Upload File

managing for shared purpose: how … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)
31
MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW BUSINESS ENTERPRISES SCALE-UP VALUE- RATIONALITY FROM COLLEGIALITY TO COLLABORATION Paul S. Adler (Univ of Southern California) Charles Heckscher (Rutgers) Draft March 6, 2016 Please do not circulate Abstract This paper aims to characterize the organizational form (or design) that can support a shared commitment to the business enterprise’s “purpose.” Purpose here refers to the organization’s fundamental raison d’ȇtre – what it contributes to society. A considerable body of organizational theory teaches us that (a) in contexts where tasks are relatively knowledge- intensive, interdependent, and non-routine, organizational performance will depend (ceteris paribus) on the discretionary effort, cooperation, and creativity of a relatively wide swathe of employees, and (b) these behaviors will be encouraged by a sense of shared purpose. Notwithstanding the considerable difficulties involved, many enterprises attempt to instill such a sense of purpose. Current theory provides little guidance as to the organizational form that would sustain this shared commitment. To characterize that form, we build on Max Weber’s analysis of the four basic ideal-types of social action and the corresponding ideal-types of organization. Our argument proceeds in two steps. First, we argue that creating and sustaining purpose requires an organizational form that institutionalizes the value-rational type of action. Weber characterized such a form in his discussion of the collegial type of organization. However, Weber, like many since him, also argued that the collegial type cannot be sustained in larger, more heterogeneous, capitalist enterprises under performance pressure. In such settings, these skeptics assert, value-rationality and the corresponding collegial type of organization inevitably give way to instrumental-rationality and the corresponding bureaucratic type. Second, in response, we argue that the grounds for this skepticism have been progressively eroded by a succession of management innovations developed over the century that separates us from Weber’s writings. This sustained, albeit dispersed, innovation effort has given rise to a family of new organizational technologies that enable the scaling-up of value-rationality. This cluster of innovations yields a distinct variant of the value-rational-based organizational ideal-type, one that we call “collaborative.” This collaborative model sits uneasily within the profitability constraints of the business sector. While those profitability constraints sometimes encourage the emergence of the collaborative form, they sometimes undermine it, in particular by pushing executives to make decisions that reinforce employees’ instrumental orientation or that contradict employees’ understanding of the organization’s purpose. As a result, the implementation of this collaborative model is precarious, even as the model itself has been progressively refined through these various management innovations. This precariousness has rendered almost invisible that progress, and we aim to remedy this invisibility by showing how these various managerial innovations resolve the fundamental challenges involved in scaling-up value-rationality.

Upload: phamhanh

Post on 22-Apr-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

MANAGINGFORSHAREDPURPOSE:HOWBUSINESSENTERPRISESSCALE-UPVALUE-RATIONALITYFROMCOLLEGIALITYTOCOLLABORATIONPaulS.Adler(UnivofSouthernCalifornia)CharlesHeckscher(Rutgers)DraftMarch6,2016PleasedonotcirculateAbstract

Thispaperaimstocharacterizetheorganizationalform(ordesign)thatcansupporta

sharedcommitmenttothebusinessenterprise’s“purpose.”Purposeherereferstotheorganization’sfundamentalraisond’ȇtre–whatitcontributestosociety.Aconsiderablebodyoforganizationaltheoryteachesusthat(a)incontextswheretasksarerelativelyknowledge-intensive,interdependent,andnon-routine,organizationalperformancewilldepend(ceterisparibus)onthediscretionaryeffort,cooperation,andcreativityofarelativelywideswatheofemployees,and(b)thesebehaviorswillbeencouragedbyasenseofsharedpurpose.Notwithstandingtheconsiderabledifficultiesinvolved,manyenterprisesattempttoinstillsuchasenseofpurpose.Currenttheoryprovideslittleguidanceastotheorganizationalformthatwouldsustainthissharedcommitment.

