may reinforce those from the perspective of integration and differentiation. On the other hand, they may evidence some contradictory aspects, as well as present new perspectives originated from the circulation per se. It is important to note that this circulation is dependent on interpersonal relationships, inside and outside an organization, since interdependent organizations with similar interests generate a degree of familiarity and solutions together, despite different views (Pitsis et al., 2004). When these cultural perspectives take place between organizations, we deal with the development of an inter-organizational culture. It is assumed that the inter-organizational culture would develop in the intersection areas between the supplier’s cultural perspectives (“a” and “c”) and the customer’s cultural perspectives (“b” and “d”) from the perspective of fragmentation. The perspectives of fragmentation inside the supplier and intermediary would play an indirect role in its development. These intersection areas reinforce the nature of inter-organizational

2  INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 

17

culture as a network of meanings and symbols which flows and interacts inside and outside the organizational space, as well as across organizational boundaries, constantly created and transformed as groups of people socially interact with each other, in a state of flux without any clear boundary (Cavedon, 2003; Lee, Kim, & Park, 2015). Hence, we can state that considering the existence of an inter-organizational culture is to consider and highlight the diversity inside an organization and between organizations. The conceptual framework also proposes that the development of an inter-organizational culture, based on initial elements (shared meanings and symbols, openness to new ideas, frequency and quality of interactions, role of boundary spanners, past experiences and paths, role of leadership and asymmetry of power), is influenced by the inter-organizational relationships, through intermediate elements (trust related to information, to actions and to people, commitment to actions, to results and to people, learning processes and results). Intermediate elements will be able to contribute with the resultant elements (cooperative practices, new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols, reduction of boundary spanner role conflict and approximation of companies’ organizational areas). These elements, and relations between them, are influenced by the weakening elements (level of boundary spanner turnover and nonshared meanings and symbols). Furthermore, this development is related to the context, beyond the involved organizations (cultural aspects, like other organizational cultures and elements of national cultures, as well as environmental dynamics). It is important to note that the initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements, as well as the context, were originated from emergent categories identified in our previous research, grounded on the findings. These topics will be deepened in Chapter 3. From a cultural approach, boundaries are defined based on shared meanings, and culture is transformed in a state of flux without any clear boundary: organizational cultures form a mix of cultural manifestations (Alvesson, 2013; Lee et al., 2015). Hence, in the proposed framework, dashed lines represent the permeability between cultural perspectives, elements related to the development of an inter-organizational culture, and context. Double arrows represent interactions between the elements (interdependence relations). Even if initial elements come first, they may later influence and be influenced by intermediate elements and resultant elements of inter-organizational culture.

18  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Organizations are marked by social practices that can be considered cultural. However, they may not represent the organization as a whole. Some aspects are constrained to some working subgroups and others are neither clearly consistent nor clearly inconsistent. Thus, along the next pages, we deepen the conceptual framework by explaining the ellipses proposed. Therefore, the cultural perspectives of integration, differentiation and fragmentation, represent the three-perspective framework as a whole. Firstly, we develop the cultural aspects related to perspectives of integration and differentiation from supplier and customer. Second, we interpret the overlapping areas inside organizations, in which the perspectives of integration and differentiation meet. Thirdly, we present the overlapping areas between organizations, in which the perspectives of integration, differentiation and fragmentation from the supplier are embedded with the customer’s.

2.1   Perspectives of Integration and Differentiation of Suppliers and Customers According to Fig. 2.2, we consider the cultural perspectives within supplier’s culture and customer’s culture (perspective of integration), as well as supplier’s department culture and customer’s department culture (perspective of differentiation). The perspectives of fragmentation are identified inside the supplier’s context, in which we consider the overlapping of supplier’s culture and supplier’s department culture. The perspectives Fig. 2.2  The ellipses and the cultural perspectives (Source Larentis et al. [2018, p. 50])

Supplier’s Culture (a) Perspective of Integration

Perspective of Fragmentation inside supplier

Supplier’s Departments Culture (c) Perspective of Differentiation

Inter-organizational Culture (IC) Perspective of Fragmentation Customer’s

Perspective of

Customer’s

Culture (b)

Fragmentation

Departments

inside

Culture (d) Perspective of Differentiation

Perspective of Integration

customer

2  INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 

19

of fragmentation are also identified inside the customer’s context, in the overlapping of customer’s culture and customer’s department culture. In the case of the supplier’s ellipses overlapping the customer’s ellipses, both perspectives of integration and differentiation, we have the presence of the inter-organizational culture. Perspective of integration means the existence of the same symbols and meanings across the organizational space. It does not mean that this perspective is the only one in an organization, but that there are determined symbols and meanings, beliefs and values pervading all the organization, in which some practices, values and interpretations allow some consensus. Evviva and Racon present some meanings that pervade across both organizations, such as actions taken gradually, balance between reason and emotion, ethics, flexibility, humbleness, importance of the relationship, trust as a value and stability. On the other hand, when we compare Evviva with Racon, the former presents greater focus on product and production, less agility and daring, less formality and self-sufficiency. The latter presents freedom to create, greater focus on learning, greater focus on client and on results and more autonomy to make decisions. When we compare Evviva and Racon with their corporate groups of origin (Bertolini and Randon), they are less traditional, more dynamic, present greater openness to innovation and give more importance to interpersonal and inter-organizational relationships. Customer’s culture, which is associated in the research with smaller intermediaries’ structures compared to suppliers and higher sales department turnover allow more similar meanings across the organization. In addition, we have as evidences the customer’s culture associated with market orientation, consistently present throughout the companies, despite their departments (related to the perspective of differentiation). Perspective of differentiation means the existence of the same symbols and meanings shared in a workgroup, team or department. In this case, symbols and meanings shared by a workgroup are different compared to other workgroups. In our research, both Evviva and Racon presented this perspective inside the departments, even with the values mentioned earlier. On the one hand, sales and marketing departments, with more interactions with customers, were able to understand better their customers’ needs, and were more concerned about flexibility. On the other hand, operational and administrative departments presented a more internal orientation, giving more attention and focus on technical and bureaucratic aspects. We have also the values associated with the top management team, with a more strategic emphasis.

20  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Their customers, represented by the intermediaries in our research, presented similar results. However, since they are smaller in structure and deal mostly with sales concerns, in general, they presented the perspective of differentiation into two groups: administrative department as one and operational/sales department as another. The former has a more internal orientation while the latter is more customer-oriented. The upper echelon consists of the owner himself, who is associated with one of the two groups. Moreover, we have identified that these meanings associated with the perspective of differentiation were also influenced by the members’ professions and their mindsets, such as accountants, architects, engineers, designers and managers. Based on our research findings, it is important to emphasize that those values that pervade all organizations (perspective of integration) acquire some particularities when we consider the department culture. For example, flexibility is a stronger value in marketing departments, while stability is more evident in departments with a more internal focus.

2.2   Perspective of Fragmentation Inside Supplier and Customer Some overlaps occur inside the supplier’s and customer’s realms—transitory elements between integration and differentiation; we do not consider similar elements, but third-level elements, cultural manifestations that depend and are developed based on integration elements and differentiation elements. Had we considered similar elements between the perspectives, we would have the overlap as a result of the perspective of integration, once it represents meanings and symbols shared across the organization. Meanings and symbols shared between the perspective of integration and differentiation would belong to the perspective of integration. For example, the interaction between a supplier’s cultural manifestation and a department supplier’s cultural meaning can generate a new cultural meaning, in a complex and transitory means, once we consider the perspective of fragmentation to meanings shared by individuals, regardless of the groups they pertain to. We also consider the perspective of fragmentation inside an organization when diverse departments share some values, or their interaction and relationship lead to new values. This is the case when people from sales department interact more positively

2  INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 

21

with people from financial department, a situation that may be influenced by actions developed to improve the integration between departments, associated with the perspective of integration. That does not mean that they will acquire the same value, which would be in the perspective of integration’s area. However, a value which is nurtured in the perspective of fragmentation’s area may prevail across the organization, i.e., belonging to the perspective of integration. Another situation is the need to solve a common problem, related to the customer, which can allow the approximation between those departments with different mindsets.

2.3   Perspective of Fragmentation Originating Inter-organizational Culture As we presented in Chapter 1, in the perspective of fragmentation, cultural manifestations do not encompass either the entire organization, or it is specific to an organizational workgroup in particular. They present many contradictory elements, in which consensus would be transitory and specific to certain issues. Consensus leads to short-term affinities and are replaced by different models, as other issues gain attention. In the proposed framework, the Inter-organizational culture occurs in those overlaps associated with the perspectives of fragmentation between supplier and customer, stemming from its perspectives of integration and differentiation. Hence, the perspective of fragmentation between supplier and customer is represented in the sharing of some meanings between people from different organizations and different workgroups, as the supplier’s sales department with the customer’ sales and administrative departments, the supplier’s top management team with the customer’s departments, the supplier’s operational and administrative departments with customer’s departments. In customers with a larger structure, we would have also their top management team interacting with the supplier’s upper echelon and departments. According to our research findings, we could identify the sales department as a cultural bridge between the other supplier departments and the customer’s department. As the sales department is usually more involved with the inter-organizational relationship, their professionals need to execute strategies and solve customer-related problems, which need the support or intervention from the other supplier’s departments and hierarchical levels.

22  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Furthermore, inside organizations, inter-organizational culture’s evidences allow rapprochement between subcultures inside an organization, due to a decrease in differences related to points of view, mindsets and values, once they have interactions with customer’s people. Not only the problems to be solved are common, but the perceptions about these problems start becoming more similar between people from different workgroups. For example, in Racon, administrative/operational managers and employees started perceiving problems related to customers and the market in a more similar way when compared with sales manager and employees, because of the interaction with customers’ employees, such as in training moments developed by the supplier. Regarding the relation between supplier’s sales departments and customer’s department, since interactions occur mainly between owners, managers and employees from customer’s operational support, because of high turnover levels in sales departments from both supplier and customer, we have identified not only group between supplier’s sales department and customers’ people, aligned with the perspective of differentiation, but the sharing of some symbols and meanings between supplier’s sales team and customer’s people, especially among those whose relationship is closer. In other words, meanings are not necessarily tied to people who belong to a specific group (Cavedon, 2003). Another situation is some supplier’s symbols and meanings which were previously present in customer’s culture, or something appreciated by customer’s owners. For example, the suppliers’ meanings related to the importance of relationship, the humbleness and the importance of work were more present in some intermediaries. Moreover, there are customers that chose to begin a relationship with the suppliers because of some of their values. In this case, owners of a furniture company were searching for a new supplier and found in Evviva some values they appreciated, such as humbleness. Such findings show that the inter-organizational culture will develop depending on the cultures’ composition from both supplier and customer, taking into consideration the perspectives of integration and differentiation. The inter-organizational culture has been also present with the former suppliers’ employees who assumed the role of intermediaries, bringing with them experiences and cultural aspects present in the suppliers as a whole (perspective of integration) and in the departments they belonged (perspective of differentiation). Both Evviva and Racon had, for example, groups of employees from their sales departments interested in open stores and represent such brands.

2  INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 

23

Another aspect is related to cultural meanings of suppliers and suppliers’ departments associated with management systems, mainly those related to market and people management aspects, which began to be applied as customers’ practices, including those disregarded for a while, but not forgotten, such as “The Concept” in Evviva, described in Chapter 1. In these situations, the relationship between supplier and customer, mainly through the boundary spanners for both organizations, allowed the use of suppliers’ management practices into customers’ activities and, by consequence, the meanings and symbols related to these practices. We also emphasize the intermediaries with former experiences in competing brands, which contributed to cultural changes in the current suppliers through some meanings they brought. In Evviva, one of the best-performing stores worked for many years with another brand, highly focused on results. They started to sell Evviva’ products because of their quality and due to some values they appreciated, such as the importance given to relationships and their humbleness. Although this store disapproved of some practices from the former supplier, their focus on results was stronger than Evviva’s, allowing Evviva to learn these new perspectives. Another point to highlight is the meaning from third parties such as architects and consultants present in intermediaries, suppliers and supplier’s departments, in respect to both market orientation and managerial systems. In Evviva, many aspects appreciated by architects, an important opinion maker in customized furniture segment, were incorporated in the stores, such as changes in storefronts, layout and means to present products. On the other hand, some of the store owners have a degree in Architecture and could contribute to professional subcultures (Alvesson, 2013). In Racon, the consultants specialized in franchising systems brought to the supplier some new perspectives in dealing with the market. In the cases where both Evviva and Racon changed their perspectives to deal with problems, mainly those related to market orientation, their openness to new ideas, incorporated in their organizational cultures, allowed a better understanding of the customers needs. Therefore, a former cultural aspect can allow and facilitate the emergence, or reinforcement, of another cultural aspect. Therefore, inter-organizational culture can be faced as an intersection of culture between different organizations and their departments or a boundary culture, because culture can both fragment (creating boundaries) and integrate (allowing meanings shared across boundaries) (Halley, 2001).

24  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

People from a determined culture, although they may disagree about the cultural boundaries, unreconciling contradictory beliefs and multiple identities, still sustain that they belong to a culture: they share a common orientation and a wide purpose, about facing similar concerns and having comparable experiences (Meyerson, 1991). We may refer here to people working in an organization who, despite different departments, share common orientations and values, which is represented by the perspective of integration. Nonetheless, these references may be associated with individuals from different organizations, i.e., the perspective of fragmentation. Inter-organizational culture is boundary spanners culture, and involves the interaction between customers’ boundary spanners, including the owners, and suppliers’ boundary spanners, mainly in those areas they predominate, such as sales departments. Hence, we argue that inter-organizational culture would hardly happen in a broad and evenly distributed way across organizations. Inter-organizational culture, stemming from the perspective of fragmentation, reinforces its development in a transitory and specific means. Moreover, inter-organizational culture would hardly develop in asymmetric power relations. In this case, it is important to highlight that the strength and quality of interdependent relationships between the suppliers and intermediaries investigated are associated with less asymmetric power relations, as supported by Frazier (1999). We have identified an authentic interest by Evviva and Racon in fair relationships, although they hold more power than intermediaries. Furthermore, inter-organizational culture would depend on national, regional and industrial cultural contexts, beyond the organizational one. There has been the presence mainly of industrial cultural contexts, because of suppliers’ branch of activity and intermediaries’ retailing and services activities. Regional cultural contexts also have been identified, mainly due to intermediaries’ geographic location, even in a more superficial means. Based on our research findings, we can affirm that the development and investigation of inter-organizational relationships make us consider the organizational cultures involved and, specifically, an inter-organizational culture, even though it is restricted and specific to certain aspects and contexts. Inter-organizational relationships, based on interpersonal relationships, are impregnated with culture (Ellis et al., 2006) and need it to

2  INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES 

25

keep existing. That is because systems of symbols and meanings serve as base, ease relationship beginning, bring people from different organizations closer and affect relationship continuity. Thus, it is important to note that organizational culture’s elements are in the origin and development of relationships.

References Alvesson, M. (2013). Understanding organizational culture. London, UK: Sage. Cavedon, N. R. (2003). Antropologia para administradores. Porto Alegre, Brazil: UFRGS. Dauber, D., Fink, G., & Yolles, M. (2012). A configuration model of organizational culture. Sage Open, 2(1), 1–16. Ellis, N., Lowe, S., & Purchase, S. (2006). Towards a re-interpretation of industrial networks: A discursive view of culture. The IMP Journal, 1(2), 20–40. Frazier, G. L. (1999). Organizing and managing channels of distribution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 226–240. Gagliardi, P. (1986). The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 7(2), 117–134. Halley, A. A. (2001). Applications of boundary theory to organizational and Inter-organizational culture. In R. Stupak & P. M. Leitner (Eds.), Handbook of public quality management (pp. 599–621). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. Larentis, F., Antonello, C. S., & Slongo, L. A. (2018). Organizational culture and relationship marketing: An inter-organizational perspective. Review of Business Management, 20(1), 37–56. Lee, S. J., Kim, J., & Park, B. I. (2015). Culture clashes in cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A case study of Sweden’s Volvo and South Korea’s Samsung. International Business Review, 24(4), 580–593. Lucas, C., & Kline, T. (2008). Understanding the influence of organizational culture and group dynamics on organizational change and learning. Learning Organization, 15(3), 277–287. Martin, J., Frost, P. J., & O’Neil, O. A. (2006). Organizational culture: Beyond struggles for intellectual dominance. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed., pp. 599–621). London, UK: Sage. Meyerson, D. E. (1991). “Normal” ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 131–144). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Morgan, R. M. (2000). Relationship marketing and marketing strategy: The evolution of relationship marketing strategy within the organization. In J. Sheth &

26  F. LARENTIS ET AL. A. Parvatiyar (Eds.), Handbook of relationship marketing (Chap. 18, pp. 481– 504). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. Pitsis, T. S., Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. (2004). The art of managing relationships in interorganizational collaboration. M@n@gement, 7(3), 47–67. Plewa, C. (2009). Exploring organizational culture difference in relationship dyads. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(1), 46–57. Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 243–253). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 31–53). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Winklhofer, H., Pressey, A., & Tzokas, N. (2006). A cultural perspective of relationship orientation: Using organizational culture to support a supply relationship orientation. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(1), 169–194.