Tocharacterizethatform,webuildonMaxWeber’sanalysisofthefourbasicideal-typesofsocialactionandthecorrespondingideal-typesoforganization.Ourargumentproceedsintwosteps.First,wearguethatcreatingandsustainingpurposerequiresanorganizationalformthatinstitutionalizesthevalue-rationaltypeofaction.Webercharacterizedsuchaforminhisdiscussionofthecollegialtypeoforganization.However,Weber,likemanysincehim,alsoarguedthatthecollegialtypecannotbesustainedinlarger,moreheterogeneous,capitalistenterprisesunderperformancepressure.Insuchsettings,theseskepticsassert,value-rationalityandthecorrespondingcollegialtypeoforganizationinevitablygivewaytoinstrumental-rationalityandthecorrespondingbureaucratictype.

Second,inresponse,wearguethatthegroundsforthisskepticismhavebeenprogressivelyerodedbyasuccessionofmanagementinnovationsdevelopedoverthecenturythatseparatesusfromWeber’swritings.Thissustained,albeitdispersed,innovationefforthasgivenrisetoafamilyofneworganizationaltechnologiesthatenablethescaling-upofvalue-rationality.Thisclusterofinnovationsyieldsadistinctvariantofthevalue-rational-basedorganizationalideal-type,onethatwecall“collaborative.”

Thiscollaborativemodelsitsuneasilywithintheprofitabilityconstraintsofthebusinesssector.Whilethoseprofitabilityconstraintssometimesencouragetheemergenceofthecollaborativeform,theysometimesundermineit,inparticularbypushingexecutivestomakedecisionsthatreinforceemployees’instrumentalorientationorthatcontradictemployees’understandingoftheorganization’spurpose.Asaresult,theimplementationofthiscollaborativemodelisprecarious,evenasthemodelitselfhasbeenprogressivelyrefinedthroughthesevariousmanagementinnovations.Thisprecariousnesshasrenderedalmostinvisiblethatprogress,andweaimtoremedythisinvisibilitybyshowinghowthesevariousmanagerialinnovationsresolvethefundamentalchallengesinvolvedinscaling-upvalue-rationality.

Page 2: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.2

2

MANAGINGFORSHAREDPURPOSE:HOWBUSINESSENTERPRISESSCALE-UPVALUE-RATIONALITYFROMCOLLEGIALITYTOCOLLABORATION

Underbothcompetitiveandsocial-culturalpressure,manybusinessenterprisesattemptto

createasharedcommitmenttotheorganization’spurpose(Hollensbe,Wookey,Hickey,George,&Nichols,2014:1228).Thispaperattemptstocharacterizetheorganizationalform(ordesign)thatcansupportsuchpurpose.

Byorganizationalpurposewerefertotheultimatereasonfortheorganization’sexistence—whatitcontributestosociety—asdistinctfromthegoalspursuedbytheindividualsinit.Bycommitmenttothispurpose,wemeana“volitionalpsychologicalbondreflectingdedicationtoandresponsibilityfor”thispurpose(Klein,Molloy,&Brinsfield,2012).Bysharedcommitment,werefertothecommitmentexperiencedbyalargeproportionoftheorganization’smembers:thedegreeofsharingmayvary,butataminimum,itgoesbeyondthetopmanagementteam.Forthesakeofsimplicity,wewillhenceforthrefertothisconstructas“sharedpurpose”orsimply“purpose.”

Purposematters,amongotherthings,formotivation.Purposeisrelatedtothejobcharacteristicsmodelconceptof“tasksignificance”—thefeelingthatone’sjobwillhaveanimpactonthewell-beingofothers(Grant,2008;Hackman&Oldham,1976;Humphrey,Nahrgang,&Morgeson,2007).Ourfocushere,however,isnotonwhatIdoandmyeffectsonotherpeople:itisonwhatwedoasanorganizationandtheimpactofourcollectiveeffortsonthebroadersociety.Ourfocalquestionisnotaboutindividualpsychologybutaboutorganizationaldesign.Purposeinoursenseismorecloselyrelatedtoconceptssuchasorganizationalmission—howtheorganizationaimstofulfillitspurpose—andorganizationalvision—whattheorganization(orthesocietyitserves)willlooklikeifitspurposeisfulfilled.

Usingpurposeinthissense,BillGeorge,formerMedtronicChairman,expressedhisviewofitsimportancethisway:

“Everyonewantstobefairlycompensatedforhisorherefforts.Butthatisnotenoughfortoday'semployees.Theirrealmotivationcomesfrombelievingthattheirworkhasapurpose,andthattheyareapartofalargerefforttoachievesomethingtrulyworthwhile.Whenacompanyoffersthemthissenseofpurposeconsistentlyoveralongperiodoftime—withoutdeviatingandwithoutvacillating—thenemployeeswillbuyintothecompany'smissionandmakethecommitmenttofulfillingit.Theywillgotheextramiletoservecustomers.Thatmaymeanworkingwellintothenightoracceleratingthetimetableforacrucialnew-productintroduction”(George,2001).

AndpurposeneednotbeasexaltedaswemightfindinamedicaldevicescompanysuchasMedtronic.Arguably,FederalExpress’s“Absolutely,positivelyovernight”hasplaysasimilarroleinamuchmoremundanebusiness.

WeneednotacceptatfacevaluesuchbroadassertionsasGeorge’snorthesimilaronesmadebywriterssuchasCollinsandPorras(1996)toacceptasastartingpointthatinatleastinsomesettingspurposemattersforemployeemotivationandtherebyforfirmperformance.Indeed,aconsiderablebodyoforganizationaltheoryteachesus(a)thatincontextswheretasksarerelativelyknowledge-intensive,interdependent,andnon-routine,organizationalperformancewilldepend(ceterisparibus)onthediscretionaryeffort,cooperation,andcreativityofarelativelywideswatheofemployees,and(b)thatthesecollaborativebehaviorswillbeencouragedbyasharedcommitmenttotheorganization’spurpose(Adler,2001;Foss&Lindenberg,2013;Grant,1996).Asreviewedinmoredetailbelow,theorysuggeststhatinsuchcontextsrequiringextensivecollaboration,nocombinationoffinancialincentivesandbureaucraticcommandswillbeaseffectiveasthespontaneouseffortsencouragedbyastrongcommitmenttothatcommonpurpose.

Whatorganizationalformcouldsupportsuchpurpose?Asweshowbelow,scholarlyresearchonpurposehasonlyrecentlyresumedafteralonghiatus,andasyetwehavelittletheoreticalletaloneempiricalguidanceonthiskeyissue.Withtheaimofestablishingatheoretical

Page 3: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.3

3

platformforfutureresearch,weturninthepresentpapertoMaxWeber’sanalysisoffourbasictypesofsocialactionandthecorrespondingtypesoforganization.

OuruseofWeberproceedsintwosteps--appropriation,thenextension.First,weappropriateakeyconceptfromWeber,toproposethattheidealorganizationalformforsupportingsharedpurposeisonethatinstitutionalizesvalue-rationalactionasthemodal,taken-for-grantedtype.Weberdefinesvalue-rationalactioninawayhighlycongruentwiththeideaofsharedpurpose,asaction“determinedbytheconsciousbeliefinthevalue,foritsownsake,ofsomeethical,religious,political,aestheticorotherformofbehavior,independentlyofitsprospectsofsuccess”(Weber,1968,p. 24).Here,theendsofaction—designinglife-savingmedicaldevicesorfulfillingthepromiseofovernightdelivery—arenotthemselvesunderstoodasmerelymeanstosomeotherends,butarepursuedfortheirownsake,asintrinsicallyvaluabletothebroadersociety.Value-rationalactionischaracterizedbycontinualandrationalconsiderationofsuchultimatevaluesinchartingtheappropriatecourseofconduct.Sharedpurposewouldbesupportedbest,weargue,byanorganizationalforminwhicheveryoneorientedtheirbehaviortothatultimatevalue.Ultimatevaluesvary,ofcourse,acrossindividualsandorganizations:weareinterestedhereinthosethatinformtheraisond’ȇtreofthebusinessenterprise,andwethereforefocusonexternally-orientedvaluesthatspeakto“howweservesociety,”asdistinctfrominternally-orientedvaluessuchas“integrity”(Amann,2012)or“loyalty”(Reichheld&Teal,2001)thatexpressintra-organizationalaspirationsthatspeakto“whoweare.”