CHAPTER 3

Development of Inter-organizational Culture: The Elements

Abstract  Formation and development of inter-organizational ­relationships and organizational cultures are processual phenomena. In this chapter, we discuss and deepen the remaining aspects of the conceptual framework, presented in chapter 2, and their categories, grounded on the findings. Development of an inter-organizational culture is dependent on initial elements (shared meanings and symbols, openness to new ideas, frequency and quality of interactions, role of boundary spanners, past experiences and paths, role of leadership and asymmetry of power), intermediate elements (trust related to information, to actions and to people, commitment to actions, to results and to people, learning processes and results), resultant elements (cooperative practices, new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols, reduction of boundary spanner role conflict and approximation of companies’ organizational areas), weakening elements (level of boundary spanner turnover and non-shared meanings and symbols) and context beyond the involved organizations. Keywords  Development of inter-organizational culture · Initial elements · Intermediate elements · Resultant elements Weakening elements

© The Author(s) 2019 F. Larentis et al., Inter-Organizational Culture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00392-0_3

·

27

28  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

In this chapter, we deepen and discuss the remaining aspects of the conceptual framework, and their categories, grounded on the findings. The conceptual framework proposes that the development of an interorganizational culture, based on initial elements (shared meanings and symbols, openness to new ideas, frequency and quality of interactions, role of boundary spanners, past experiences and paths, role of leadership and asymmetry of power), is influenced by inter-organizational relationships, through intermediate elements (trust related to information, to actions and to people, commitment to actions, to results and to people, learning processes and results), which will be able to contribute later with the resultant elements (cooperative practices, new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols, reduction of boundary spanner role conflict and approximation of companies’ organizational areas). These elements, and relations between them, are influenced by the weakening elements (level of boundary spanner turnover and non-shared meanings and symbols). Furthermore, this development is related to the context, beyond the involved organizations (cultural aspects, like other organizational cultures and elements of national cultures, as well as environmental dynamics). For the identification and constitution of the elements that represent the inter-organizational culture, we consider the formation of interorganizational relationships as well as organizational cultures as processual phenomena. The formation and development of relationships demand considerable time and effort (Hunt, Arnett, & Madhavaram, 2006), which may contribute to the formation and building of an inter-organizational culture, mainly through shared meanings and symbols, openness to new ideas and perspectives, role of boundary spanners, past experiences and paths, role of leadership, asymmetry of power, frequency and quality of interactions and problems’ sharing between individuals. These aspects, mediated by trust, commitment and learning, can generate cooperation, the construction, redefinition or reinforcement of meanings and symbols (ceremonies, rites, rituals, myths and artifacts) for determined groups from different organizations, as well as the reduction of boundary spanner role conflict and approximation of organizational areas, inside supplier and customer and between supplier and customer. Related to relationship consequences, we need to consider not only economic and financial outcomes, but affective and cultural bonds, which are difficult to change (Alvesson, 2013; Hofstede, 2001). However, based on the empirical findings associated with the relational difficulties, the dimensions from our framework are weakened

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

29

by non-shared symbols and meanings, divergent elements between the involved organizational cultures. Another weakening factor is the level of employee turnover, especially between the boundary spanners. Non-shared meanings and symbols are associated with different means to understand the world and perceive problems between supplier’s participants and customer’s participants, as well as preliminary concepts present in both parties. The levels of employee turnover refer to the findings associated with the difficulties for trust formation, commitment development, learning processes and results and cooperative actions. According to Fig. 3.1, it is important to note that initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements interact with one another, which is graphically indicated by the double arrows. In other words, we should not interpret them as simply cause–effect relations. Initial elements contribute to intermediate, resultant and weakening elements, but they are also affected by them. Moreover, we highlight the role of learning and trust, according to our research findings. Furthermore, we state that the constituting elements of organizational culture are constituting elements of an inter-organizational culture, specific to the cultural perspective of fragmentation. This assumption has been supported by our findings. Based on Weitz and Jap (2000), Griffith Initial Elements of IC *Shared meanings *Shared symbols *Openness to new ideas *Frequency and quality of the interactions *Role of boundary spanners *Past experiences and paths *Role of leadership *Asymmetry of power

Intermediate Elements of IC *Trust related to information, to actions and to people *Commitment to actions, to results and to people *Learning processes and results

Weakening Elements of IC *Level of boundary spanner turnover *Non-shared meanings

Resultant Elements of IC *Cooperative practices *Meanings (new, redefined, strengthened) *Symbols (new, redefined, strengthened) *Reduction of boundary spanner role conflict *Approximation of companies’ organizational areas

*Non-shared symbols

Context Cultural aspects beyond the involved organizations Environmental Dynamics (economic, social, natural, technological, legal, political)

Fig. 3.1  The elements of an inter-organizational culture (Source Larentis et al. [2018, p. 50])

30  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

and Harvey (2001), Möller and Svahn (2003) and Gummesson (2008), as well as on the empirical findings, we state that the development of inter-organizational relationships will need common meanings and cultural affinities between the participants, frequency and quality of interactions, problems’ sharing, learning processes and results, mainly those with cultural and social aspects, trust, commitment and cooperation. Inter-organizational relationships will be able to contribute to the formation of an inter-organizational culture, once individuals from different organizations will develop and share similar meanings and symbols. This culture, influenced by inter-organizational relationship, will influence the continuity of this relationship, in an interpersonal and organizational dimension, as well as the reduction of boundary spanner role conflict, in a personal dimension. Job satisfaction will be greater and divergent and contradictory meanings will be lesser (Haytko, 2004; Homburg & Stock, 2004; Luo, 2006). The relationship continuity, in this case, occurs taking into account that relationships probably develop incrementally and are influenced by experiences from past interactions (Weitz & Jap, 2000). We also emphasize that relationship dissolutions do not happen just for divergences between objectives and expectancies, opportunist behavior, improper partner selection and unachieved synergies, but also for cultural differences. Role conflict, associated with salient uncertainties faced by boundary spanners on playing their roles (Singh & Rhoads, 1991), is decreased through more common meanings, such as new means to face problems. In the next sections, initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements as well as context related to inter-organizational culture are developed. It is important to note that initial elements contribute not only to intermediate elements, but also to resultant ones and vice versa.

3.1  Initial Elements We have identified as initial elements, that is, aspects that sustain and allow the beginning of the development of an inter-organizational culture. However, we reinforce that these elements will affect and will be affected by intermediate, resultant and weakening elements, in a determined context. Shared meanings and shared symbols are those common cultural elements on which relationships start developing. We have examples of those both from Evviva and Racon, where an entrepreneur chose to

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

31

work with these brands because of similar values, or former employees decided to be Evviva and Racon’s customers. Shared meanings and symbols ease contact, improve interaction quality and expand sharing of ideas, as suppliers and customers have, in some degree, similar perspectives to understand the world and the businesses. They allow and extend the motivation to work together. Even with different values and beliefs between them, the existence of similar meanings enables more safety in the relationship, because to some extent there is some collective identity. The second aspect, which is openness to new ideas, increases the chance to understand better the counterpart, despite different values between supplier and customer, because humbleness and interest to learn with the other are present. Hence, it allows more openness to diversity, because members from different organizations realize the richness of solutions when interactions occur between them, and the importance to be open to different perspectives and interpretations of the world. The third feature, frequency and quality of interactions, allows deeper knowledge of the counterpart, and the understanding that values, world visions and means to solve problems are similar and different. The more frequent interaction, the more number of contacts and the probability to establish new solutions, because ideas and opinions are shared, despite disagreements. When combined with shared meanings and symbols, the frequency becomes more effective and more valued by the counterparts. Once articulated with openness to new ideas, we will have more chance to deal with constructive conflict, because the focus is on solving the problem and satisfying market needs. In this case, quality of interactions, i.e., how contacts occur when people interact and solve problems together, enables better means to give attention to the other, because reliability in actions increases. Problems are solved more collaboratively, once people know how the counterpart can help, which allows the existence of a network of symbols and meanings across organizational boundaries. Another aspect is the role of boundary spanners. As they work mainly in organizational boundaries, solving problems, searching for solutions and executing them, they connect different organizations, working like bridges. The quality of these connections will be fundamental for the boundary spanners’ role performance, because problem-solving depends on interpersonal relationships, associated with structures and processes from different organizations. As these connections evolve, they evidence and add transparency to transparent organizational processes and

32  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

structures from both supplier and customers, once boundary spanners understand and develop better their responsibilities, even with conflicts and problems to solve. Past experiences and paths say much about us, our interests, mindsets and expectations. Moreover, they give us the basis to develop and to restrain our capabilities. They also serve as indication of safeness and trust in the counterpart, thus improving the quality of interactions. In this regard, boundary spanners bring past experiences that may interfere on learning. With Evviva, sales supervisors had experiences in other organizational areas in the same company, such as in production, in other Bertolini’s companies. They had also worked for other competing furniture brands, with sales and administrative staffs, or other businesses, such as financial services and consultancy. In the furniture stores, we found owners who had formerly been Evviva’s sales supervisors, one who had worked for a competing brand, another who had had contact with the company as a civil engineer and an owner who had former experience in furniture and warehouse retail. Some of them had previous friendly relationships with Bertolini’s owners. As for Racon, we have identified some boundary spanners who had previous experiences in other companies, such as research analyst, IT services and consumer products factory. Other boundary spanners had performed activities in other Racon’s departments or had been employees in other Randon companies. We have identified franchisees who had formerly been Racon’s sales employees, or had worked in different business segments. Such experiences, in both Evviva and Racon, present a diversity of world’s vision, perspectives and past habits. They have influenced the quality of relationship, as well as symbols and meanings. About the role of leadership, we consider a leader a person who serves as inspiration and example to others, who is reference to our choices, decisions and activities. As said by Peter Drucker, leader is the individual who has followers. Hence, an authority position does not necessarily mean a leadership position. Moreover, a leader is able to serve as a connection point between different organizational cultures. As underlined by Alvesson (2013), leadership does not occur in a sociocultural zero point, but it is always developed in a context of meaning patterns already present. In relation to our research, to organizational culture and to relationship marketing, we have clearly identified one leader in Evviva, who developed the “Concept,” and one leader in Racon, responsible for the successful people management strategy and practices. Both leaders were responsible

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

33

for defining and starting new routes and processes, in a legitimated means, for sustaining values and beliefs necessary to put their strategies into practice, mainly those related to relationship marketing. These values and beliefs are not simply presented in mission and vision statements, but practiced through the leaders’ example, reference and behavior. Another important issue associated with leadership for the development of an inter-organizational culture is their responsibility in easing articulation between people from different organizations, mainly boundary spanners. In this situation, boundary spanners need enough references, examples and inspiration to deal with their activities, the difficulties related to the inter-organizational and interpersonal relationship and with conflict role. Asymmetry of power, according to Hougaard and Bjerre (2009), concerns the relative distribution of influence and information within a relationship. A determined level of asymmetry may lead to defensive practices by the weaker party, such as lower quality, less knowledge sharing and more control. As we settled in Chapter 2, inter-organizational culture would present difficulties to occur in asymmetric power relations. However, as presented by Frazier (1999), the existence of cooperation and fair norms in a marketing channel make some more powerful companies try to shape strong and effective relationships, for the benefit of both parties, instead of pressuring the counterparts for their own interests. Evviva and Racon have presented a genuine interest in developing strong and effective relationships with their intermediaries, due to their belief in the importance of long-term relationships. They believe and have learned that interdependency should be guided equitably, despite asymmetric relations and the possibility to pressure the weaker party on their own interests. This conduct enables more qualified relationships and positive performances, mainly in the medium and long terms. Hence, the weaker parties realize that discussing ideas and strategies is worth, since they feel they are respected. Thus, we highlight that, since the beginning of a relationship, shared meanings and symbols, openness to new ideas, frequency and quality of interactions, level of power asymmetry associated with the role of boundary spanners and the role of leadership with their past experiences and paths allow that an inter-organizational culture starts its development. This occurs because parties have felt safe and have shown optimism about the relationship’s future, developed through these interactions, which have led to more similar new perspectives to understand the world.

34  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

3.2  Intermediate Elements Inter-organizational relationships depend fundamentally on people and their ideologies, practices, prejudices, expectations, capabilities, meanings and contexts. Trust formation, commitment and learning will allow sharing of symbols and meanings between individuals from different organizations. These elements are intermediate because they depend on the beginning of a relationship and, on the initial elements of inter-organizational culture. However, when this first moment passes, initial and intermediate elements interact with one another. Inter-organizational relationships, as well as organizational cultures, depend on trust, which is built spontaneously and non-imposedly (Lane, 2001), a central element for both. In order to establish trust, we need a proper environment. Trust has both relational and cultural nature. According to Gummesson (2008), trust is socially developed, tending to be reinforced by cultural affinities. The existence of trust assumes one’s belief about one’s counterpart’s honesty and benevolence; it increases the disposition to share information and the safeness to invest in the relationship as well as decreases opportunism (Child & Faulkner, 1998; Geyskens, Steenkamp & Kumar, 1999). In our research, trust has been related to information given, to actions executed and to people involved in the relationship. Trust related to information involves the degree of openness about considering available information; the degree of interest in knowing and being known; safeness about information quality, i.e., how much this available information would be used and considered, generating sharing of information and ideas; the level of transparency, and the complicity derived from this available, shared and used information. Trust related to actions is associated with people safeness about other’s actions; freedom given to execute actions; people’s degree of presence about making actions; and offers’ credibility, from both suppliers and customers. Trust related to people is associated with safeness, serenity and comfort regarding others’ actions and information because we believe in people’s characteristics, values, beliefs, interests and behaviors. However, trust depends on the level of accomplished promises in the past, what may be related to the asymmetry of power. For example, in Evviva, changes of the sales managers and sales supervisors made some

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

35

intermediaries reluctant about some promises and news made later. In this case, the intermediary’s interest in a more authentic and transparent relationship generates a more qualified level of interdependency. Moreover, trust generates more questioning in both parties and improves the level of argumentation and demands in a transparent means, which decreases the resistance between participants. As we believe in the counterpart, we feel more confident about the information they shared and their actions, and we can focus on the problem’s content per se and in the evidences we have. As we believe on what has been said, we are more open to questioning, which allows a more scientific attitude. As presented by Bstieler (2006), trust allows mutual understanding and acceptance and overcoming of differences. Commitment is about the company’s permanent will to continue the relationship with another, without measuring efforts to maintain it (Geyskens et al., 1999; Palmatier, 2008; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006). There is a commitment related to actions, to results and to people. Concerning action-related commitment, there is the presence of involvement, the constant observation of supplier’s employees in customer’s structures and processes, the actuation with enthusiasm and responsibility and the consistent concern and care to solve problems. About result-related commitment, we emphasize delivering on promises, the interest in maintaining the relationship, the degree of applied resources and the customers’ will to keep their businesses sustainable, and by consequence, to improve the relationship with suppliers. With regard to people-related commitment, the will to keep believing in others, in spite of problems to be solved and conflicts. In relation to learning, we have identified learning processes and learning results. Informal learning processes prevailed, related to experiences, collective activities and search for better performance. We highlight that inter-organizational relationship members may consensually validate some collective inter-organizational experiences, bringing variety to individual experiences (Holmqvist, 2003). Boundary spanners both from Evviva and Racon learned from their own practices, mainly when there were not clear rules and procedures; through more experienced employees’ experiences and with talks and discussions about former problems and experiences. Trainings also happened mainly in Racon.

36  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Regarding the learning between organizations, which we call interorganizational learning, defined by Knight (2000) as learning in the context of groups of pairs of organizations which proactively cooperates. In other words, learning that occurs in the context of inter-organizational relationships. Inter-organizational learning depends on collective learning processes, mainly tacit and informal, dependent on daily practices and their meanings (Ellis, Lowe, & Purchase, 2006; Holmqvist, 2003; Knight, 2002). Furthermore, both customers’ and suppliers’ members learn from one another, mainly about market practices and consumer behavior. Another relevant aspect is learning about management systems and concepts, which depend on time and members’ experience, due to their level of complexity, such as “The Concept” in Evviva, recovered from past initiatives, and Racon’s franchise system, developed to sell financial services. Linked to learning of management aspects, we have learning of cultural elements, dependent on time and the quality of interactions, since relationship practices are impregnated with organizational cultures (Ellis et al., 2006; Gagliardi, 1986). Participants learn their organizational cultures (Gagliardi, 1986), as they interact and work together. Learning processes are also influenced by the time available to develop a relationship, thus dependent of trust and commitment (Hardy, Phillips, & Lawrence, 2003; Lane, 2001). In this case, according to Lane (2001), closer and more stable interactions encourage more openness to ideas and opinions and, consequently, multiple opportunities for learning. In this case, we have identified employee’s turnover as a problem, due to the importance of time to bring closeness and stability in interactions, as well as the need to external support to learn about past practices. We emphasize the learning of suppliers’ employees through trainings to customers’ employees. In other words, who is teaching can learn about who is learning. In Racon, training performed by administrative staff to customers’ sales and operational teams allow them to better know about the franchisees’ practices and realities. In this situation, a symbolic word, said many times by Racon’s interviewees, was “maturity,” when people comprehend and accept certain situations and opinions, unimaginable in past moments. For example, administrative employees realized that they understand better the objections and questionings from their sales colleagues and intermediaries. They also perceived that their timing is different from the franchisees, because of their closer relation with consumers and competition, which was dependent on participants’ openness to trust about what has been learned.

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

37

In these situations, trust and commitment ease learning, due to information openness (learning sources), the possibilities of interaction (combination of information and meanings) and information quality (safeness about its use), as well as the counterparts’ will to continue the relationship, when we consider actions, people and results. We highlight in this case the importance of being open to believe and consider information, people, actions and expectations involved, once we need to consider previous shared meanings and symbols, the role of boundary spanners and the leadership and the past experiences and paths, as well as the level of asymmetry of power as long as we interact with others. Furthermore, as trust is a learning facilitator (Lane, 2001), reducing trust is reducing the capability to learn and, by consequence, the capability to share more meanings and symbols. Another important issue is learning how to trust. Once organizations allow others to learn about their processes and practices, i.e., the exploration of new concepts, ideas and meanings, they are also learning how to trust. That includes learning how to trust in proposed strategies and their execution, both from suppliers and customers. For example, suppliers depend on intermediaries’ execution to put in practice a new market strategy. Reluctance to implement an action or change a practice may be due to intermediaries’ lack of trust in changing results or supplier’s people involved in execution and changes, mainly when they have less working experience.