Thereisconsiderabledoubt,however,thatvalue-rationalitycanbeinstitutionalizedinlarger,moreheterogeneousenterprisesunderperformancepressure.Weberhimselfthoughtnot.Hesawvalue-rationalityservingasthefoundationforwhathecalledthe“collegial”typeoforganization,wheresharedsocializationandsmallscalewouldsupportahighlyegalitariandecision-makingstructureorientedtoanultimatevalue(Satow,1975;Waters,1989;Weber,1978,pp.263,271-82,994-98,1089-90);buthewasbluntinhisconclusionthatoncesuchanorganizationcameunderthepressuresofgreatersize,functionalcomplexity,heterogeneousskills,andintensifiedperformancedemands,value-rationalactioncouldnolongerbesustainedasthemodalformofaction,andcollegialitywouldnecessarilymutateintoinstrumentally-rationalbureaucracy(Weber,1978:p.271ff.).Inabureaucracy,theorganization’spurposeistheprovinceofthetopmanagementteam:therestoftheorganizationismobilizedtoactinwaysconsistentwiththatpurposethroughhierarchicalauthority,incentives,andproceduresratherthanthroughcommitment.

ThesecondstepinourargumentisthereforetoextendWeber,byarguingthatthegroundsforWeber’sskepticismhavebeenprogressivelyerodedbyasuccessionofmanagementinnovationsdevelopedoverthecenturythatseparatesusfromhiswritings.Thissustained,albeitdispersed,innovationefforthasgivenrisetoafamilyofneworganizationaltechnologiesthatenablethescaling-upofvalue-rationalitysothatitcangroundlarge,complexorganizationsunderperformancepressure.Wewillhighlightthesignificanceofabroadrangeofinnovationsinstrategyprocesses,operationalsystems,reportingstructures,aswellasskillformationandcompensationpolicies.Thisclusterofinnovationsyieldsamutationthattakesusfromcollegialitytoadistinctiveorganizationalformwithinthevalue-rational-basedideal-type,onethatwecall“collaborative.”

Thiscollaborativeform(ordesignormodel–wewillusethetermsinterchangeably)sitsuneasilywithintheprofitabilityconstraintsofthebusinesssector.Whilethoseprofitabilityconstraintssometimesencouragetheemergenceofthecollaborativeform,theysometimesundermineit,inparticularbypushingexecutivestomakedecisionsthatreinforceemployees’instrumentalorientationorthatcontradictemployees’understandingoftheorganization’spurpose.Asaresult,theimplementationofthiscollaborativemodelisprecarious,evenasthemodelitselfhasbeenprogressivelyrefinedthroughthesevariousmanagementinnovations.Thisprecariousnesshasrenderedalmostinvisiblethatprogress,andweaimtoremedythisinvisibility

Page 4: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.4

4

byshowinghowthesevariousmanagerialinnovationsresolvethefundamentalchallengesinvolvedinscaling-upvalue-rationality.

Webeginbyclarifyingfurthertheconceptofpurposeandidentifythekeypracticalimpedimentstoachievingit.Wethenexplainwhyvalue-rationalitywouldbeasuitablefoundationforanorganizationalformaimingtosurmountthoseimpediments.ThesubsequentsectionusesWeber’stheorytoidentifyfourkeychallengesfacingeffortstoscaleupvalue-rationality.WethenleverageotherconceptsinWeber’scorpustocharacterizetheoreticallytheorganizationalprinciplesthatcanovercomeeachofthosechallenges,andweidentifyseveralmanagementtechniquesthatembodyeachofthoseprinciplesandthatjointlycharacterizetheemergentcollaborativeform.Toillustratethesetechniquesandshowhowtheycanbecombined,wedrawonseveralstudiesofonelargehealthcaredeliveryorganization.Weconcludebydiscussingwherethiscollaborativemodelmightbemostversusleastusefulandunderwhatconditionsitismoreversuslesslikelytoemergeandstabilize.

PURPOSEANDITSIMPEDIMENTSTheideaofpurposehasonlyrecentlyresurfacedinmanagementdiscourseafteralong

periodofneglect(Singleton,2014;Singleton,2011).MaryParkerFollettwrotein1927:“Theleaderreleasesenergy,unitesenergies,andallwiththeobjectnotonlyofcarryingoutapurpose,butofcreatingfurtherandlargerpurposes.AndIdonotmeanherebylargerpurposesmergersormorebranches;Ispeakoflargerinthequalitativeratherthanthequantitativesense.Imeanpurposeswhichwillincludemoreofthosefundamentalvaluesforwhichmostofusagreewearereallyliving.”(Follett,Metcalf,&Urwick,1942:168).

Adecadelater,ChesterBarnardfurtherdevelopedthisidea,arguingthatformalorganizationsweredefinedbytheconjunctionofpurpose,participantswillingtoservethatpurpose,andacommunicationsystemtyingtheireffortstogether(Barnard,1938:82).Barnardsawpurposeinoursenseasauniversalrequirementinbusiness.Hepostulatedthattheorganizationcouldnotbeeffectiveunlessitfunctionedasa“cooperative”system,bywhichhemeantthatallitspersonnelwerewillingtosubordinatetheirpersonalneedsandpreferencestothecooperativepursuitofthatpurpose.Theprimaryfunctionofthecommunicationsystemwasnottocommunicatemanagementordersdownward,butratherto“inculcate”thissenseofpurposeacrosstheentireorganization:“Theinculcationofbeliefintherealexistenceofacommonpurposeisanessentialexecutivefunction”(Barnard,1938:87).

SinceBarnard,somepopularbusinesswriterscontinuedtohighlightthecentralityofpurpose.PeterDrucker,forexample,arguedthatthepurposeofthefirmcouldonlybetomeetacustomer’sneeds,thatthispurposeshouldtakeprecedenceoverthesearchforprofits,thatthislogicalorderingwouldbethebestwaytoassurelong-termprofitability,andthatthecustomer’sneedsshouldguidethedailyworkofeveryoneintheorganization(Drucker&Maciariello,2008:101).Morerecently,CollinsandPorras(Collins&Porras,1996;Porras&Collins,1997)havesoughttomaketheconceptofpurposecentraltotheirtheoryoforganizationalandstrategiceffectiveness.

Scholars,however,havelongbeenskepticalofwhattheysawastheexcessivelynormativeframingimpliedbytheconceptofpurpose.Indeed,avenerablelineageoforganizationtheoryhasbeenskepticalofthepracticalsignificanceoftheconceptoforganizationalpurpose,asnotedbyMarchandSutton(1997):

“Organizationsarecommonlydefinedasinstrumentsofpurpose.Theyareseenascoordinatedbyintentionsandgoals.Suchaformulationhasoftentroubledstudentsoforganizations.Itisnotclearthatorganizationalpurposecanbeportrayedasunitaryorthatthemultiplepurposesofanorganizationarereliablyconsistent.Itisnotclearthatasingleconceptionofpurposesissharedamongparticipantsinanorganization”(March&Sutton,1997:698).

Letusbrieflyreviewthemainreasonsforthisskepticism.Theyfallintotwoclusters:lackofpurposeandmultiplicityofpurposes.

Page 5: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.5

5

First,somescholarsarguethatbusinessenterprisestodayarestillmostlybasedonwage-labor—alternativegovernancestructuressuchasself-employmentandpartnershipsarerelativelyrare—andinsuchorganizations,employees’relationtotheenterpriseareessentiallyinstrumental.Suchapremiseissharedbybothstandardmicro-economictheoryandalonglineageofcriticalsociology(Bendix,1956;Etzioni,1975;Marx,1990[1867]).Employeesworktoearnawage,nottoparticipateinthepursuitofanycollectivepurposethattheirmanagersmighthaveinview.Inthissamelineofreasoning,manyarguethateveniftheideaofsharedpurposeisattractiveformotivationalreasons,managersofbusinessorganizationsmustfirstandforemostsatisfythedemandsofinvestorsforthehighestpossiblefinancialreturns:iftheultimatepurposeofthefirmistoenrichinvestors,suchapurposeisunlikelytogarnerthecommitmentofmanyemployees(Marens,2009).