3.3  Resultant Elements When organizations decide to work together, they make a decision that will impact them in the long term, even in unsuccessful relationship situations. For those who perceive the importance of relationships for their strategies and processes, inter-organizational relationship will result in changes on organizational cultures, under different perspectives (Martin, Frost, & O’Neil, 2006). In such context, resultant elements are constituted by cooperative practices, new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols, reduction of boundary spanner role conflict and approximation of companies’ organizational areas. Development of inter-organizational relationships is dependent on existence of conjoint expectations, levels of risk and degrees of trust, commitment through formal contracts and informal deals (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). Cooperation, on the other hand, is the result of trust

38  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

and commitment (Palmatier, 2008; Palmatier et al., 2006). According to our research findings, cooperation is evident with those involved in the relationship assembled to discuss and solve problems. They cooperate to cope with situations that require help from both parties, or solving problems in ways that take into account both supplier and customer, as well as help requested by intermediaries. There are intermeshing and willingness to understand and help. We have identified in these situations the existence of high levels of trust, commitment and reciprocity. In other words, cooperative actions and practices evidence relationship’s value and strength, both between Evviva and Racon and their customers, because they put in practice what they believe when they consider the meaning of a good relationship—their behaviors begin to be impregnated with meanings and symbols, which are not restricted to a single organization. As many intermediaries’ activities do not depend only on actions from suppliers’ sales teams, in which there are more contacts and interaction, but also on individuals from other organizational areas, one of the problems associated with cooperation is the partial perception of employees in relation to intermediaries’ realities, even with more integration between them. This lack of understanding in some situations is associated with what is said about situations and problems and the way they are perceived. In Racon, meetings between supplier’s and customer’s teams were organized for both parties in which they present their points of view and search for solutions, leading to the development of a “spirit of collaboration.” Boundary spanners have an important role in cooperative activities, in learning processes and in the trust formation with intermediaries, especially within sales areas. At the same time, they are organizational representatives and interpreters of the external environment to the organization, once they are responsible for the bond between groups and information sharing between different organizations (Araujo, Dubois, & Gadde, 2003). The boundary spanners in the research are those with permanent contact across organizations, mainly the participants from sales teams, both in suppliers and customers. We also mention as boundary spanners the customers’ owners and operational teams and the suppliers’ administrative teams with contact to customers. Role conflict is an intrinsic feature to boundary spanners (Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Sharma, Tzokas, Saren, & Kyziridis, 1999; Singh & Rhoads, 1991). This aspect has been evidenced mainly in sales teams. In our research, we have identified more proximity and affinity between suppliers’ sales team and customers’ boundary spanners than between

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

39

suppliers’ workmates. For example, among the suppliers, there were a lot of conflicts between the sales business perspective and the operational business perspectives, which generated role conflicts to the boundary spanners, who presented dilemmas do deal with the customers. Nonetheless, over time, changes in administrative and operational areas in perceiving how customers work effectively in the market, mainly when they interacted with customers, made perceptions between suppliers’ employees from different areas more similar. Hence, this aspect, associated with more similar mindsets between suppliers’ and customer’s people, allowed the reduction of boundary spanner role conflict. On the other hand, we can state that they enable the increase of boundary spanners’ work satisfaction and the decrease of divergent and contradictory meanings (Haytko, 2004; Homburg & Stock, 2004; Luo, 2006). Cooperative practices and more satisfied boundary spanners are associated with a better understanding between supplier and customer, due to their relationship quality, represented by high levels of trust and commitment and focus on learning. This collective understanding eases the comprehension of different roles across organizations, which include the organizational boundaries, the boundary spanners and those people with less contact with customers and consumers. Moreover, this closer understanding will enable a better interpretation of different organizations’ realities. On the other hand, it will impact on the changes of meanings and symbols, between organizations, once their members will be able to share and build new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols. In Evviva and Racon, situations associated with a better understanding of customer needs, execution of management systems and processes and openness to new ideas and perspectives, presented in Chapter 1, evidence cultural changes built by both suppliers and customers, with generation of new, redefined and strengthened values, beliefs, worldviews, artifacts, rites, myths and narratives between organizations. These cultural changes have been built mainly due to moments of interaction and cooperation, learning processes, formation of trust, commitment, and participants’ examples and attitudes. However, these changes depended on a cultural basis already present in the organizations, when we consider shared meanings and symbols. For example, regarding Racon, when franchisees ask fewer questions about situations that, initially would be, obvious only for the supplier, the former proves to be incorporating the latter’s modus operandi.

40  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

On the other hand, with regard to the stable and conservative nature of cultures and, by consequence, the difficulties to change (Gagliardi, 1986; Hofstede, 2001), some of the meanings remain with the supplier and the intermediaries, even though some suppliers’ participants want to forget them. One example is “The Concept” in Evviva. Another resultant element is the approximation of companies’ organizational areas. A larger interaction between suppliers and intermediaries and the need to solve problems, due to the development of interorganizational relationships, allowing areas unaccustomed in dealing directly with market to change their points of view. Administrative and operational market perceptions and customers’ perception became more similar to sales team perceptions, due to contacts between different organizations involving not just those members who traditionally interact with customers and consumers. An external context enabled approximation of supplier’s organizational areas. Hence, there is a chance to understand better a workmate, due to insights, new perspectives and interpretations provided by someone external to the organization, but connected through relationship. It allows better problems-solving across organizations, because conversations and discussions inside organizations occur under a different atmosphere and perspective about business, organizations and relationships. However, this process to accept another perception and realize the need for change, although slow, depends on other meanings to be built. For example, if Bertolini’s top management team was not open to new ideas from different Evviva’s departments and the furniture stores, changes in other meanings, such as market orientation, would have been more difficult. Based on this example, we realize the existence of the initial and intermediate elements interacting with the resultant elements. Shared meanings and symbols, frequency and quality of interactions, openness to new ideas, activities of boundary spanners and leaders, past experiences and asymmetry of power, associated with trust, commitment and learning, involving actions, results and people, contribute to cooperation, new and strengthened meanings and symbols, reduction of boundary spanner role conflict and a better comprehension about organizational areas’ nature and circumstances. On the other hand, such elements may interfere in the initial and intermediate ones. Thus, when people involved in relationships begin to understand their partners’ actions, under the influence

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

41

of leaders who support and guide these interactions, they end up perceiving similarities in their mindsets and becoming aware of the partnership and their role to develop it. This process promotes trust, commitment and learning, which will contribute to better cooperation, increase in similar meanings and symbols and a better work environment, mainly among boundary spanners.

3.4  Weakening Elements Weakening elements interfere negatively on both initial, intermediate and resultant elements, in a specific context. We have identified the following weakening elements: level of boundary spanner turnover, nonshared meanings and non-shared symbols. Boundary spanner turnover, one of the main problems identified in the investigated relationships, complicates the formation of trust (Nicholson, Compeau, & Sethi, 2001). Larger intermediaries’ turnover hampers the constitution of background parameters about a certain person’s credibility. As trust presents both rational, affective and social basis (Child & Faulkner, 1998; McAllister, 1995), at the moment, a new professional begins their activities, without personal experiences that reinforce the reasons to trust, a negative critical incident may affect others’ predisposition to trust him/her. As Coughlan, Anderson, Stern, and El-Ansary (2006) and Weitz and Jap (2000) highlight, relationships are developed under the influence of critical incidents. As identified in the formation of trust and in cooperation actions, employee turnover is also a problem for learning to occur. According to our research findings, turnover generates a continuous restart, mainly in sales area, which depends on learning mostly in informal aspects. A considerable part of the needed knowledge and skills are not from a technical and theoretical kind, obtained mainly through formal learning, but are dependent on the interaction with others, their experiences and the sensemaking in practices and situations, i.e., informal learning (Larentis et al., 2014; Weick & Westley, 1999). Constitution of organizational capabilities through transfer or combination of resources, capability to learn, social and political interactions and achievement of common objectives depend on cooperation between parties (Hardy et al., 2003; Palmatier et al., 2006). However,

42  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

cooperation depends on similar means to face problems, which is constrained by turnover levels. As we take time to build and change our mindsets, employees’ replacement, mainly boundary spanners, makes many past efforts and results less effective in the present. Furthermore, based on Alvesson (2013), we state that non-shared meanings and symbols are associated with different ways to see the world and perceive problems between suppliers’ and customer’s individuals, as well as preconcepts from both parties. We may present difficulties to comprehend the other and their actions because of our world perspectives, our mindsets. Despite a high volume of interactions and a good-quality relationship, some aspects do not make sense due to non-shared meanings and symbols, which will interfere in the development of an inter-organizational culture. These non-shared meanings and symbols are related to the multiple perspectives of organizational culture. The possibilities of intersections (perspectives of integration, differentiation and fragmentation) inside supplier and customer and between supplier and customer will lead to the generation of shared and non-shared meanings and symbols, due to their inherent complexity.

3.5  Context Related to Inter-organizational Culture According to Geiger (2015), environment can be classified as macro and micro levels. In the micro environment, we consider mainly aspects related to the market (customers, consumers, competitors and other stakeholders). In this case, when we consider relationships between suppliers and customers or between competitors and customers, it is relevant to analyze different parallel business relationships that a supplier has, due to positive or negative reciprocal effects in these relationships. The macro environment can also be considered as political, legal, economic or technological developments. Developments toward good governance have influenced business relationship management, such as introduction of codes of conduct and more stringent transparency measures by companies. We have also economic and technological developments that can be considered to benefit and consolidate relationships.

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

43

We also consider the cultural aspects beyond the involved organizations as an element related to context. According to Alvesson (2013), we need to consider local and national contexts in order to comprehend cultural manifestations on organizational level. As indicated in Chapter 2, regional cultural contexts have been identified, because both Evviva and Racon have intermediaries throughout Brazil, a country known for its cultural differences and diversity. However, we have not identified a concentration of stronger relationships between suppliers and intermediaries in a specific Brazilian region. In other words, a regional cultural context needs to be considered in order to understand the development of an inter-organizational culture, but it interferes more superficially. These findings are corroborated by research by Gerhart (2009) and Sharma et al. (1999), in which national cultural differences presented less influence on organizational culture. In terms of cultural aspects beyond organizations, we have identified that those are related to the sectors in which the organizations involved are part, i.e., the nature of their business. Intermediaries deal with retail and services sales, whereas suppliers have a more industrialist perspective, more associated with the product and technical issues, mainly in Evviva. Intermediaries have presented more market-oriented visions, due to their closeness to end consumers. For example, Evviva’s former employees (sales supervisors), perceived changes in their mindsets as store owners, with a more consumer-oriented perspective, despite their proximity to the market as supplier’s boundary spanners. Due to the contexts involved, these differences and similarities between organizations, associated with the initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements, will contribute to the development of an inter-organizational culture. Cultural perspectives, mainly the perspective of fragmentation between supplier and customer, may present specific nuances when the elements interact to the involved contexts. We state that suppliers and customers, through cooperative practices, will deal with more similar meanings and symbols. However, some idiosyncrasies remain when compared to other suppliers and customers also involved in relationship marketing strategies, due to their nature and how initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements interact with one another.

44  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

References Alvesson, M. (2013). Understanding organizational culture. London, UK: Sage. Araujo, L., Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2003). The multiple boundaries of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1255–1277. Bstieler, L. (2006). Trust formation in collaborative new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 56–72. Child, J., & Faulkner, D. (1998). Strategies of co-operation: Managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coughlan, A. T., Anderson, E., Stern, L. W., & El-Ansary, A. I. (2006). Marketing channels. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Ellis, N., Lowe, S., & Purchase, S. (2006). Towards a re-interpretation of industrial networks: A discursive view of culture. The IMP Journal, 1(2), 20–40. Frazier, G. L. (1999). Organizing and managing channels of distribution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 226–240. Friedman, R. A., & Podolny, J. (1992). Differentiation of boundary spanning roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 28–47. Gagliardi, P. (1986). The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 7(2), 117–134. Geiger, I. (2015). Strategies of business relationship management. In M. Kleinaltenkamp, W. Plinke, & I. Geiger (Eds.), Business relationship management and marketing: Mastering business markets (pp. 109–152). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Gerhart, B. (2009). How much does national culture constrain organizational culture? Management and Organization Review, 5(2), 241–259. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J., & Kumar, N. (1999). A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 223–238. Griffith, D. A., & Harvey, M. G. (2001). An intercultural communication model for use in global interorganizational networks. Journal of International Marketing, 9(3), 87–103. Gummesson, E. (2008). Total relationship marketing (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier; Butterworth-Heinemann. Halley, A. A. (2001). Applications of boundary theory to organizational and inter-organizational culture. In R. Stupak & P. M. Leitner (Eds.), Handbook of public quality management (pp. 599–621). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321–347. Haytko, D. L. (2004). Firm-to-firm and interpersonal relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 312–328. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

3 DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE … 

45

Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24(1), 95–123. Homburg, C., & Stock, R. M. (2004). The link between sales people’s job satisfaction and customer satisfaction in a business-to-business context: A dyadic analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(2), 144. Hougaard, S., & Bjerre, M. (2009). The relationship marketer: Rethinking strategic relationship marketing (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hunt, S. D., Arnett, D. B., & Madhavaram, S. (2006). The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(2), 72–87. Knight, L. A. (2000). Learning to collaborate: A study of individual and organizational learning, and interorganizational relationships. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8(2), 121–138. Knight, L. A. (2002). Network learning: Exploring learning by interorganizational networks. Human Relations, 55(4), 427–454. Lane, C. (2001). Organizational learning in supplier networks. In M. Dierkes et al. (Eds.), Organizational learning & knowledge (pp. 699–715). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larentis, F., Antonello, C. S., Milan, G. S., & De Toni, D. (2014). Organizational learning and interorganizational relationships: A multiple case study. BASERevista de Administração e Contabilidade da Unisinos, 11(4), 347–366. Larentis, F., Antonello, C. S., & Slongo, L. A. (2018). Organizational culture and relationship marketing: An inter-organizational perspective. Review of Business Management, 20(1), 37–56. Luo, Y. (2006). Toward the micro and macro-level consequences of interactional justice in cross-cultural joint ventures. Human Relations, 59(8), 1019–1047. Martin, J., Frost, P. J., & O’Neil, O. A. (2006). Organizational culture: Beyond struggles for intellectual dominance. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed., pp. 599–621). London, UK: Sage. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59. Möller, K., & Svahn, S. (2003). Managing strategic nets: A capability perspective. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 209–234. Nicholson, C. Y., Compeau, L. D., & Sethi, R. (2001). The role of interpersonal liking in building trust in long-term channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 3. Palmatier, R. W. (2008). Relationship marketing. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

46  F. LARENTIS ET AL. Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153. Plewa, C. (2009). Exploring organizational culture difference in relationship dyads. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(1), 46–57. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118. Sharma, A., Tzokas, N., Saren, M., & Kyziridis, P. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relationship marketing: Insights from business service salespeople. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(6), 601–611. Singh, J., & Rhoads, G. K. (1991). Boundary role ambiguity in marketing oriented positions: A multidimensional, multifaceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 328–338. Weick, K. E., & Westley, F. (1999). Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Managing organizations: Current issues (pp. 190–208). London: Sage. Weitz, B. A., & Jap, S. D. (2000). Relationship marketing and distribution channels. In J. N. Sheth & A. Parvatiyar (Ed.), Handbook of relationship marketing (Chap. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CHAPTER 4

Promoting an Inter-organizational Culture

Abstract  Organizations are symbolic entities. Ambiguity and c­ omplexity are reasons for cooperation to take place between organizations, which means that both inter-organizational relationships and organizational cultures are complex. In this regard, inter-organizational culture can coexist with other cultures, since it is a by-product of their interactions, which could enlarge the scope of those involved. This chapter has the purpose to help practitioners to understand the implications of an inter-organizational culture and to deal with it, as well as scholars to consider its complex nature. Specifically, we discuss the role of structure, resources and processes, the role of leadership and people involved in the relationships, the importance of trust, commitment and learning and the dark side of inter-organizational culture. Keywords  Inter-organizational culture implications · Role of structure · Resources and processes · Role of leadership and people · Importance of trust · Commitment and learning · Dark side of inter-organizational culture Organizations are symbolic entities because they work by following models implicit on their members’ minds (Hofstede, 2001), which will impact on the satisfaction of the ones involved and, consequently, in the company’s performance (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis, & Shook, 2009). In this sense, people from a determined culture, although they may © The Author(s) 2019 F. Larentis et al., Inter-Organizational Culture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00392-0_4

47

48  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

disagree about the cultural boundaries, the unreconciling contradictory beliefs and multiple identities, still sustain that they belong to a culture: they share a common orientation and a wide purpose, about facing similar concerns and having comparable experiences (Meyerson, 1991). At the same time, when we consider relationship marketing strategies and practices, we focus on the overall interaction between supplier and customer, not just on individual episodic exchanges. A relationship, in this case, depends on levels of continuity, complexity, symmetry and informality in their pattern of transactions, in which both parties expect a mutual future and seek consensus (Hougaard & Bjerre, 2009). Ambiguity and complexity are reasons for cooperation to take place because interdependent organizations with similar interests generate a degree of familiarity and solutions together, even though they have different views (Pitsis, Kornberger, & Clegg, 2004). On the other hand, Martin, Frost, and O’Neil (2006) present a three-perspective framework to comprehend organizational culture, in which some practices, values and interpretations allow consensus throughout the organization, while others cause conflict and some have not been well defined yet, which means a simultaneous existence of elements of integration, power, uncertainty and conflict. On the other hand, as indicated by Smircich (1985), considering culture in organizational life means that organizations can be perceived as mankind’s representations, compared to music or art; constituted symbolic worlds, such as poems or novels; symbolic forms, such as religion and folklore, which show and manifest meanings of life. Both inter-organizational relationships and organizational cultures are complex. In some management discourses, however, both are identified as cure for all the illnesses (Cavedon, 2003; Grönroos, 2004). Nevertheless, their developments depend on communication processes, learning, trust formation, commitment, meanings sharing and symbols formation. Fundamentally, they depend on human interactions and, therefore, interpersonal relationships (Alvesson, 2013; Webster, 1991). Relationships are not chosen, but developed (Hunt, Arnett, & Madhavaram, 2006). Besides intentions and interests (Morris, Brunyee, & Page, 1998), relationships need conditions for their development, which are associated mainly with trust, commitment, learning processes and cultural issues. Inter-organizational culture can coexist with other cultures, since it is a by-product of their interactions, which could enlarge the scope of

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

49

those involved, eventually reducing preconceptions. This chapter is dedicated to help practitioners to understand the implications of an interorganizational culture and to deal with it, as well as scholars to consider its complex nature. To this end, we consider the framework that presents the development of inter-organizational culture as the starting point (Chapters 2 and 3). Firstly, we discuss the role of structure, resources and processes in promoting an inter-organizational culture. Secondly, we deepen the role of leadership and people between organizations. Thirdly, the importance of learning and trust is discussed. However, attention is drawn to the fact that organizational cultures may, simultaneously, create cohesion and guidance, making the collective action and the organizational life possible. However, they may restrict autonomy, creativity and questioning (Alvesson, 2013). At the end of this chapter, we discuss the dark side of inter-organizational learning.

4.1  Role of Structure, Resources and Processes Inter-organizational relationships do not solve all organizational problems (Grönroos, 2004), mainly those associated with marketing professionals, recognized as boundary professionals. However, as evidenced in this book, they can be faced as an alternative for those who want consistent, long-term results, due to formation of new, complementary capabilities, as well as by safeness and stability between parts (Gummesson, 2008; Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). What are the roles of structure, resources and processes between organizations in promoting an inter-organizational culture? The ways organizations are structured show us that people are, in different degrees, dependent on each other to develop their activities. They are at places that provide opportunities of encounters and social experiences (Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1985). In this regard, responses to an organization from its members are formulated not only to solve a specific problem, but also to reduce the anxiety in relation to the non-solved problem (Gagliardi, 1986). Inter-organizational relationships depend on time, resources, interactions between parties and economic and non-economic results. According to Holma, Björk, and Virtanen (2009), when resources are shared, interdependencies are created between the involved actors and relationships are developed. Gadde and Håkansson (2008), by considering the Resource Based View (RBV) focus, have identified that an

50  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

inter-organizational relationship is established as long as resources from two organizations are connected and combined. Relationships are the result of combined resources between organizational boundaries, as well as resources made possible by the combination between boundaries. Later relational developments depend on combination and recombination of resources. Therefore, a relationship is a vulnerable resource contingent on parties’ joint resources. Thus, besides capable people, processes and structures, organizations need willingness and energy to interact with others, probably with different work means and world visions, in different organizational areas. According to Ring and Van de Ven (1994), in order to preserve relationships and their respective investments, there are strong socio-psychological motivations, beyond economic issues. Those investments are not only associated with technological and economic resources, but also social commitments and interactions between agents. In the meantime, once we consider the role of structure, process and resources, it is important to deepen some concepts related to organizational culture, mainly symbols, because they are manifestations of cultural meanings. Symbols are represented through language, stories, myths, rites, ceremonies and rituals. According to Berg (1985), the symbolic field is composed by collective experiences stored, codified and ordered in a certain logic, resultant of symbolization processes, involving the creation of rites, rituals, artifacts, images, myths and ceremonies. Symbolic field presents characteristics (sagas, metaphors, myths) and mechanisms of maintenance and change (rites, ceremonies and rituals). Organizational culture manifestations occur in this field, faced as reality’s collective symbolization. According to Strati (1998), language does not just present and represents organizational actions, but also calls to action, mobilizes and leads, through official discourses, legends, sagas, jargons, people labelling, gossips and talks. On the other hand, myths, as dramatic narratives of imagined events, serve to explain origins or changes, combine cultural forms inside a public representation scenario and consolidate them in a specific event. They can be also seen as unquestionable beliefs about benefits from determined techniques and behaviors, and cannot be supported by evidences (Strati, 1998; Trice & Beyer, 1984). Rites, rituals and ceremonies are acts of mystification that shape and give practical reality to the manifestation and appreciation of organizational symbols (Strati, 1998). Rite combines a number of cultural

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

51

expressions, through social interaction, in a public event, and ceremony connects and organizes diverse rites to result in a special occasion. Rituals combine organizational anxieties to specific procedures, possibly standardized, but which rarely produce results of practical importance (Strati, 1998; Trice & Beyer, 1984). From here onwards, the framework presented and deepened in Chapters 2 and 3 is structured, on the one hand, with the ellipses representing the cultural perspectives (integration, differentiation and fragmentation). On the other hand, with the initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements, as well as the context. In relation to the ellipses, mainly those related to the perspective of fragmentation, it is important to understand how elements associated with the supplier and customer’s culture (perspective of integration) and to their departments (perspective of differentiation) interact inside an organization and across organizations, in terms of structure, processes and resources. Furthermore, how they are affected by the perspectives of fragmentation, inside an organization and between organizations, which are represented by the overlaps in the framework. Subsequently, it is necessary to remember that organizational culture presents a processual nature and how culture development and changes occur. In this case, we need to be alert to our interpretation about management and cultural management. Organizations, mainly its executives and consultants, must be aware of their limitations related to change and, consequently, to culture management, since many of their presumptions and meanings are not transparent and open to critics and discussions (Gagliardi, 1986). Culture presents a conservative nature, which is not easily changed. Organizational culture, rooted in individuals’ behaviors and attitudes, is difficult to change, once many of its assumptions and meanings are not clearly open to discussion by participants (Alvesson, 2013; Gagliardi, 1986). Planned and controlled changes, on the other hand, are very difficult to happen if one does not understand completely what one is trying to change, since behavior changes do not mean cultural changes (Gagliardi, 1986; Lewis, 2000). Ogbonna and Harris’ research (1998) has evidenced that intended changes in culture by top management were more apparent on material cultural manifestations and on the behavioral level. Some of these changes occurred more for convenience or insecurity in losing jobs, due to top management attitudes. Those who believed in a genuine change executed them due to their commitment to the

52  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

organization and years of service. At this context of change, trust presented a considerable relevance in relationships between executives and other employees. In other words, changing organizational cultures is a challenge in both induced and non-induced ways. Processes of cultural change may result in a series of unexpected and unintended consequences, which generate difficulties and conflicts. In this case, some authors consider organizational culture management as fantasy, but organizational culture change as fact (Harris & Metallinos, 2002; Ogbonna & Wilkinson, 2003). After this conceptual presentation associated with the ellipses, we begin discussing and deepening their relation with processes, structures and resources. We present questions and some recommendations that will be useful to promote and deal with an inter-organizational culture. Firstly, how are beliefs and values that involve and represent a whole organization reinforced and revaluated by the upper echelon? How are they associated with cooperative inter-organizational relationships? It is an important issue because it is related to the perspective of integration, which interacts with other perspectives. Beliefs and values can be both associated with meanings and symbols. Rites, ceremonies, stories, artifacts and myths are part of organizational cultural manifestations, i.e., when meanings become tangible. For example, rites and ceremonies as central values for the organization become clear and evident, such as moments organized to emphasize a determined change. If organizations want to invest in inter-organizational relationships, with mutual results, a necessary meaning is the one related to the importance of relationship. Also, important facts or experiences related to the relationship that can be shared inside and across organizations, both with positive or negative messages, and can be used to reinforce determined moments and strategies. With these, relationships will be stronger and will make it easier to implement necessary changes in suppliers and customers to increase cooperative actions. Are there contradictory meanings about the importance of relationships from organizational areas and departments when compared with those from the perspective of integration? What do we need to change, or reinforce? It is important to evaluate such aspect, once the perspective of integration is not enough to comprehend a whole organizational culture. If we have contradictory meanings, which may result in contradictory symbols, supplier’s messages, positions and actions, for example,

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

53

may reach a customer and possibly confound them. A manager promises determined aspects, but people from other departments comprehend the relationship with the customer in different ways, which may result in actions other than those expected by the customer, since there are some departments involved and because practices and routine are built with cultural contributions. In such a case, it is important that the involved boundary spanners, both from supplier and customer, are able to identify that such problems have cultural causes. In other words, they at least need to know how organizational cultures are developed and which signal may indicate contradictory meanings. Are there meanings specific to certain situations or groups that can be applied to the entire organization? What is the importance of meanings and symbols associated with the perspective of fragmentation? In such question, we may identify determined values and beliefs specific to certain groups or situations. These values and beliefs, associated with rites and stories can be considered to reinforce the importance of relationships and as an example to other departments involved. In other words, determined departments and hierarchical levels can learn from others. The perspective of fragmentation can help to spread determined meanings, which can make part of the perspective of integration dependent on their strength in terms of a persuasive and genuine narrative. This will be possible to occur through meetings in which departments present their points of view and how they deal with problems. Another suggestion is to set up these meetings involving departments from supplier and customer. How do people throughout the organization make sense of relationships? Is the communication flow between hierarchical levels effective enough to make clear to all organizational members the importance and effect of relationships? How is the discourse associated with relationships’ structures? This is an important aspect, once organizational culture is learned and it needs communication to be spread across the organization. In this case, investigations in which people tell what they remember when they think about the relationship with partners can be useful. We can also map and monitor practices and actions related to relationships, through meetings and internal communication channels. These practices can be also reported, to highlight the importance of relationships, and what they mean to organization’s present and future. How much do managers understand about organizational culture concepts and how to deal with meanings and symbols and organizational culture changes?

54  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

How much do managers understand about organizational culture concepts and how to deal with meanings and symbols and organizational culture changes? It is difficult to evaluate and deal with certain aspects when we do not know their conceptual bases. Sometimes we have problems in determined situations because people have diverse world visions; in other words, their lenses produce different interpretations when compared to our lenses. These lenses are related to meanings. When people are lined in a determined discourse or narrative, and they understand why this alignment is important, actions between organizations become easier. However, executives need to understand that these situations have cultural bases and explanations, how an organizational culture develops and how it can be manifested. In rites and ceremonies, demonstration of feeling, values and attitudes are demonstrated. Rites will be able to increase the strength of the ceremonies, which will enable the collective perception that these elements are shared (Islam & Zyphur, 2009). Are there rites, ceremonies and stories that reinforce the importance of relationships and aspects to which we should be alert? How are these rites, ceremonies and stories structured? Are there those that involve all organization and those specific to certain departments or situations? There are moments we do not realize that they are associated with rites, ceremonies and stories. However, they represent, reinforce, integrate or even deny determined practices and decisions. People get genuinely convinced about the importance of relationships not only with formal statements, but they need rites, ceremonies and stories. We need moments that emphasize determined decisions and practices. Due to these aspects, people who have responsibilities on inter-organizational relationships need to define, discuss and monitor how these rites, ceremonies and stories should be structured and how they will affect people’s comprehension about relationships. For example, myths may emerge due to determined stories, but these stories do not represent a good portion of reality, despite the fact people are convinced about them. A myth, because of its origin, could hamper a relationship in the future. We have as examples rites of passage (emphasizing change from a state to another), of degradation (to emphasize loss of power or credibility), of aggrandizement (to exalt desirable behaviors), of renewal (to reinforce the existent structure of power by transmitting the idea that something has been done), of conflict reduction (to reduce tension, attenuate conflicts and reestablish damaged relations) and of integration (to promote

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

55

integration between various organizational groups, mainly those that often do not interact, in order to value equality and sharing) (Islam & Zyphur, 2009; Strati, 1998; Trice & Beyer, 1984). How are these kinds of rites considered, when we take into account inter-organizational relationship practices? What messages does the organization want to convey? What rites and ceremonies are more suitable to reinforce departments’ practices? There are kinds of rites associated with positive moments and situations and others associated with negative ones. Both are necessary to reinforce relationships. We need to be aware of them, and of their effects. These rites need to be grounded on real things, not on fantasies, because people who deal with relationships, mainly boundary spanners, need to be convinced about the importance of the relationships for the organization, both supplier and customer, not just with moments that highlight them, but also with practices and routine. Moreover, relationship continuity would occur once relationships probably develop incrementally and receive interference from experiences from past interactions (Weitz & Jap, 2000). Another important aspect is related to relationship dissolutions, because they do not occur solely due to divergences between objectives and expectations, opportunist behavior, inadequate partners’ selection and expected but not achieved synergies. Cultural differences can affect this dissolution. In terms of meanings and symbols, how is relationship continuity perceived? Which symbols are used to reinforce this continuity? Which signals are indicating future problems and increased probability to relationship dissolution? Relationship continuity needs to be emphasized in determined moments, since they depend on people from different organizations, working together in some situations. These can happen in simple situations, such as in visits and meetings. Also, we shall be alert to possible signals associated with relationship’s future. The way a simple meeting between supplier and customer is organized and developed may mean and represent an aligned discourse or the beginning of a dissolution. Maybe it does not really mean a dissolution, but maybe a signal, a warning. On the other hand, when we consider initial, intermediate and weakening elements, as well as context, what is the role of structure, processes and resources? In this respect, we consider important to deepen conceptually the stages for the development of organizational culture, before presenting the implications of inter-organizational culture related to its elements.

56  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

According to Gagliardi (1986), there are four stages for the development of organizational culture, especially regarding its values. Firstly, when an organization is created, founder(s) or leader(s), clearly or not, defines a set of beliefs as reference point and criterion for action evaluation. Secondly, if and when belief-oriented behavior by founder achieves wanted results, the belief confirmed by experience will be probably shared by other members and considered as reference criterion, including those areas the founder/leader does not have direct control. Thirdly, when members reaffirm the effectiveness of basic beliefs, organizations change attention from effects (beliefs’ validity) to causes, which are maintained visible and become the ideal, i.e., focus is on values. Lastly, values become more latent and taken for granted, decreasing or even eliminating consciousness about them, which means an idealization of a successful collective experience. When alternatives aligned to a culture will be identified as inadequate for problem-solving, there will be difficulties in accepting that past success will not be able to be repeated. Organizational obsolescence is denied and problems are faced as resultant from an external cause or from determined organizational groups. Tensions between groups increase. Organizations need to change their culture for surviving, which demand learning from negative experiences, reconsideration to former symbols and a considerable change in employees and executives. In cultural terms, one may say that a new organization is born. However, as Gagliardi indicates, if values originated from a surviving strategy are not antagonistic but different and complimentary in relation to the former ones, it is possible to consider more options, amplifying the core of basic values. Conflicts caused by these changes will demand consideration to myths and rites of reconciling, to deal with these contradictions. Organizations, with this new configuration of values, will be able to collectively achieve success in exercising these new capabilities and leaders will be able to promote mythical interpretations of success, even though it is the result of a specific group or a combination of circumstances. Without positive results, arguments for changing will not be strong enough and actions on symbolic field (myths, rites, ceremonies and artifacts) will be seen skeptically. A gratifying success will offer ideas and materials in which new symbols and meanings can be built. There will be learning from positive experiences. Role of leadership creates conditions that allow results’ achievement, even partially, and make sense of these events later.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

57

After presenting such an important aspect to understand the implications associated with the development of inter-organizational culture, we take into consideration the initial element. The first ones consider meanings and symbols shared. Which meanings and symbols are shared? How have they been identified? What do this shared meanings and symbols say about organizations’ paths, processes and interests? How should people be informed about these shared meanings and symbols, with the purpose to reinforce the importance of relationships? We have identified both in Evviva and Racon examples of meanings shared between supplier and customer since the beginning of the relationship. These meanings, which can be represented in values and beliefs, may be identified mainly through observation moments, which may be performed by boundary spanners. Such results should be discussed later between supplier and customer, bringing transparency to the relationship. Also, it is important to know and share reports associated with supplier’s and customer’s paths and experiences, which may be executed through storytelling activities, by considering face-to-face or remote meetings, as well as recorded videos. These meanings and reports may be used to reinforce the beginning of the relationship, by serving as signs for a fruitful future. Rites and ceremonies may emerge to this end. However, both meanings and symbols ought to be closer to reality effectively representing what people feel in relationships About openness to new ideas, are internal structures suitable to enable them? And structures across organizational boundaries? How are ideas shared? Are there processes related to them? What are they like? What is done when ideas that contradict another group’s thoughts are presented? Openness to new ideas is an interesting topic not just on managerial speeches, but also in daily practices. That openness, which can be associated with meanings in a determined organizational culture, will ease the formation of trust and commitment, as well as learning processes and cooperative actions. However, the way departments are organized and which people are responsible for them can increase or complicate the flux of new ideas. Also, upper echelon and managers from other hierarchical levels need to encourage others to be open to new ideas, as well as to bring new ideas: management makes clear that it is open to new ideas and will consider them to improve the relationship. Related to frequency and quality of interactions, is there a supplier’s policy that manages visits to customers? Are the number of visits

58  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

enough? What are the kinds of interactions performed? How often do customers visit suppliers, their structures and people? How is technology used to make visits more effective? What is done when these visits happen, also considering rites and ceremonies? How are dissonant discourses between supplier and customer addressed? What is considered an excellent interaction? What has been done to improve such interactions? How do supplier and customer take part to improve them? We have identified in our research that both frequency and quality of interactions indicate how relationship will evolve. A high volume of visits does not necessarily mean that the relationship will achieve a satisfactory performance. It is important to have a balance between number of visits and visit’s perceived value by the customer. In this case, even a supplier does not have a policy of visiting, they can experiment, learn and discuss with customers how many visits are suitable and what content is necessary to make the visit valuable. Such interactions will also serve to reinforce the importance of the relationship, with cultural effects. In this situation, it is important to note that these visits are not only restricted to boundary spanners, such as sales people, but also people from other areas can participate. As presented in previous chapters, visiting the customer when participants are not boundary spanners is an opportunity to comprehend better boundary spanners. For example, in Racon, meetings between supplier’s and customer’s teams were organized so both parties could present their points of view and search for solutions, which helped the development of a “spirit of collaboration.” However, customers also need to visit supplier, mainly those participants who do not often interact. In such cases, boundary spanners from both organizations shall be involved to organize such meetings. It is also an opportunity to reinforce the relationship through rites, ceremonies and narratives. These visits, both initiated by supplier or customer, shall not be restricted to boundary spanners. People who affect or are affected by relationship, despite less interaction with another organization, need to feel this relationship, which includes face-to-face encounters. About the role of boundary spanners and their relation with structures, processes and resources, what structures are provided for them to execute their tasks? Are there processes to follow and monitor those tasks? What has been done to deal with role conflict? Is it known what they think about the organizations and their activities? How do supplier’s boundary spanners and customer’s boundary spanners interact? How is their turnover level monitored? What has been done to deal with it?

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

59

When we consider role conflict, we focus on salient uncertainties faced by boundary spanners to perform their roles (Singh & Rhoads, 1991). As inter-organizational culture develops, consequently, we have an increase in common meanings, related to similar means to face problems. Thus, uncertainties are reduced. As seen previously, boundary spanners play a fundamental role in relationships. They work as boundary professionals and are affected by these boundaries and by people who interfere in relationships, including managers. Firstly, it is necessary to consider in their job and capabilities descriptions their tasks in relationships and their responsibilities and difficulties in dealing with other organizations. Secondly, they shall have a suitable support by people management, taking into account that a boundary spanner will have to deal with peculiar role conflicts. In other words, this professional needs to be monitored, mainly by a mentor at the beginning of their experience. Furthermore, people management ought to know about their feelings about the job, which can be solved through an organizational climate research. This research can be applied across organizations, i.e., an inter-organizational climate research, in which boundary spanners from both supplier and customer would participate. Thirdly, by evaluating the quality of interactions between boundary spanners from different organizations, we can sustain and enable future actions to improve the relationship. Meetings that involve these boundary spanners, searching for ideas sharing solutions to problems and discussions and emphasis on the importance of relationship, in a cultural sense, shall be encouraged. However, ideas sharing and discussions are not enough: actions must be executed and communicated. Fourthly, boundary spanner turnover shall be monitored. A determined boundary spanner turnover level is suitable, because new professionals can bring new ideas and new perspectives. However, this level is a problem when it begins to damage the relationship, which can be identified in the quality of interactions and the level of problem-solving. If boundary spanners do not stay for a determined period of time, it is more difficult to develop trust and commitment and to reinforce learning, which will affect cooperation. Moreover, it will be more difficult for boundary spanners to internalize meanings and comprehend how and why relationships are performed. In relation to past experiences and paths, are there moments when these stories are reported? Where and how are they reported? Is there a

60  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

relation between those experiences and the meanings and symbols pertaining to the involved organizational cultures? Our research findings have evidenced that history matters, and that the way experiences are arranged will contribute to future actions and relationships. This is evident from suppliers’ employees who became entrepreneurs and intermediaries that favored the emergence of meanings related to competitors, going through cultural resistances from top management teams. Thus, we can understand the way a partner understands the world and their mindset when we know about and understand their paths. For both supplier and customer, it is also an opportunity to identify ideas to improve practices, as well as to reinforce determined narratives, associated with meanings and when it is necessary to change these meanings. Again, meetings and ceremonies may be organized to tell and share these paths, as well as other vehicles, such as reports and videos, since the relationship with meanings and symbols from both organizations is evident. Leadership and authority are not the same. The former is legitimated and recognized; the latter, defined and formalized. For cultural concerns, leadership influences more than authority, because they are grounded not only on formal aspects and hierarchy. Authority does not necessarily guarantee a leader. Hence, we need programs that identify future leaders and enable authorities to be leaders. Inter-organizational relationships are complex, and depend on leaders who give support and orientation mainly to boundary spanners, and have to deal with leaders and authorities from other organizations, by applying their political abilities. In such cases, leaders need to be aware of and prepared for the role of a boundary spanner, when they are boundary spanners as well. Moreover, leaders need to understand how their mindsets and others’ affect the continuity of relationship, and how much they are aware of their own mindsets, which include openness to new ideas. They also need to understand how an organizational culture evolves, once they will be identified as reference and support for the others. At last, there shall be processes to identify leaders who damage the continuity of relationships. As leaders have followers, those who do not understand the importance and results of relationships for organizations, and are resistant to this, will impact on followers, in some degree. An inter-organizational climate research, previously commented, may be an interesting tool to monitor such aspect, as well as those channels that receive complaints and suggestions, as well as other evaluation moments between leaders and subordinates.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