Thesecondimpedimentisthepossiblemultiplicityofpurposes.Purposeswithinthecapitalistfirmareoftenintensionwitheachother.Themostprominenttensionconcernsprofit.Profitisitselfanultimatevalueinourcapitalistsociety,inthesensethatactionsaimingatincreasingprofitareceterisparibusregardedaslegitimate;torealizeanyprofits,however,thefirmmustprovideuse-valuesdesiredbyitscustomers,and“providingvaluetoourcustomers”isinthissenseanequallyimportantultimatevalue;butthepressuresfrominvestorstomaximizeprofitsarenotalwayseasytoreconcilewiththepressuresfromcustomersforhigh-qualityuse-values.1Moreover,ontheuse-valuesideofthistension,therearetypicallymultipledimensionsofqualitywhoserelativeimportanceiscontested.Notsurprisingly,therefore,weoftenfindthatdifferentgroupswithintheorganizationpursuedivergentpurposes.Inahospitalforexample,wemightfindthatdoctors,nurses,patients,andadministratorsallhavedifferentviewsofultimatepurposeoftheorganization(e.g.Morgan&Ogbonna,2008).

Notwithstandingthechallengesinvolved,someexecutivesseethepotentialbenefitsofsharedpurposeassufficienttowarrantseriouseffortstomovefroma“contested”or“estranged”relationshipamongtheircompetingpurposestoan“aligned”relationship(BesharovandSmith2014),fromsegmentingorcompromisesolutionstocreativeintegrationandsynthesissolutions(BattilanaandLee2014,PrattandForeman2000),andfrommultiple,competing,materialgoalstoasharedpurpose(BartlettandGhoshal1994,2002;Cartonetal2015).

VALUE-RATIONALITYASTHEPATHTOPURPOSETheprevioussectionleadsustotheconclusionthateffortstocreateandsustainshared

purposeencounterimportantpracticalimpediments,butthattheseimpedimentsdonotdetereveryonefromtrying.Thosewhowouldtry,however,findverylittletheoreticalguidanceontheformoforganizationthatcouldsupporttheirefforts.Thepresentpaperadvancesthepropositionthatsharedpurposecanbecreatedandsustainedifvalue-rationalitycanbeinstitutionalizedasthemodal,taken-for-grantedtypeofsocialactionwithintheorganization.Inthissection,wecontrast

1Asweseeit,bothprofitanduse-valueare“ultimatevalues”:thedebatebetweenthosewhoseethefundamentalpurposeofthefirmascreatingshareholderwealthandthosewhoseeitasmeetingtheneedsofcustomersandotherstakeholders(forexampleFreeman,Wicks,andParmar(2004);SundaramandInkpen(2004))seemstoustomissanessentialpoint—thatthecapitalistfirmischaracterizedpreciselybythetensionbetweenthesetwosetsofvalues:theysometimesreinforceeachother,butsometimesnot.Thedisjunctionbetweenthetwosetsofvaluesisnotonlyacontingentresultoftheconfrontationofthecomplexityoftheworldwithhumanfrailties—forexample,inourdifficultyseeinghowtoreconcileshort-termandlong-termgoals—butastructuralfeatureofourcapitalisteconomies,afeaturethatgivesitbothitscharacteristicdynamismanditsmarketfailures.

Page 6: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.6

6

value-rationalitywiththeothertypesofaction,andinthefollowingsectionweidentifyfourkeychallengesinsustainingvalue-rationalityinlarge,complexbusinessenterprises.

MaxWeberarguedthatsocialaction—ourinteractionswithotherpeople—canbecharacterizedintermsoffourbasictypes(Weber,1978:24ff.).Andeachofthesefourtypesofactioncanbeinstitutionalizedasthemodaltypeofactioninadistinctideal-typeoforganization.Inpractice,realactionandrealorganizationstypicallyinvolveamixofthesetypes.