61

About asymmetry of power, to what extent are people aware of it? How are weaker parties treated? How is power used and should it be? Are there structures and processes of governance associated with transparency between organizations? First of all, we shall consider that we have a degree of asymmetry of power, and a style to deal with it. Asymmetry of power, according to the way it is practiced, has the potential to improve or to damage a relationship. If more powerful parties treat weaker parties with respect and interest, despite their strengths, they will be able to improve relationship performance, mainly in the long term, due to weaker parties’ interest in relationship. One party’s behavior reinforces another’s one. Relationship success or failure cannot be expressed simply from only one organization’s perspective, as well as may be perceived differently by the parties (Ford & Håkansson, 2006). It this case, we present the concept of mutuality (Smith, 1999), a relationship property that reflects interdependent or reciprocal patterns of subjective events. It is related both to a particular property’s intensity, such as levels of trust and satisfaction, and to the property’s congruence, in which both partners agree on levels of trust or satisfaction. In this regard, concerning intermediate elements, such as trust, commitment and learning and their relations to structures, processes and resources, how is trust related to information, actions and people built and monitored? How is commitment to actions, to results and to people developed and monitored? What structures and processes, within organizations and between organizations, ease and hamper trust and commitment? We can evaluate how trust and commitment develop through qualitative research, through interviews with people involved in relationships, through observations, as well as by quantitative researches, through questionnaires’ application with available scales. We can also monitor trust and commitment through the inter-organizational climate research, for those involved in relationships across organizations, mainly boundary spanners. Moments to share ideas and discuss problems are also important to evaluate the quality of trust and commitment. Trust related to information can be evaluated through problems and questioning related to the quality of available information (IT systems, reports and discourses). Trust concerns actions and people, through the quantity and content of discussions. When a great volume of actions and people are questioned,

62  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

it may be a dangerous sign of the quality of trust. It is important to have discussions and questionings, which demonstrate that people feel confident and comfortable to present their ideas (it is a kind of trust). However, a number well above current levels, which begin to hamper processes between organizations, need to be investigated and understood. Commitment, on the other hand, may be perceived through the level of interest and enthusiasm people present in dealing with problems and new projects associated with relationships. It is also necessary to evaluate how structures and processes increase or decrease trust and commitment’s levels. Bureaucratic aspects, hierarchical structures and communication channels that can decrease peoples’ interest in working on relationships, or their perceptions about being respected, shall be revaluated. In such revaluations, involvement of people from different organizations, mainly boundary spanners, shall be encouraged. How are learning processes developed? Is the focus on teaching or on learning? How is informal learning treated? How are best and worse practices inside companies and between companies, related to relationships, shared and discussed? How do people with less contact with customers learn about them and the market? What do they know? As emphasized by Antonello and Godoy (2010), envisaging learning processes, mainly informal, dependent on practices imply in comprehending microprocesses behind agents’ continuous actions in a social system. When we consider relationship marketing strategies and practices, we need to consider that the resulting actions depend largely on informal learning processes reflecting on agents working across organizational boundaries, the boundary spanners. It is necessary to consider learning, mainly informal, as a key element to explain and develop processes associated with inter-organizational relationships, beyond trust and commitment. The focus shall be on learning, when people’s capabilities need to be considered. Learning is like water flowing on soil, which runs and fills in spaces. People, when interested in a subject, will learn, despite limited structures and strategies to learn. Given the need to increase interest in a determined subject to be learned, people shall be convinced about it. For this purpose, it is important to have a clear comprehension about learning processes, not restricted to formal strategies, such as trainings. We have to ease informal learning moments during a work day, in interactions inside and between organizations, structuring spaces that

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

63

encourage information sharing and discussions. We can also take advantage of formal moments, with focus on active learning methodologies. Moreover, learning meetings can be developed, in which people talk about their former activities, including their impressions. In these learning meetings, we can also identify good practices when supplier and customer interact, not only those related to boundary spanners: the relational good practices. These meetings may contemplate one or more department, for one or more organizations, as well as groups that are not restricted to a department or organizational area, such as boundary spanners from different departments. In this case, boundary spanners from different organizations can be assembled. In these learning meetings, we can consider how to include aspects related to meanings and symbols that we want to emphasize in terms of values and beliefs and the way rites can be inserted and ceremonies organized. Events and results associated with resultant elements can be related to events, effects and signals from initial and intermediate elements associated with development of inter-organizational culture. When we consider the resultant elements, how does cooperation occur between organizations? What do these cooperative practices mean to both organizations, mainly the involved boundary spanners? To what extent is it possible to perceive the effect of trust and commitment into cooperation? First of all, by monitoring the way cooperation occurs, we can identify both obstacles, good references and opportunities. Some obstacles may be associated with structures, available resources and processes, or even people and their jobs. However, we may find out effective examples of cooperating, which can be used and shared later as good relational practices in learning meetings, serving as opportunities to improve relationship quality. The way cooperation develops also is related to meanings and symbols. Here, we need to be aware of the way people make sense of cooperative strategies and practices, as signs of importance, development and continuity of relationships, which can be encouraged in meetings, visits and other formal and informal moments. Moreover, we can also compare research results associated with cooperation (both more structured and less structured) with those related to trust and commitment, once cooperation depends on trust and commitment to occur. Moreover, it is possible to establish the relation between trust, commitment and cooperation on results stemming from those moments previously described.

64  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

In relation to new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols, which are possible to identify? Which situations allow their development? How are new meanings and symbols affecting the relationship? What has been redefined and strengthened? How are those new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols between organizations influencing other cultural perspectives inside organizations? This is a fundamental aspect, since new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols represent the development of inter-organizational culture that starts being manifested. These meanings and symbols occur due to the development and continuity of relationships. We will need to monitor, evaluate and discuss such aspects because they will be important in defining and structuring relationships’ future. In this regard, we need to understand the reasons behind the differences between new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols, as well as their influences on other meanings and symbols pertaining to the perspectives of integration, differentiation and fragmentation inside organizations. It is necessary to understand and monitor the way meanings and symbols originated from the perspective of fragmentation between organizations, i.e., inter-organizational culture has contributed to beliefs and values in the perspectives of integration and differentiation, which will affect other organizational activities. For example, to what extent meanings associated with the importance of relationship present new features, are redefinitions of initial elements or are values and beliefs shared since the beginning that have gotten stronger. What they represent for relationships and those people associated with them, mainly boundary spanners, because their activities in organizational boundary and their role in making sense of meanings and symbols and sharing them. To what extent the importance of relationship, manifested in values, beliefs, rites, ceremonies and narratives, which may be emerged, redefined or strengthened due to inter-organizational culture development, influences other aspects of organizational life, such as people management, innovation processes and relationship with other stakeholders, in both organizations. In this regard, we emphasize, according to our research findings, that the identified cultural changes in Evviva and Racon did not get restricted only to intermediaries (customers), once they were less experienced in management tools and practices, needed support for their development, were less structured or have former suppliers’ employees and owners. Cultural transformations also happened in suppliers, due to the values

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

65

related to market more present on intermediaries and, for some of them, the experiences with competing brands. Hence, both suppliers and customers have contributed to cultural changes. Hence, we effectively start realizing that relationships are not only chosen, they are developed, which generate consequences according to their interactions quantity and content: it will be possible to better performance, but also establish new configurations about perceiving world, mainly business and work aspects, with influence on people’s practices and routines. In relation to reduction of boundary spanner role conflict, how has it been reduced? How much? How long? How is this reduction affecting boundary spanner’s satisfaction and their performance? How has relationship improved with such reduction? Our research has evidenced that one of the results of the development of an inter-organizational culture is about the effect on boundary spanner role conflict. As meanings and symbols across organizational boundaries become more similar, there will be a decrease in their role conflicts. As a result, there will be a greater satisfaction level about their work and job activities, which can contribute to better relationship performance, both economic and non-economic factors. In this context, it is necessary to monitor role conflict and its effects. Boundary spanners from both organizations shall be heard, and their experiences related. Learning meetings can be an interesting option, in which boundary spanners present and reflect about changes in trust and commitment, effects on learning, improvement in cooperative practices, satisfaction with organization and work, as a boundary spanner, and future interest in taking other positions inside the organization, or in becoming an entrepreneur associated with the relationship, such as new customers or service providers. With regard to the approximation of companies’ organizational areas, which results have been achieved? How has relationship quality improved? Which structures, processes and resources have been changed? Why? How has organizational climate improved? What has changed in boundary spanners’ roles? In Evviva and Racon, this approximation did not only improve the relationship, because problem-solving got faster and more effective and new ideas emerged. People who had interesting contributions associated with diversity of opinions and who did not usually interact got together. The approximation allowed a better understanding of workmates tasks and responsibilities, which influence organizational climate.

66  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Hence, approximation of organizational areas will generate more information and ideas sharing. Closer areas begin intensifying their contacts, which can produce conflicts if organizations do not have enough structures, resources and processes. Organization need to monitor such events, and enable structures, resource and processes that ease communication and problem-solving. Due to this approximation, meanings restricted to a perspective of fragmentation between companies could be spread within organizations, to other organizational areas and hierarchical levels, which will influence other cultural perspectives (integration and differentiation). Concerning the weakening elements, how are the effects with determined levels of boundary spanner turnover? How does it impact on relationship quality and continuity? How does it impact on inter-organizational culture, both in meanings and in symbols? As emphasized by Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, and Evans (2006), in situations where boundary spanners play a central role, relationship quality presents a direct and significant impact on financial results. According to Palmatier (2008), a primary relationship marketing investment should focus on hiring, training and continually encouraging boundary spanners. However, loyalty in these cases are often “owned” by boundary spanners such as salespeople and may be lost due to employee turnover. Hence, it is necessary to monitor and evaluate boundary spanner turnover levels. Besides impacting on relationship quality, once boundary spanners work as a connection between companies who usually connect to other boundary spanners, turnover can reduce customer loyalty, due to the question of loyalty ownership. In case of high turnover levels, one possibility can be related to an external fact (turnover level is spread in other organizations and sectors). Another possibility, which demands more attention, is related to the way boundary spanners are treated, encouraged, developed and challenged. Moreover, due to loyalty ownership, as indicated para Palmatier (2008), spending can be reallocated from social to structural relationship programs. In other words, suppliers need to be more involved with relationships, reducing their dependability from boundary spanners. Examples indicated previously, as visiting programs, ceremonies and learning meetings can help organizations to broaden the importance of relationship across its areas, although it is clearer in perspectives of fragmentation where boundary spanners are more present.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

67

About non-shared meanings and non-shared symbols, what remains different, even with positive cooperative practices and other results pertaining relationships? Why? How does it impact on relationship quality and continuity? Behavior changes do not mean necessarily culture changes: a controlled change hardly happens when one does not understand completely what they are trying to change (Lewis, 2000). That complicates the capacity to predict as more rooted elements in culture, as beliefs and values, may be simply modified by changes in cultural manifestations, such as artifacts, ceremonies, rites and myths (Harris & Metallinos, 2002; Harris & Ogbonna, 2002). Therefore, culture is difficult to change and, mainly, to manage. With this question, we do not mean that is necessary to eliminate non-shared meanings and symbols, once organizational and inter-organizational cultures have complex, multifaceted natures. We need, first of all, to comprehend them. By comprehending them, we will comprehend the nature and peculiarities of the inter-organizational culture that our relationship has generated. Secondly, we have to understand the effects of these nonshared meanings and symbols on relationship quality and continuity: how they hamper problem-solving, information sharing and make relationship rites and ceremonies less compelling. Cultural changes should be carefully planned and organized, with involvement of people from different hierarchical levels and departments. However, we have to remember that cultures are difficult to be managed. Behavioral changes do not mean necessarily cultural changes (Gagliardi, 1986; Lewis, 2000; Ogbonna & Harris, 1998). We state that cultural changes that occur spontaneously are more effective, but slower. The development of inter-organizational culture is an example, because it is highly dependent on relationships development. On the other hand, it does not mean that management is not able to monitor, encourage, and help such developments. Moreover, cultural change can demand learning from negative experiences, with reconsideration to former symbols and great change in employees and executives, or can demand amplification of the core basic values, when former and new meanings are complementary (Gagliardi, 1986). In such possibilities, we find it easier and more effective to change with a focus on complementary meanings, amplifying core basic values, when those non-shared symbols and meanings highly affect

68  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

relationships. However, when these non-shared meanings and symbols contribute to understand relationships in other perspectives, we encourage them to be discussed and considered in problem-solving and innovative practices and offers. In relation to context, how have cultural aspects beyond the involved organizations influenced initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements? Which structures, processes and resources are related to them? How are economic, social, natural, technological, legal and political environments monitored in terms of meanings and symbols? What changes related to that environmental dynamics have affected relationships and inter-organizational culture elements? At the same time, organizations need to follow and to understand the implications of the dynamics of environments, on both micro and macro levels. We need to research and study consumer behaviors and their changes over the last years, as well as the future of consumption, mainly those aspects related to technological and ecological changes. We also have to understand our competitors’ movements, and how they affect our customers. Besides, our suppliers can participate with innovations and new practices that improve our relationship with our customers. Governments and regulatory agencies shall be considered for the future of our business and our inter-organizational relationships. On the other hand, macro environmental aspects, such as economic, social, natural, technological, legal and political, can affect positively and negatively our business and relationships. We can also test the strength of a relationship when the context is difficult due to the nature of these factors: nature and circumstances. However, such aspects, by affecting relationships, influence meanings and symbols flowing inside and between organizations. We need to understand such influences, mainly their impact on people and leadership. Aspects associated with the environment affect initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements, which influence the development of inter-organizational culture. For example, changes in technology and consumer behavior demand new ways to solve problems, develop innovations and sell, which will influence mindsets and perspectives about the world, as well as attitudes in relation to rites, ceremonies, narratives and myths. On the other hand, information sharing, ideas discussing and learning processes can improve and amplify their results if technology is applied adequately.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

69

Another point is the comprehension of regional and national cultures and their influence on organizational cultures. As detailed in Chapter 3, national and regional cultures affect organizational culture, but in a more superficially way (Alvesson, 2013; Gerhart, 2009; Sharma, Tzokas, Saren, & Kyziridis 1999). At a national or regional level, cultural differences reside more in values and less in practices (Hofstede, 2001). Since culture is learned, not genetically inherited, this learning occurs so early that individuals in general are not conscious about this cultural conditioning. In organizations, whose cultural learning occurs mainly through participant’s insertion in organization, people will probably assimilate it in a conscious level, in which differences exist more in practices than in values (Moore, 1985). In other words, such aspects need to be considered and analyzed in association with other terms. It is clear that other aspects, associated with people and structures inside organizations, deserve more attention. A proper channel for interaction and communication between organizations can facilitate the development of combined interpretation, which could reduce the differences (Fang, Fang, Chou, Yang, & Tsai, 2011). In this regard, given all initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements, it would be effective to organize a structure of governance between organizations, with focus on transparency and relationship performance, in which both stronger and weaker parties would feel safer. This inter-organizational governance would serve to coordinate participation and monitor relationship future, as well as to reinforce the importance of those meanings and symbols associated with the relationship to it. As we focus on transparency associated with relationship quality, another important aspect is how to deal with sensemaking and understanding those effects. In other partes of this chapter, we have emphasized the importance of monitoring, which is present in a considerable number of questions related to the role of structure, resources and processes. Monitoring depends on good quality researches, which can be executed by the organizations themselves, depending on their capabilities in determined methodologies and techniques. An effective and sustainable alternative is the configuration of an inter-organizational department or group of competitive intelligence, with focus on relationships. This department would be responsible for research in primary and secondary data across organizations. This group could be integrated to other structures responsible for competitive intelligence processes.

70  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

4.2  Role of Leadership and Boundary Spanners The moment organizations decide to work together, they make a choice that will affect them in the long run, even if relationship is not successful. For those who realized that relationships are relevant for their strategies and processes, cultural changes will happen as result, in their diverse perspectives (Martin et al., 2006). We have an interpretative system which allows individuals to make sense of events and routine activities (Van Maane & Barley, 1985). On the other hand, role of leadership is to create conditions that allow results achievement, even partially, and make sense of these events later (Gagliardi, 1986). Inter-organizational culture occurs between participants from different organizations, who share some meanings and symbols. However, inter-organizational culture, like relationships, is not excluding. It coexists with other cultures, in different cultural perspectives, because it is a product from these cultures and their interactions. It is a new form of culture stemming from relationships. On the other hand, inter-organizational culture is an intersection of cultures, with common spaces of symbols and meanings between different organizations. It may be seen as boundary culture. In our research, we have identified that relationships affect cultural aspects due to the changes they will cause to organizational lives, taking into account the quantity and quality of interactions between different organizations, resources investments, trust and commitment formation between parts, cooperative practices, learning processes and results and capabilities formation. These changes will affect relationship continuity, as well as reduction boundary spanner role conflict and approximation between organizational areas, due to changes in point of views, ways to perceive world and interpretations from individuals from different organizations. In turn, these shared cultural changes, presented by some people, groups or symbols and meanings, need relationships to be disseminated and get stronger. In Racon, a lot of franchisees got positively impressed with their management practices, mainly those associated with people and teams, while others got suspicious. Over time, they have incorporated these practices and, by consequence, their meanings, as far as they realize business results. In other words, we can perceive manifestations of inter-organizational culture, dependent on relationships.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

71

Hence, relationships contribute to cultural changes between different companies. However, they depend on basic cultural elements because relationships depend on how much they are valued at the organizational level and rooted in organizational culture (Winklhofer, Pressey, & Tzokas, 2006). In the previous section, we consider the importance of relationship as reference and example to comprehend how to promote inter-organizational culture. However, we highlight that this importance needs to be absorbed in organizational practices and routines, i.e., to be presented in meanings and manifested in symbols, not only discourse and narratives, but also cooperative actions and results that convince and inspire people, mainly those in organizational boundaries, which serves not only to protect organization from environment, but also to establish patterns of connection between internal and external capabilities (Araujo, Dubois, & Gadde, 2003). Organizational boundaries may be regarded as important places for learning and innovation, since they are socially built. Boundaries help to establish habits, rules, norms and expectations, provide defense, allow exchanges and define roles and associations (who is and who is not member) (Halley, 2001). Taking into consideration the relation between organizational boundaries and relationships, relationship strategy success is strongly dependent on capabilities to create interpersonal bonds, on attitudes and behaviors between suppliers and customers, mainly through boundary spanners (Guenzi, Pardo, & Georges, 2007; Lian & Laing, 2007; Wood, Glew, & Street, 2012), which may interfere in boundaries’ changes (Geiger & Finch, 2009). For Feldman (1991), when dealing with ambiguities, some organizational members may consider a specific cultural perspective (integration, differentiation or fragmentation), more comfortable than others, in part due to their position in organization. Top management team tends to see world through integration’s lens, possibly because the perspective of integration is more congruent to managers’ desire to see their values shared and their policies implemented with enthusiasm. Employees in lower hierarchical levels probably express their visions in congruence to a perspective of differentiation, once they are more distant to the top management team and they possibly have conflict with a managerial perspective. New entrants, employees whose jobs seem ambiguous and individuals with high tolerance for ambiguity tend to see their activities from a perspective of fragmentation.

72  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Throughout this book, we have emphasized the role of leadership and other people, mainly boundary spanners. It has been clear that people make sense of events and practices mainly through organizational culture. However, sensemaking is different when we consider just one organization than when we take into account at least two, cooperating with one another. Besides different structures, processes resources and paths, we consider organizational boundaries, which allow interactions and bonding. At these boundaries, we have the presence of individuals who interact a lot with other people from other organizations. These people are likely to have more contacts across boundaries than inside an organization, which is why they are called boundary spanners. These professionals can be seen as bridges between boundaries, connecting organizations with specific paths, realities and expectations. On the other hand, they will be important actors in establishing promises, patterns of quality and capabilities, contributing to relationship’s future. However, organizations need to deal with their role conflict and turnover. Therefore, how do leaders and people contribute to the development of inter-organizational culture? How do we consider the conceptual framework, both ellipses and elements? How should leaders and people, closer and more distant from relationships, be prepared for these interactions? In relation to the ellipses and the respective cultural perspectives of integration, differentiation and fragmentation, leaders shall be aware of their role in the comprehension of the content of these perspectives, the way perspectives will affect people subordinated to them, as well as interactions between people from different organizational areas and organizations affected by perspectives. Focusing on importance of relationship in a cultural scope, we need to consider the way leaders will work with their subordinates to reinforce it, in interaction with aspects addressed in the previous section related to structures, processes and resources. People can be supported, inspired, challenged and encouraged to realize what a relationship really is and its implications. Meanings and symbols associated with the perspective of differentiation with opposite views, interpretations and practices about relationships pose a challenge. In such cases, visits and meetings can be encouraged and supported as described in the previous section. In connection with the perspective of integration, when an organization decides to deal with cooperative relationships and is aware of their

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

73

features, importance of this relationship is likely to be somehow already present. About the perspective of fragmentation, the role of leadership is to comprehend the way such meanings and symbols interact between organizations, and how the relationship is considered and comprehended by boundary spanners. This aims to guide people, taking into consideration the way relationships are supposed to perform in the organization, or to find out some practices and narratives, which may contribute to the way top management teams make sense and interpret how relationships operate. Special attention shall be given when leaders are boundary spanners themselves. In all perspectives, attention shall be given to new employees. Beyond aspects associated with selection, development and appreciation, leaders need to get involved in rites associated with new employees, as well as the way they will learn a new culture. Mentoring is another useful tool. New employees start learning an organizational culture since their first day, and they will learn from the available sources or people, comparing and interaction with their experiences and paths. Special attention is necessary when this new employee will execute activities as a boundary spanner. In this context, if leaders do not support new boundary spanners and will not dedicate enough time to guide them, they will be prone to learn and absorb culture from other people, including those from different organizations. Inter-organizational culture depends on people interacting in the cultural perspective of fragmentation, which is complex and occurs between different organizations, basically in their organizational boundaries. Leaders in hierarchical levels, including those in top management teams, will have great difficulties if they want to manage an inter-organizational culture. However, they can contribute to some aspects of its configuration, such as giving support to new employees and enable them to learn cultural aspects associated with relationships in agreement with the company’s expectation. It will mean and allow more alignment within an organization, and more effectiveness across boundaries, since importance of relationship, in its configuration, will be clear since the beginning. Perspective of fragmentation between organizations, which is shown through inter-organizational culture, depends mainly on boundary spanners’ sensemaking. Therefore, an interesting option for leaders and top management teams is to identify clearly the foundations of the relationship between their organizations, including cultural connotations, and work together to generate learning with their boundary spanners.

74  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

On the other hand, how do leaders and boundary spanners deal with initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements associated with development of inter-organizational cultural, as well the context? How do leaders and people influence and are influenced by these elements? First of all, leaders shall know the shared meanings and symbols since the relationship begins. A narrative will be necessary for the consolidation of the relationship. Openness to new ideas shall be a necessary capability for any leader, mainly if they are involved with boundary spanners, and they are boundary spanners themselves. New perspectives and different points of view, mainly those of people from different organizations, are more easily accepted or at least heard when there is openness to new ideas. Leaders who possess this capability can guide their subordinates sensibly, mainly when they need to cope with problems and conflicts, once they are open and interested in learning. Openness to new ideas is a desirable feature for subordinates, and leaders shall coordinate efforts to develop such capability. About the frequency and quality of the interactions, leaders shall monitor the process and the results of these interactions, taking into account the importance of relationship. Subordinates shall be prepared to develop productive visits and meetings, in which the counterpart perceives value, once problems are solved or new information, knowledge and insights are learned, reinforcing relationship. Leaders need to encourage these visits, helping subordinates to aggregate value to them. Such visits can be considered when supplier goes to customer, and vice versa. Another interesting initiative is joining leaders and people from the organizations, mainly boundary spanners, to present good practices and to discuss better ways for visiting, considering the value of time and the importance of visiting, both for supplier to customer and customer to supplier. Regarding the role of boundary spanners and leaders, it shall be clear for both what that role means, how and why it is structured: what the pros and cons of each position are, and what challenges each one has. Leaders need to encourage, support, alert and teach their subordinates, mainly boundary spanners and need to deal with role conflict. Leaders need to negotiate with other organization’s leaders as well. These activities are involved with cultural aspects, once the way to deal with subordinates and other people depends on interests and ways to perceive the world. Boundary spanners need to learn how to deal with their role conflict and their impact on productivity and on quality of interactions.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

75

With regard to past experiences and paths, people, mainly leaders, given their responsibilities, need to know and to understand the way their paths explain their current attitudes, capabilities and style to make decisions, solve problems and interact with others. Past, when clearly and humbly understood, can present the reasons for current practices and guide to changes. Leaders can also take advantage of paths from subordinates and other organizations’ people, when they can be transformed in interesting narratives to reinforce the importance of relationship, as long as close to reality. Asymmetry of power per se is not a problem. In relationships, one party is usually stronger than another. The problem is the way this power will be practiced by the stronger part, to the detriment of weaker part. When we have respect and a genuine interest in the counterpart, even when we are more powerful, trust, commitment and cooperation are reinforced. According to Lotia (2004), it is expected that powerful organizations, in cooperative relationship, have more influence on generated, debated and interpreted ideas, once the dynamics of power can determine which ideas will be discussed (Lotia, 2004). For example, when a stronger part wants to learn from the weaker part, that attitude represents a powerful message, which will generate more respect from the weaker part. Stronger parts, when they are reference to the others, are more responsible for relationship success, because their ideas are more highly regarded and their decisions respected. When they are not reference, it is a hazardous indication of problems in relationships, due to lack of trust. Such aspects are also related to meanings and symbols, once more powerful members can influence the others on how to interpret events (Lucas & Kline, 2008). Therefore, people, and mainly leaders, because of their positions and potential to influence, need to be aware of the asymmetry of power and how it can be used and practiced to benefit all parts in a genuine win-win strategy, even if one organization is stronger. Concerning intermediate elements of inter-organizational culture, how do leaders encourage trust and commitment? How are learning processes comprehended and applied by them? What is the nature of learning results? Trust and commitment take time to develop. Mainly at the beginning of relationships, the role of leaders in promoting both trust and commitment is crucial. In early stages, determined events can erode relationships due to their effects on trust and commitment, and the development of

76  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

shared meanings and symbols is becoming established, although some of them are already shared. In the development of inter-organizational culture, they play a very important role, once they mediate initial and resultant elements. They can be promoted through meetings, visits and rites, but fundamentally when information is used, problems are solved, decisions are taken, actions are executed and people are challenged by problems, conflicts or dilemmas. Leaders need to find out if people feel safe in trusting and committing. For this, leaders can show why it is possible and important to trust and to commit. About learning, first of all leaders need to understand that informal learning is different, but complementary, and people in organizations learn more in informal situations. In such case, leaders attempt to organize spaces for informal learning, as well as encouraging learning in all moments, such as in discussions, debates, moments of reflection, ceremonies, get-together and moments of leisure. In such moments, cultural elements may be learned as well. Leaders also need to coordinate efforts to share information and insights learned, such as in learning meetings, described previously, in which aspects related to inter-organizational culture can be highlighted. Another important aspect is related to the results associated with learning, which can be evidenced in problem-solving, new offers, new ways to interact, within and between organizations, new ways to organize and new ways to make sense. These results need to be discussed in order to comprehend what happened before in terms of learning. With regard to resultant elements, how are cooperative practices developed and encouraged? Which problems can be prevented or attenuated in the future? In relationships, cooperation happens when trust and commitment are put into action. It will be easier to develop cooperative actions and reinforce cooperative practices if people from different organizations trust each other and show commitment. In such aspect, leaders need to follow cooperative actions and practices, as well as the results of this cooperation because strategies of relationship marketing become real. It is in these moments that people can understand the others better because of the time they have interacted. Moreover, leaders need to encourage new moments and events for cooperation to take place, mainly with those departments and groups that usually do not cooperate. In general, boundary spanners participate in cooperation moments and practices, and involving those people who

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

77

often do not interact in relationships is an opportunity to comprehend better different areas, and eventually reduce barriers and preconceptions. What are new, redefined and strengthened meanings and symbols? Why? How are they emerged? How can they be strengthened? What is the role of leaders and subordinates in such situations? It is important to know which meanings and symbols are new, redefined or strengthened, but also the reasons about it. Besides, research is necessary to investigate such cultural aspects, mainly with observations, interviews and descriptions made in meetings and visits, that will provide necessary information to leaders and subordinates need to be able to identify these aspects, what a meaning and a symbol can be, and what has changed. Moreover, it is necessary to understand the way these meanings and symbols emerged, which can demonstrate the way inter-organizational culture has developed and the contribution of suppliers and customers. That information will also contribute to understand relationship continuity and sustainability, as well as cultural manifestations (symbols), which will ground actions to reevaluate and improve relationships. For example, how rites and ceremonies have changed, why they have changed and what meanings they are producing in people. How myths are built, how close they are from reality. What warnings these rites, ceremonies and myths convey, in order to change relationship practices. What is the role of leadership to reduce boundary spanner role conflict? How are boundary spanners encouraged to understand and deal with role conflict? When do boundary spanners need to seek help? How can leaders monitor role conflict? We emphasize the fundamental role of boundary spanners as boundary professionals, in other words, organizational representatives as well as external environment interpreters for the organizational basis (Araujo et al., 2003), who suffer from their activities consequences through role conflicts (Singh & Rhoads, 1991). Leaders and boundary spanners need to understand what the causes are and the effects of role conflicts and why boundary spanners are highly affected by them. Later, leaders need to talk to boundary spanners, or seek specialized professionals in doing such task, and share experiences with other leaders, including those from other organizations. These initiatives help leaders and top management teams to figure out the impact of role conflict on relationship quality and performance, for suppliers and for customers.

78  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

On the other hand, boundary spanners need to identify when they need help, when role conflict begins reducing productivity and increasing conflicts and number of complaints. Role conflict concepts, causes and implications can also be explained to other people. These people might have been affected by role conflict and not know about it; they are responsible for people management, who can support and help leaders in such situations. How can leaders approximate organizational areas, within and between organizations? Which do leaders need to take when approximating organizational areas? Which examples can leaders reinforce? Approximation of organizational areas is a result that evidences how inter-organizational relationships contribute to organizational performance, such as market and financial results, and to cultural aspects. Relationship marketing, in this context, is not restricted to organizational areas responsible for market strategies and actions, but it spreads within and across organizations. Problems are better solved when people understand each other ­better. Approximation of organizational areas is an opportunity to be more effective, once we have shared meanings and interests. Sometimes, we are resistant to present a solution or to help in problem-solving because we do not comprehend the counterpart, their reasons to do a determined task with some specificities. Leaders can guide and execute strategies better when organizational areas are closer, since strategies depend on more than one area. When we consider inter-organizational relationships, approximation becomes more important, given the need to deal with organizational areas, structures, processes, resources and people from different organizations. This better connection within an organization is due to interactions between organizations. In other words, leaders need to encourage visiting programs between organizations and conjoint problem-solving, involving people from different areas, even those areas with less contact. Besides a more qualified relationship and more agile organizations in the market, another result will be a better organizational climate due to this approximation, which contributes to the well-being of employees at work. However, leaders need to support and monitor the approximation of these areas. More frequent contacts are supposed to demand new or reconfigured structures, resources and processes between organizational

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

79

areas. A more effective approximation will depend on suitable information and people flows. In relation to weakening elements, why is there this level of boundary spanner turnover? What are its effects? How can leaders reduce such levels? Why do people leave their jobs? Is there any cause associated with relationships? Managers and employees of other hierarchical levels need to be aware of happenings at organizational boundaries. They should also be aware of the consequences related to their openness’ levels (fluidity), due to capabilities previously formed, those that could be formed and the conflicts that could emerge, which may bring not just positive but also unwanted results. In this sense, organizations that have chosen inter-organizational relationship practices as a strategic choice shall be aware of these aspects associated with boundary spanners, as well as their employee turnover levels. We consider not just the role of leaders as mediators or responsible for boundary spanners’ development and tasks, but also when managers and leaders are boundary spanners. High boundary spanner turnover is a problem between organizations involved in relationship marketing strategies and practices. Boundary spanners are responsible for a considerable number of contacts between organizations, despite some tasks being replaced by technology. With a high level of turnover, the quality of this contact decreases, once it is more difficult to develop trust and commitment and to learn from people from different organizations. People are replaced and it makes relationship development slower and more conflicting, once problem-solving is less agile and communication gap increases. In such situations, leaders need to identify potential signs that indicate a high probability for some professional to leave, or warn, monitor and support boundary spanners whose performance has decreased, mainly within the relationship, in order to reduce the probability of future dismissals. In this regard, it is important to diagnose the origin of this turnover level not just within the organization, but with partners. Sometimes, there are communication problems due to misunderstandings associated with simple questions and problems between boundary spanners from different organizations. Conversations with them, supported by leaders, structures and processes from different organizations, will be beneficial for future problem-solving, decision taking and innovations propositions. Moreover, such attitudes will support the

80  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

development of inter-organizational culture and its effects on new or reconfigured meanings and symbols. How do leaders need to deal with non-shared meanings and symbols? What do they represent for leadership and for organization? Are these non-shared meanings and symbols dangerous to relationships continuity? In the development of inter-organizational culture, there will be non-shared meanings and symbols that can be associated with all cultural perspectives. Given the complexity and processual nature associated with organizational and inter-organizational cultures, we need to know how these non-shared meanings and symbols coexist with other aspects of determined inter-organizational culture. Leaders, supported by researches, shall identify and comprehend the effects of these non-shared meanings and symbols on relationship. For example, if problems become more recurrent, they may be caused by misunderstandings associated with non-shared and symbols. Again, conversation in groups, evidences from meetings and visits, as well as support of specialized people may be necessary. About the context, how are leaders promoting actions to monitor the environment? What aspects of environment do leaders need to pay more attention to? How do subordinates comprehend environmental dynamics and are helped to comprehend? How is the comprehension about the influence of regional or national cultures on relationships and on inter-organizational culture? The first aspect about context comprehension is that leaders and their subordinates are aware of its importance and impact. Even some aspects that may seem obvious, may be obvious for someone and not for others. Learning about this comprehension shall be organized having in mind the organizations involved in relationships. Also, there can be environmental factors that cause more impact on relationships than others, and such aspects shall be monitored. Leaders need to know and comprehend these factors, with support of specialized departments or groups, associated with competitive intelligence. In this case, leaders can encourage such structures, when they are absent or need improvement, and support their development, since promoting inter-organizational culture is highly dependent on information, ideas, research and sensemaking between organizations. Another point is the importance to demystify environmental aspects, including those related to national and regional cultural. Leaders need to work on such aspects with subordinates, mainly when they easily accept

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

81

commonsense explanations, without scientific bases, which interfere in their sensemaking and mindsets. For example, the comprehension mentioned above, associated with regional values and beliefs, and regional differences, may generate prejudices between supplier and customer’s boundary spanners, due to the region where determined intermediate is established. Leaders themselves need to be alert to such aspect. They can also support departments of intelligence to monitor such mistaken interpretations within organizations, because they can lead to bad decisionmaking, problems in relationships and misunderstandings. Culture does not establish clearance, shared orientations and consensus between broad groups, but it serves as a guidance to deal with levels of ambiguity, which is called limited ambiguity (Alvesson, 2013). It does not mean that ambiguous experiences are avoided, but that shared meanings and efforts exist to minimize experiences of confusion, contradiction and notorious uncertainty: ambiguity is not only recognized but also decreased. In the first two sections, which addressed the role of structure, processes, resources, leaders and boundary spanners in promoting interorganizational culture, we have reinforced the importance of spaces and moments within and across organizations that allow discussions, reflections, idea sharing and celebrations. Leaders need to plan, support and encourage such structures and practices, since these will allow a more effective relationship, as well as the development of inter-organizational culture. Also, there should be suitable structures, processes, methodologies and resources that allow effective results in those spaces and moments of sharing, instead of confusion or obstacles associated with information and ideas being shared. In such point, it is important to identify and deal respectfully with leaders and employees that do not feel comfortable in talking about more sensitive issues. Furthermore, bearing in mind the importance and impact of boundary spanners in relationships, we need to investigate, understand and propose actions associated with the way they affect and are affected by cultural changes, as well as to consider their role conflict and turnover levels and their difficulties associated with non-shared meanings and symbols. As presented before, culture does not guarantee broad consensus and clear shared orientations, but it allows us to deal with ambiguity and minimize uncertainty and contradictory feelings. In other words, promoting inter-organizational culture is bringing more stability into

82  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

dynamic spaces, such as organizational boundaries, which contributes to relationship quality and continuity. Leadership, resources, processes and structures shall be involved, evaluated and improved in such aspects.