AsnotedintheIntroduction,value-rationalactionisactionorientedtowardssomeultimatevalue—agoalthatisnotmerelyameanstosomeotherend.Value-rationalitygroundsthe“collegial”organizationaltype:agroupofequals,makingdecisionsbasedonconsensus,boundtogetherbytheircommoncommitmenttothatultimatevalue.Oneexample:doctorsshareacommitmenttotheultimatevalueofrestoringthehealthofthepatient,andthiscommonpurposeenablessmoothintegrationoftheirvariouseffortsasthegathertodiagnoseandcureapatient.Doctors’cooperationwillbefarlesseffectiveifitisdrivenexclusivelybyfinancialincentivesorbureaucratically-definedprocedures(James,2012).Tobemaximallyeffective,doctorscanneverlosesightoftheend-valueoftheiractions—thepatient’shealth—butmustcontinuallyorienttheiractionbyexplicitreferencetothisultimatepurpose:thisputsthemsquarelyinthecategoryofvalue-rationalaction.

Theconceptualproximityofpurposetotheideaofvalue-rationalactioncanbecontrastedwithitsconceptualdistancefromtheotherthreetypesofaction.Weaddresstheseinturn.

Affectualaction—whereactionisorientedbyemotionalattachments—groundsthecharismatictypeoforganization,whichisbasedonanemotionalconnectiontoaninspiringleaderandhisorhervision.Affectualaction,likevalue-rationalaction,isorientedbyafocusonitsendsratherthanitsmeans,but,unlikevalue-rationalaction,itisnon-rationalinitschoiceofbothmeansandends.Asaresult,thecharismaticorganizationaltypecansupportsharedpurposeinsmaller,morehomogeneousorganizations(Ling,Simsek,Lubatkin,&Veiga,2008);anditcanbeveryeffectivewherethepurposeisessentiallycreativeandrevolutionary(Howell&Avolio,1993;Jyoti&Dev,2015);butitisunsuitedtosustainingpurposeinlarger,morecomplexbusinessenterpriseswherepurposeinvolvesnotonlycreativeinnovationbutalsodisciplinedefficiency(Pillai&Meindl,1998;Weber,1978:Vol.2,Ch.III).

Actionistraditional(“traditionalistic”wouldbealessambiguoustranslation)whenitisorientedbyreverenceforestablishedcustoms.Traditionalisticactiongroundstheclantypeoforganization.(Onthisgrounding,seeOuchi(1979:838);OuchiandJaeger(1978:307).)Actionandorganizationherearenotgoal-oriented,butdefinedbytheactors’non-rationalattachmenttospecificmeans.Traditionalisticactionandorganizationarethereforeweakatcultivatingasharedcommitmenttoassuringthattheenterpriseprovidevaluetotherestofsociety.

Actionisinstrumentally-rationalwhenitisorientedtoselectingthemostefficientmeansforachievingagiven,taken-for-grantedendofindividualmaterialself-interest.Instrumentally-rationalactionsgroundstwocomplementaryorganizationalforms—thelegal-rationalbureaucracyandthecompetitivemarket:inbothcases,individualmaterialinterestsbindthecollectivity.2AsWeberargued,bureaucracyisaverypowerfulmeansbywhich“masters”(topexecutives)can

2Toclarifyourterminology:Wewillusethetermorganizationaltypetorefertothefour“ideal-types”oforganizationdelineatedbyWeber.Wewillusethetermsform,design,andmodelinterchangeablytorefertothemoreconcreteexpressionsoftheseideal-types.Thus,thelegal-rationalideal-typeyieldstworelatedorganizationalforms—bureaucracyandmarket.Similarly,wewillarguebelowthatthevalue-rational-basedideal-typeyieldstworelatedorganizationalforms—collegialandcollaborative.