4.3  The Importance of Learning and Trust Inter-organizational relationships can be seen as pipelines across organizational boundaries (Ballantyne, Christopher, & Payne, 2003). Companies search for relationships due to their need for safeness and stability between parts. As emphasized by Gummesson (2008), consumers and organizations need a basic level of safeness, which is associated with words such as promises, honesty, trust, stability, fear to be deceived and disappointed and uncertainty and risk reduction. Stock (2006) has identified that inter-organizational teams are particularly beneficial when uncertainty level is high. In other words, in inter-organizational relationships, we need a balance between stability and dynamism, for relationship continuity and capability development (Batt & Purchase, 2004). Both inter-organizational relationships and organizational cultures present in their basis collective learning processes, mainly informal and tacit, which depend on daily practices and their meanings (Ellis, Lowe, & Purchase, 2006; Holmqvist, 2003; Knight, 2002). They need trust formation, in a spontaneous and non-imposed nature (Lane, 2001), a central element for both. In order for trust to be established, it shall have a propitious environment. As stressed by Gummeson (2008), trust is socially built and tends to by reinforced by cultural affinities. Organization performance and success are directly connected to the understanding about learning dynamics (Choo, 2016). Relationship development, maintenance and performance are based on people learning how to deal with each other, understand different positions and acquire knowledge (Antinay & Brookes, 2012; Walter & Gemünden, 2000). Therefore, inter-organizational learning is one of the key factors for inter-organizational relationship performance (Barroso-Méndez, Galera-Casquet, & Valero-Amaro, 2015). In this section, we choose to discuss and deepen the importance of trust and learning, more specifically inter-organizational learning, to promote an inter-organizational culture, since trust and learning are considered to be key factors in both relationship marketing and organizational culture domains. However, they can be treated as phenomena with certain peculiarities, which can generate both positive and negative results.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

83

In other words, they present onuses and bonuses, which may differ in comparison with common sense. Inter-organizational learning is defined as a dynamic process that occurs in cooperative inter-organizational relationships, in different structured and non-structured social spaces, which encourage learning situations, described as learning episodes (Knight, 2002; Mozzato & Bitencourt, 2014). In this regard, cooperation involves conjoint learning activities and works as safeguards against opportunism (Selnes & Sallis, 2003). In this regard, we reinforce the importance of learning and the need to comprehend how it occurs, as indicated in the previous sections. People learn how to interact with others, mainly in informal situations. Relationship quality and performance, manifested in relationship marketing practices, will depend on learning, its processes and results. We need proper structures, processes, resources and people to support, encourage, develop and inspire learning. Let learning happen because its nature is similar to water that flows. However, we need to give attention, support and spaces, within and between organizations. Through relationship, parts identify ways to reduce redundant costs and improve quality and flexibility. From suppliers’ point of view, a better customer understanding allows the supply of better products. With a larger supplier’s understanding, customers improve product choice and their needs are better satisfied (Selnes & Sallis, 2003). Interorganizational learning reinforces relationship performance (Chang & Gotcher, 2010; Lai, Pai, Yang & Lin, 2009). Hence, relationship marketing practices can benefit from inter-organizational learning. However, learning does not occur only in individuals’ mind, but also in their social interactions (Nicolini, Gherardi, & Yanow, 2003). It is not only a cognitive phenomenon but also a cultural and social one (Nicolini et al., 2003; Gherardi, 2005). Thus, learning depends on actions, activities, contexts and culture in which it develops or is situated (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Situated learning puts thought and action into specific time and space. Situating means to involve individuals, environment and activities to make sense (Nicolini et al., 2003). We mention here situated learning mainly because inter-organizational relationships and cultures are complex and multifaceted, depending on moments of interaction considered together. Learning is much more than individual and cognitive learning. In terms of inter-organizational learning, we have a lot of social and cultural

84  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

implications. For example, supplier and customer, interacting to develop a new product or even to define how to improve service quality to final consumers, are learning, although we have not defined a specific program to develop capabilities and improve tasks. Moreover, when we consider relationship strategies and boundary spanners’ roles, a large amount of knowledge and capabilities will be developed through informal learning processes. Organizations shall be alert to how these processes occur and how to conduct strategies to improve personal and group learning. However, they need to take into consideration their limitations to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and to deal with informal learning processes associated with formal learning. In such cases, we need to monitor the learning generated throughout the involved organizations, and identify their practical results. We should remember that formal tests capture a little part of the knowledge produced in the relationship. Again, associated with other moments and situations of learning, both formal and informal, we emphasize learning meetings as a relevant and viable strategy to manifest learning and share information generated within and between organizations, involving people from different organizations, according to the situation and circumstances. One of the central aspects of this meeting is the presence of dialogue. Dialogues work as interactive joint learning processes, frequently spontaneous and ruleless, but limited by a serious intention to achieve mutual understanding (Ballantyne, 2004). As parties begin sharing information, which is developed through a dialogue process. Dialogues constitute a specific element which will lead to interpretation or sensemaking (Selnes & Sallis, 2003). People involved in planning and organizing learning meetings ought to know about the nature and the processes associated with learning, as well as leaders and employees should comprehend how they are organized and their purposes and employees are expected to realize the positive results. Cultural meanings will be generated, interpreted and figured out. During the interactions, people have the opportunity to learn, regardless of the lack of organizations’ actions and practices associated with learning. Cultural differences lead to different perceptions of reality, because they are the result from a continuous process of interpretation and interaction between individuals in a social system (reality socially built) (Huelsmann, Lohmann, & Wycisk, 2005/2006). Inter-organizational culture will depend on how these differences decrease, identified in

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

85

meanings and manifested in symbols. However, these meanings shared by individuals from different organizations depend on relationships’ existence and continuity. On the other hand, results and incidents from these relationships will serve as learning and, therefore, as source for future meanings. This issue reminds us that culture is learned, and we learn culture over time. We state that both organizational and interorganizational learning, based on Moore (1985), will be learned by people mainly on a conscious level. In other words, it will be more suitable and effective to deal with moments of dialogue or reflection, when associated with cultural aspects, as the interpretation of meanings, mainly in situations when they are contributing with difficulties in relationships. Constant search for knowledge about customers and markets will produce concerns about learning. Learning improves supplier’s response to intermediary’s need changes and a suitable balance between the use of accumulated knowledge and exploration of new market opportunities. As long as there is small external turbulence effect in relationships, the perception of safeness is greater (Sánchez, Santos-Vijande, & Gutiérrez, 2011). However, in a scenario of inter-organizational learning, there will be a significant tension between learning and protection. According to Yang, Fang, Fang, and Chou (2014), by promoting knowledge sharing with a partner, the company could be in danger, as their partner may appropriate and internalize their knowledge. These aspects make us question how learning occurs in a relationship and what consequences and obstacles are present. Relationships need stability, but they also need dynamism. However, to what extent are we able to guarantee enough stability, without affecting dynamism? In other words, how to deal with the relational stability and dynamism? It is an important trade-off we have to consider, because it does not affect relationship performance, but also meanings and symbols depending on the quality and number of interactions performed. How we can learn to deal with these trade-offs, and contribute with more innovation and creativity, associated with dynamism, and at the same time we can guarantee a suitable level of stability to preserve the interactions and bonds built during the relationship development. At the same time, Fang et al. (2011) study has identified that either sharing information or joint sensemaking did not present direct effect on organizations’ innovation, but instead it is indirect through relationship-specific memory. Thus, over time, the company becomes dependent on the knowledge stored, since it cannot be used immediately after

86  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

being acquired or generated. Organizations in stable relationships can conceive joint interpretation of information and experiences, generated from joint problem-solving as beneficial for future cooperation, and then have strong inclination to store. In other words, it is another important aspect to consider in terms of inter-organizational learning and its effects on cooperation and innovation, associated with the necessary technology to deal with information, as well as aspects related to sensemaking, associated with organizational and inter-organizational culture. According to Lane (2001), mutual trust is a basic condition for the development and broadening of inter-organizational learning, with the central role of boundary spanners. Cooperation will lead to structuring of organizational capabilities through social interactions and political relations, resources transfer and combination and capability to learn (Hardy, Phillips, & Lawrence, 2003). However, as cooperation is an outcome of trust and commitment (Palmatier et al., 2006), in order to learn how to cooperate, it is necessary to learn how to trust and how to commit. Both trust and commitment take time to develop. One interesting aspect here is how people learn how to trust and to commit. Since trust is a key aspect in relationship marketing, it is important to understand how trust related to information, to people and to actions develop according to the way people learn about the paths, interests, conflicts, dilemmas and preconceptions of others, and vice versa. Trust, due to its nature, is hardly learned explicitly. Moreover, high levels of trust decrease dependence from formal control mechanisms, which in turn decreases transaction costs. In relational trust, given strong emotional and affective components, parties are more likely to share more information than in other situations. Constructive and creative dialogues can be built, associated with sensemaking (Selnes & Sallis, 2003). Top management teams and leaders should consider such aspects in order to contribute to this learning, since it is associated with relationship continuity through a central element, trust. On the other hand, trust is a facilitator of learning (Liu, 2012; Sanzo, Santos, García, & Trespalacios, 2012). Coming back to events, situations and spaces that promote learning, we need an atmosphere of trust that involves them. For example, if we do not have the presence of trust in learning meetings, which are dependent on dialogue, discussions and reflections through case presentation case and ideas sharing, we will not achieve the expected results in terms of better cooperative actions and more similar meanings and symbols.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

87

However, high levels of trust present a negative side, once there is a risk that some critical or negative information may not be shared to not interfere in the good atmosphere of relationship. As a consequence, the benefit from constructive conflict may be lost. High levels of trust may also produce lack of search for critical information and may make room for opportunistic behavior. Convergence between parts, through more common values, may reduce creative processes, which is more present in heterogeneous groups. It may also decrease the capacity to question assumptions on which actions are based (Selnes & Sallis, 2003). High levels of trust represent barriers for the development of relational knowledge (Yang & Lai, 2012). That is an important issue that contradicts common sense about marketing relationship. It is not easy to be convinced, at first, that high levels of trust are risky for relationships. Discussions, debates and reflections that are necessary for innovation and better practices in markets do not occur because the atmosphere is good, within and between organizations, and trust is the only answer. After all, trust is a key element to understand and promote relationships. Although we may have difficulty in identifying such levels, we can monitor determined signs, such as the lack of discussions and debates of ideas that could improve activities, tasks and problem-solving in meetings. In such cases, the reason for this lack of constructive discussions is not due to lack of trust among leaders and subordinates, but due to excess of trust. In the long term, it is likely that relationship will be weaker because people do not identify more their effectives in relation to better satisfy needs and allow positive financial results. Relationship has become apathetic. Inter-organizational culture, which would serve to guide people to deal with ambiguity without much confusion (Alvesson, 2013), does not bring the answers needed, and its meanings and symbols are no longer enough. Such aspect of trust is also related to the trade-off stability versus dynamism. Learning is more promoted with moderate levels of trust (U inverted model) (Yang & Lai, 2012; Selnes & Sallis, 2003). In conditions of high trust, there is the need to search for greater group heterogeneity, job rotation and search of externally produced information (Selnes & Sallis, 2003). On the other hand, as trust and information control are combined, they can complement each other and contribute to better performance (Gundlach & Cannon, 2010). Even so, if parties want to maintain trust, it becomes important to periodically review and share hidden

88  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

assumptions and judgments. Trust becomes viable when evaluated in learning (Ballantyne, 2004). In other words, we need to learn how to trust, but also to learn how to decrease trust, when it reaches a harmful level for the organization and the relationship. In such aspects, we resume one initial element necessary for the development of inter-organizational culture, which is openness to new ideas. Such aspect, when continually monitored, will be responsible for refreshing the organization, its meanings and convictions. Openness to new ideas, in our research, has been responsible for allowing new perspectives and interpretations about the market in determined hierarchical levels, contributing to the development of inter-organizational learning. When we achieve high and harmful trust levels, they can complicate relationship sustainability. Being creative means to bring closer ideas that convencionally people would not associate. Information is reinterpreted and the illusion of a pattern of cause and effect is broken, which in a certain way contradicts the need to interpret in a similar way. Generating an atmosphere of creative knowledge generation, within companies and between companies, may depend on disposition from those who have authority to allow and support bearing in mind which may present uncertain results (Ballantyne, 2004). This is a challenge for any organization, mainly those whose leaders and employees do not feel comfortable to lead more dynamically. Even the most dynamic organizations, which apply advanced methodology in sharing ideas and release products in a short time, need to deal with levels of bureaucracy and more sedimented structures. This is part of the organizational reality, which demands a degree of structuration and exploration, in terms of hierarchical levels, number of people, technology, processes and cultures, but also a degree of exploration and creativity. However, it is necessary for organizations’ survival that they look for more suitable ways to balance creativity and stability, necessary to relationships.

4.4  The Dark Side of Inter-organizational Culture In order for inter-organizational relationships fundamentally to occur, they depend on people and their ideologies, practices, prejudices, expectations, capabilities, meanings and contexts. In this regard, interactions, trust formation, commitment and cooperative actions probably make

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

89

individuals from different organizations share some symbols and meanings, constituent dimensions of organizational culture (Alvesson, 2013). Furthermore, according to Håkansson and Snehota (1995), a relationship is a place in which some kinds of interaction occur and something is produced, in which activities are linked, resources are tied and actor bonds are established. Activity links are related to sales, technical and administrative activities, among other things. Resource ties connect resource elements, such as technological, material, knowledge and other intangibles. Actor bonds connect actors from different organizations and influence the way one perceives the other and builds their identities in the relationship. As Activity links, resource ties and actor bonds are connected, they are combined in a specific way, which will influence relationship development and results. They are more than the sum of the parties. In this situation, a long-termed, more cost-efficient, more effortless and more predictable possibility is giving opportunity for inter-organizational culture to develop spontaneously. To this end, we need inter-organizational relationships based on trust, commitment and learning. Throughout this book, we have emphasized and highlighted the importance and effectiveness of inter-organizational relationships, manifested in this context through relationship marketing practices, whose effects allow the development of inter-organizational culture. This culture of boundary, whose main participants are the boundary spanners, enable people within organizations and between organizations to understand each other better and share some meanings and symbols. Although restricted to the cultural perspective of fragmentation, inter-organizational culture is expected to reinforce relationships because it makes inter-organizational life more peaceful, productive and stable, thus contributing to relationship continuity. Culture does not necessarily establish clearness in large groups of people, but it guides them to deal with ambiguity without much confusion (Alvesson, 2013). However, attention is drawn to the fact that organizational cultures may, simultaneously, create cohesion and guidance, thus making the collective action and the organizational life possible. Yet, they also restrict autonomy, creativity and questioning (Alvesson, 2013). On the other hand, development of an organizational culture is a learning process (Gagliardi, 1986). However, despite the fact that groups’ members create and share meanings from their experiences, more powerful members can influence the others on how to interpret events (Lucas & Kline, 2008).

90  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Sharing meanings and symbols is necessary. They enable us to deal with ambiguity without much confusion, to bring some stability and cohesion to the organizational life, as well as inter-organizational life, when we focus on relationships. Culture helps us to focus on our strategies and practices, even though we do not realize it. It allows collective action, because people have certain guidelines about which they do not usually reflect; they do certain activities “naturally.” We work together because we have some internalized norms. However, this focus can hide aspects and concerns that hamper our questioning and our development of creativity as capability. As trust, inter-organizational culture has a dark side. In other words, the culture of boundaries can restrict creativity and, therefore, innovation. Interorganizational culture, which allows people from different organizations to be closer due to some shared meanings and symbols, may hamper new perspectives and points of view in the future. Relationship’s decline and dissolution may occur because one or both parties take relationship for granted and do not work for its maintenance. This decline generally develops slowly, which may or may not be apparent until it is in a very advanced stage. Those responsible for relationships shall be alert to dissolution signals, due to the loss of applied resources and assets and the wearing out associated with the involved organizations. In other words, if we do not encourage openness to new ideas and reflective thinking, inter-organizational culture, which contributed to the reinforcement of a relationship, will undermine it. We have to pay attention to certain signs that, combined, may indicate less questioning, less interest in learning different contents and perspectives, less interest in autonomy. People who wait for orders and present difficulties to innovate and create. In other words, an atmosphere of relative tranquility and apathy. In this chapter, we have discussed how to promote an inter-organizational culture. We have also suggested some actions to make interorganizational culture more effective, taking into account the cultural perspectives in ellipses (integration, differentiation and fragmentation) and the initial, intermediate, resultant and weakening elements, as well as the context. Such aspects have been considered in terms of organizational structures, processes and resources, as well as the role of leadership and boundary spanners, a fundamental agent to implement relationship marketing strategies and to contribute to the development of inter-organizational culture. We have also highlighted the importance of learning and trust. Yet, we are aware that a relationship needs balance

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

91

between stability and dynamism in order to be effective, mainly in the future. With this last section, we realize the importance of dialogue and ideas sharing to close meanings and symbols, as well as cooperative actions and practices. However, in interactions alongside with stability, we perceive the need to continuously encourage creativity, questioning and reflective thinking about the way organizations work and people live their organizational and inter-organizational lives.

References Altinay, L., & Brookes, M. (2012). Factors influencing relationship development in franchise partnerships. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(4), 278–292. Alvesson, M. (2013). Understanding organizational culture. London, UK: Sage. Antonello, C. S., & Godoy, A. S. (2010). The crossroads of organizational learning: A multiparadigmatic view. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 14(2), 310–332. Araujo, L., Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2003). The multiple boundaries of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1255–1277. Ballantyne, D. (2004). Dialogue and its role in the development of relationship specific knowledge. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 114–123. Ballantyne, D., Christopher, M., & Payne, A. (2003). Relationship marketing: Looking back, looking forward. Marketing Theory, 3(1), 159–166. Barroso-Méndez, M. J., Galera-Casquet, C., & Valero-Amaro, V. (2015). Proposal of a social alliance success model from a relationship marketing perspective: A meta-analytical study of the theoretical foundations. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18(3), 188–203. Batt, P. J., & Purchase, S. (2004). Managing collaboration within networks and relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 169–174. Berg, P. O. (1985). Organization change as a symbolic transformation process. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. C. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 281–299). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cavedon, N. R. (2003). Antropologia para administradores. Porto Alegre, Brazil: UFRGS. Chang, K. H., & Gotcher, D. F. (2010). Conflict-coordination learning in marketing channel relationships: The distributor view. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 287–297. Choo, C. W. (2016). The inquiring organization: How organizations acquire knowledge and seek information. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Coughlan, A. T., Anderson, E., Stern, L. W., & El-Ansary, A. I. (2006). Marketing channels. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

92  F. LARENTIS ET AL. Ellis, N., Lowe, S., & Purchase, S. (2006). Towards a re-interpretation of industrial networks: A discursive view of culture. The IMP Journal, 1(2), 20–40. Fang, S. R., Fang, S. C., Chou, C. H., Yang, S. M., & Tsai, F. S. (2011). Relationship learning and innovation: The role of relationship-specific memory. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5), 743–753. Feldman, M. (1991). The meanings of ambiguity: Learning from stories and metaphors. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 145–156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ford, D., & Håkansson, H. (2006). IMP—Some things achieved: Much more to do. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 248–258. Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (1985). An allegorical view of organizational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. C. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 13–25). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gadde, L. E., & Håkansson, H. (2008). Business relationships and resource combining. The IMP Journal, 2(1), 31–45. Gagliardi, P. (1986). The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 7(2), 117–134. Geiger, S., & Finch, J. (2009). Industrial sales people as market actors. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(6), 608–617. Gerhart, B. (2009). How much does national culture constrain organizational culture? Management and Organization Review, 5(2), 241–259. Gherardi, S. (2005). Organizational knowledge: the texture of workplace learning. London, UK: Blackwell. Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 673–679. Grönroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: Communication, interaction, dialogue, value. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 99–113. Guenzi, P., Pardo, C., & Georges, L. (2007). Relational selling strategy and key account managers’ relational behaviors: An exploratory study. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(1), 121–133. Gummesson, E. (2008). Total relationship marketing (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier; Butterworth-Heinemann. Gundlach, G. T., & Cannon, J. P. (2010). “Trust but verify”? The performance implications of verification strategies in trusting relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(4), 399–417. Halley, A. A. (2001). Applications of boundary theory to organizational and inter-organizational culture. In R. Stupak & P. M. Leitner (Eds.), Handbook of public quality management (pp. 599–621). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

93

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London, UK: Routledge. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321–347. Harris, L. C., & Metallinos, G. (2002). The fact and fantasy of organizational culture management: A case study of Greek food retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9(4), 201–213. Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). The unintended consequences of culture interventions: A study of unexpected outcomes. British Journal of Management, 13(1), 31–49. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra-and interorganizational learning. Organization studies, 24(1), 95–123. Hougaard, S., & Bjerre, M. (2009). The relationship marketer: Rethinking strategic relationship marketing (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Holma, A., Björk, P., & Virtanen, H. (2009). Co-operation facilitators in dynamic business triads. The IMP Journal, 3(1), 75–94. Huelsmann, M., Lohmann, J., & Wycisk, C. (2005/2006). The Role of Interorganisational Learning and Self-Organising Systems in Building a Sustainable Network Culture. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture & Change Management, 5(2), 21–30. Hunt, S. D., Arnett, D. B., & Madhavaram, S. (2006). The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(2), 72–87. Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. J. (2009). Rituals in organizations: A review and expansion of current theory. Group and Organization Management, 34(1), 114–139. Knight, L. A. (2002). Network learning: Exploring learning by interorganizational networks. Human Relations, 55(4), 427–454. Lai, C. S., Pai, D. C., Yang, C. F., & Lin, H. J. (2009). The effects of market orientation on relationship learning and relationship performance in industrial marketing: The dyadic perspectives. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2), 166–172. Lane, C. (2001). Organizational learning in supplier networks. In M. Dierkes et al. (Eds.), Organizational learning & knowledge (pp. 699–715). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, D. (2000). The usefulness of the organizational culture concept: A response to Gert Jan Hofstede’s comments. Strategic Change, 9(2), 139–141.

94  F. LARENTIS ET AL. Lian, P. C., & Laing, A. W. (2007). Relationships in the purchasing of business to business professional services: The role of personal relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(6), 709–718. Liu, C. L. (2012). An investigation of relationship learning in cross-border buyer–supplier relationships: The role of trust. International Business Review, 21(3), 311–327. Lotia, N. (2004). Power dynamics and learning in collaborations. Journal of Management & Organization, 10(2), 56–68. Lucas, C., & Kline, T. (2008). Understanding the influence of organizational culture and group dynamics on organizational change and learning. Learning Organization, 15(3), 277–287. Martin, J., Frost, P. J., & O’Neil, O. A. (2006). Organizational culture: Beyond struggles for intellectual dominance. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed., pp. 599–621). London, UK: Sage. Meyerson, D. E. (1991). “Normal” ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 131–144). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Moore, L. (1985). How are organizational cultures and the wider cultural context linked. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. C. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 277–280). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Morris, M. H., Brunyee, J., & Page, M. (1998). Relationship marketing in practice: Myths and realities. Industrial Marketing Management, 27(4), 359–371. Mozzato, A. R., & Bitencourt, C. C. (2014). Understanding interorganizational learning based on social spaces and learning episodes. BAR—Brazilian Administration Review, 11(3), 284–301. Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction: Toward a practice-based view of knowing and learning in organizations. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations, a practice-based approach (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (1998). Managing organizational culture: compliance or genuine change? British Journal of Management, 9(4), 273–288. Ogbonna, E., & Wilkinson, B. (2003). The false promise of organizational culture change: A case study of middle managers in grocery retailing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1151–1178. Palmatier, R. W. (2008). Relationship marketing. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153.

4  PROMOTING AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 

95

Pitsis, T. S., Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. (2004). The art of managing relationships in interorganizational collaboration. M@n@gement, 7(3), 47–67. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118. Sánchez, J. Á. L., Vijande, M. L. S., & Gutiérrez, J. A. T. (2011). The effects of manufacturer’s organizational learning on distributor satisfaction and loyalty in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(4), 624–635. Sanzo, M. J., Santos, M. L., García, N., & Trespalacios, J. A. (2012). Trust as a moderator of the relationship between organizational learning and marketing capabilities: Evidence from Spanish SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 30(6), 700–726. Selnes, F., & Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 80–95. Sharma, A., Tzokas, N., Saren, M., & Kyziridis, P. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relationship marketing: Insights from business service salespeople. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(6), 601–611. Singh, J., & Rhoads, G. K. (1991). Boundary role ambiguity in marketing oriented positions: A multidimensional, multifaceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 328–338. Smircich, L. (1985). Is the concept of culture a paradigm for understanding organisations and ourselves. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. C. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 55–72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Smith, B. (1999). A comparison of aggregation approaches for second-order data. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(3), 277–292. Stock, R. M. (2006). Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners between supplier and customer companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 588–599. Strati, A. (1998). Organizational symbolism as a social construction: A perspective from the sociology of knowledge. Human Relations, 51(11), 1379–1402. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 653–669. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 31–53). Newbury Park: CA Sage. Walter, A., & Georg Gemünden, H. (2000). Bridging the gap between suppliers and customers through relationship promoters: Theoretical considerations and empirical results. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(2/3), 86–105. Webster, F. E., Jr. (1991). Industrial marketing strategy. New York: Wiley.

96  F. LARENTIS ET AL. Weitz, B. A., & Jap, S. D. (2000). Relationship marketing and distribution channels. In J. N. Sheth & A. Parvatiyar (Ed.), Handbook of relationship marketing (Chap. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Winklhofer, H., Pressey, A., & Tzokas, N. (2006). A cultural perspective of relationship orientation: Using organizational culture to support a supply relationship orientation. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(1), 169–194. Wood, C. M., Glew, D. J., & Street, M. D. (2012). The genesis of relationships: Boundary spanners’ appraisals of the career entry transition. In M. D. Hartline & D. Bejou (Eds.), Internal relationship management (pp. 5–24). New York, NY: Routlegde. Yang, C. F., & Lai, C. S. (2012). Relationship learning from organizational knowledge stores. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 421–428. Yang, S. M., Fang, S. C., Fang, S. R., & Chou, C. H. (2014). Knowledge exchange and knowledge protection in interorganizational learning: The ambidexterity perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 346–358.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

Abstract  Relationship marketing is a strategic alternative for those who search for consistent results in the long term. On the other hand, its practices do not occur in a broad, well distributed way among suppliers and customers, but mainly between specific individuals and groups across these organizations. In this chapter, we highlight the connection between relationship marketing and organizational behavior, as well as the emergence and development of an inter-organizational culture, under determined contexts and situations. In this regard, our framework, discussed and deepened in Chapters 2, 3 and 4, contributes to the comprehension about such culture, due to relationships, with a processual and cumulative focus. Keywords  Relationship · Marketing · Organizational behavior Organizational culture · Inter-organizational relationships · Inter-organizational culture

·

Inter-organizational relationships are not a miraculous cure to organizational problems (Grönroos, 2004), specially for marketing professionals, recognized as boundary professionals. The indiscriminate use of words such as partnership, interdependency, trust, cooperation, relationships and culture by those who deal with organizations may give the impression of easy application of ready recipes. © The Author(s) 2019 F. Larentis et al., Inter-Organizational Culture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00392-0_5

97

98  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Nonetheless, inter-organizational relationships can be seen as an alternative for those who search for consistent results in the long term, due to the formation of new and complementary capabilities and the presence of safeness and stability between parties (Gummesson, 2008; Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). Hence, besides capable processes, structures and people, they need individuals with willingness and energy to interact with other organizations, despite different mindsets and work forms. According to Ring and Van de Ven (1994), relationships, and their investments, depend on strong socio-psychological motivations to be preserved, not only economic issues. These investments include economic and technological resources, as well as social commitments and interactions between individuals. On the other hand, relationships do not occur in a broad, welldistributed way among all participants from the involved organizations, but mainly between specific individuals and groups from different organizations. These individuals may establish a better interaction and comprehension with individuals from different organizations when compared with their peers and senior posts inside their own organization. These people in their interactions start generating complex sets of symbols and meanings, which circulate inside and outside organizations, working as guide to deal with limits and boundaries and depending on individuals’ interpretation (Alvesson, 2013; Cavedon, 2003; Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1985). In other words, they interact and are part of organizational cultures, perceived in an interorganizational perspective, linking relationship marketing with organizational behavior. In this regard, we see organizational culture as posed by Alvesson (2013), in which we consider actions and processes inside a net of meanings, guiding sentiment, feeling, thinking and practice, instead of an external force (input or just an element in feeling, thinking and action). In this aspect, meanings are processual and situated in a context, pertaining to external aspects as well as internal aspects, including power relations. They cannot be treated as fixed essence. Furthermore, frequency and quality of interactions, associated with shared meanings and symbols, openness to new ideas, past experiences and paths and power relations, mainly when we consider at this context leaders and boundary spanners, will interfere on the emergence of trust, commitment and learning. At the same time, these aspects can

5 CONCLUSION 

99

make individuals who usually work together with others from different organizations, in cooperative practices, begin to understand each other differently when compared with other individuals from their own organizations. In other words, participants from different organizations who share symbols and meanings, pertain to a group of people that perceive the world in a particular way, because they work mainly at organizational boundaries. This process will result in reduction of boundary spanner role conflict, approximation of companies’ organizational areas, which will strengthen the relationship. However, it will be affected by the level of boundary spanner turnover and non-shared meanings and symbols, weakening the relationship. It is important to note that all these elements indicated depend on a context associated with cultural aspects beyond the involved organizations and environmental dynamics (macro environment). Our framework, discussed and deepened in Chapters 2 and 3, in regard to a cultural context of fragmentation, contributes to the comprehension of organizational and inter-organizational cultural changes, due to relationships, with a processual and cumulative focus. On the other hand, it allows the understanding of the relationship continuity due to these cultural transformations and the roles of the involved people, mainly leaders and boundary spanners. In this concern, contributions to cultural changes do not only emerge from suppliers, larger and more powerful in our research, but also from customers (furniture stores and financial services franchisees). If companies are really interested in inter-organizational relationships, they shall be more aware of changes in consumer markets, in those professionals who deal with markets, the boundary spanners, and of changes in perceiving problems and attitudes. After all, an organizational culture is not a solid and steady whole, or composed by stable groups of subcultures, but it is associated with mixtures of cultural manifestations with different features and levels (Alvesson, 2013; Martin, Frost, & O’Neil, 2006). Organization culture does not exist within a vacuum (Alvesson, 2013). Both organizational culture and inter-organizational culture are sensitive to variation and contradiction. They are not abstract systems of values, assumed as having a general, consistent impact (Alvesson, 2013; Larentis, Antonello, & Slongo, 2018). This is explained since organizations may be multifaceted, since they involve degrees of variation and contradiction, like other groups and communities.

100  F. LARENTIS ET AL.

Comprehending organizational culture stemming from an interorganizational perspective is considering cultural changes originated from inter-organizational relationships, in a context of relationship marketing practices, which implies to consider the existence of an inter-organizational culture, due to the importance companies give to relationship marketing foundations and strategies, once they allow more resources complementarity, risks reduction, more stability, increase of learning and more competitiveness (Hunt, Arnett, & Madhavaram, 2006; Palmatier, 2008), through practices performed mainly at organizational boundaries (Araujo, Dubois, & Gadde, 2003; Halley, 2001). Hence, with the connection between relationship marketing and organizational behavior, this book has evidenced the emergence and development of an inter-organizational culture, under determined contexts and situations. Once inter-organizational culture is associated with meanings and symbols between individuals and groups from different organizations, it will allow the involved participants to have a larger and better comprehension of world visions and work processes. Interorganizational culture can enable a reduction of preconceptions, since the field of vision becomes wider, thus contributing to individual and organizational performances. Nonetheless, it is important to note that organizational culture can create cohesion and orientation, which makes collective action and organizational life possible, but may restrict autonomy, creativity and questioning (Alvesson, 2013), in other words, the dark side of interorganizational culture. In this regard, we emphasize the importance related to the balance between stability and dynamism.

References Alvesson, M. (2013). Understanding organizational culture. London, UK: Sage. Araujo, L., Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2003). The multiple boundaries of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1255–1277. Cavedon, N. R. (2003). Antropologia para administradores. Porto Alegre, Brazil: UFRGS. Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (1985). An allegorical view of organizational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. C. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 13–25). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

5 CONCLUSION 

101

Grönroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: Communication, interaction, dialogue, value. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 99–113. Gummesson, E. (2008). Total relationship marketing (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier; Butterworth-Heinemann. Halley, A. A. (2001). Applications of boundary theory to organizational and inter-organizational culture. In R. Stupak & P. M. Leitner (Eds.), Handbook of public quality management (pp. 599–621). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London, UK: Routledge. Hunt, S. D., Arnett, D. B., & Madhavaram, S. (2006). The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(2), 72–87. Larentis, F., Antonello, C. S., & Slongo, L. A. (2018). Organizational culture and relationship marketing: An inter-organizational perspective. Review of Business Management, 20(1), 37–56. Martin, J., Frost, P. J., & O’Neil, O. A. (2006). Organizational culture: Beyond struggles for intellectual dominance. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (2nd ed., pp. 599–621). London, UK: Sage. Palmatier, R. W. (2008). Relationship marketing. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.

Index

A asymmetry of power, 9, 14, 17, 28, 33, 34, 37, 40, 61, 75 B beliefs, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 14, 19, 24, 31, 33, 34, 39, 48, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 63, 64, 67, 81 boundary spanners, 4, 5, 9, 17, 23, 24, 28–33, 35, 37–43, 53, 55, 57–66, 70–74, 76–79, 81, 84, 86, 89, 90, 98, 99 C ceremonies, 5, 28, 50–52, 54–58, 60, 63, 64, 66–68, 76, 77 commitment, 1–5, 7, 9, 14, 28–30, 34–41, 48, 51, 57, 59, 61–63, 65, 70, 75, 76, 79, 86, 88, 89, 98 commitment to actions, 17, 28, 61 commitment to people, 17, 28, 35, 61

commitment to results, 17, 28, 35, 61 compatibility of values, 14 cooperation, 1–4, 7, 14, 28, 30, 33, 37–42, 48, 59, 63, 75, 76, 83, 86, 97 cultural differences, 30, 43, 55, 69, 84 culture of intersection, 2 cultural perspective of differentiation, 51, 66, 71, 72, 90 cultural perspective of fragmentation, 10, 14, 29, 73, 89 cultural perspective of integration, 18, 51, 66, 70–72, 90 customer, 15, 16, 18–23, 28, 29, 31, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 48, 51, 53, 55, 57–60, 63, 66, 74, 81, 83, 84 E employee turnover, 4, 29, 41, 66, 79 F formal learning, 41, 84

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 F. Larentis et al., Inter-Organizational Culture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00392-0

103

104  Index I informal learning, 35, 41, 62, 76, 84 interactions, 1–3, 5, 7–9, 13, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30–33, 36–42, 48–51, 55, 57–59, 62, 65, 69, 70, 72–74, 78, 83–86, 88, 89, 91, 98 interdependency, 1, 33, 35, 49, 97 intermediary, 2, 5, 8–10, 15, 16, 20, 22–24, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 60, 64, 85 inter-organizational culture, 2, 3, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21–24, 28– 30, 33, 34, 42, 43, 48, 49, 52, 55, 57, 59, 63–68, 70–73, 75–77, 80–82, 84, 86–90, 99, 100 inter-organizational learning, 36, 49, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88 inter-organizational relationship, 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 28, 30, 34–37, 40, 48–50, 52, 54, 55, 60, 62, 68, 78, 79, 82, 83, 88, 89, 97–100 interpersonal relationship, 33 L learning results, 35, 75 M macro environment, 42, 99 meanings, 1, 2, 5–10, 16, 17, 19–23, 25, 28–34, 36–43, 48, 50–57, 59, 60, 63–78, 80–82, 84–91, 98–100 micro environment, 42 myths, 5, 28, 39, 50, 52, 54, 56, 67, 68, 77

N narratives, 39, 50, 53, 54, 58, 60, 64, 68, 71, 73–75 O openness to new ideas, 17, 23, 28, 31, 33, 39, 40, 57, 60, 74, 88, 90, 98 organizational areas, 9, 17, 28, 32, 37, 38, 40, 50, 52, 65, 66, 70, 72, 78, 99 organizational boundaries, 4, 5, 9, 17, 31, 39, 50, 57, 62, 64, 65, 71–73, 79, 82, 99, 100 organizational culture, 1–3, 5–8, 13, 14, 25, 29, 32, 42, 48, 50–57, 60, 69, 71–73, 82, 89, 98–100 organizational culture development, 2, 3, 10, 14, 16, 17, 24, 28, 30, 33, 42, 43, 48, 49, 51, 55–57, 63–65, 67, 68, 72, 73, 75, 79–82, 86, 88–90, 100 R relationship continuity, 25, 30, 55, 70, 77, 82, 86, 89, 99 relationship marketing, 1–3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 32, 33, 43, 48, 62, 66, 76, 78, 79, 82, 83, 86, 89, 90, 98, 100 rites, 28, 39, 50–58, 63, 64, 67, 68, 73, 76, 77 rituals, 5, 28, 50, 51 role conflict, 4, 17, 28, 30, 37–40, 58, 59, 65, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, 81, 99

Index

S supplier, 2, 8, 15, 16, 18–23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 37–40, 42, 43, 48, 51–53, 55, 57–60, 63, 74, 81, 83–85 symbols, 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28–34, 37–43, 48, 50, 52–57, 60, 63–77, 80, 81, 85–87, 89–91, 98–100 T three-perspective framework, 6, 14, 18, 48

  105

trust, 1–5, 7, 9, 14, 19, 28–30, 32, 34–41, 48, 49, 52, 57, 59, 61–63, 65, 70, 75, 76, 79, 82, 86–90, 97, 98 trust related to actions, 17, 28, 34, 86 trust related to information, 17, 28, 34, 61, 86 trust related to people, 17, 28, 34, 86 V values, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 19–24, 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 48, 52–58, 63, 64, 67, 69, 71, 74, 81, 87, 99