Page 7: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.7

7

orchestratetheactionofotherstoachievethesemasters’purposes,butbothbureaucracyandmarketarepoorvehiclesforbuildingsharedcommitmenttoorganizationalpurpose.3

Thisfour-folddistinctionhelpsusidentifytheimportancebutalsothelimitationsofSelznick’sclassicworkonLeadershipinAdministration(Selznick,1957).Selznickheredistinguishesthe“technical”fromthe“institutional”dimensionsoftheorganization.Thetechnicaldimensioncallsfordeploymentofinstrumentally-rationalbureaucraticstructures.Theinstitutionaldimensionrequiresthearticulationand“institutionalembodiment”oforganizationalpurpose.Byinstitutionalembodiment,Selznickreferstothedeploymentofbothformalandinformalstructuretoconsolidatethesalienceandacceptanceofpurpose(Besharov&Khurana,2015;Hinings&Greenwood,2015).ButSelznick’sportraitoftheorganizationasavalue-infusedinstitutionwithpurposereliesonamixoftraditionalisticandaffectual-charismaticmechanisms:nowhereinthisvolumenorinhislaterMoralCommonwealth(1994)doesSelznickrefereitherexplicitlyorimplicitlytovalue-rationalityorcollegiality.WenoteinpassingthatEtzioni’s“normative”typeoforganization(contrastedwiththeutilitarianandcoercivetypes)isevennarrower,relyingentirelyoncharismaasthesourceofthesharednormsandgoals(Etzioni,1975:XII,XIII).Mintzberg’s“missionary”typeisinthisrespectidenticaltoEtzioni’snormativetype(Mintzberg,1989:ch.12).Theseclassicsoforganizationalsociologythusofferlittleinsightintoourcentralquestion.

FOURCHALLENGESINSCALING-UPVALUE-RATIONALITYAswenotedintheIntroduction,Weberarguedthatvalue-rationalitycouldbe

institutionalizedininsmall-scalecollegialgroups,buthedoubtedthatvalue-rationalitycouldbesustainedinlarger,morecomplexorganizationsunderpressuretomake“precise,clear,andaboveall,rapiddecisions”(Weber,1978:Vol.I,p.277).Inhisview,value-rationalitylackedafeatureessentialforsuchsizeandcomplexity,namely“legitimatedomination”andtheassociatedcapacityforimperativecommand.Indeed,aswehavejustseen,undervalue-rationality,actors’behaviorisorientedaboveallbytheirpersonalcommitmenttoultimateend-values;inasocialorderbasedonvalue-rationality,actioniscoordinatedamongactorsnotbycommandsbutbytheirsharedcommitmentthoseend-values.SuchasocialorderisthereforeapoorinstrumentforHerrschaft—forimplementingthedominatingwillofamaster.Morerecentscholarshiphasoftenconcurred(Mommsen,1974;Waters,1989),andperhapsitisthisskepticismthatexplainsthelacunawenotedaboveinSelznick,Etzioni,andMintzberg.

AfewothersociologistssinceWeberhavebeenmoreoptimisticaboutthepossibilityofscalingupvalue-rationality,thinkingofthetaskascreatingnotaformofadministrationthatwouldsustainHerrschaft,butaformofself-governmentbyacollectivity.Thesescholarshaveclaimedthatvalue-rationalityfunctionsasthecentralorganizingprincipleofsuchlarge-scalecollectivitiesasideologically-drivenpoliticalparties(Willer,1967),constitutionalstates(Spencer,1970),autonomousprofessionalorganizations(Satow,1975),andsome“alternative”cooperatives(Rothschild-Whitt,1979).HeckscherandAdler(2006)extendthismoreoptimisticaccountwithasetofcasestudiesthathighlighttheemergenceofthevalue-rationalforminthecontemporarycorporatesector.

Skepticscounterthatinthesecases,truevalue-rationalityistypicallyprecarious.Evenradicalpoliticalpartiesoftensuccumbtothe“ironlawofoligarchy”(Michels,1966);constitutionalstatesoftenbecomeauthoritarianwhentheirdominantpowersarechallenged(Schmitt,1988);

3Notethatthetaken-for-grantedend-valueofinstrumental-rationalityisnotalwayspresentedinthescholarlyliteratureasindividualmaterialself-interest;butWallace(1990)quotingWeber(1978:p.30,331)makesaconvincingcasethatthisisthelogicalimplicationofpositinginstrumental-rationalityasatypeofactionuntoitself,ratherthanmerelyasacontingentfeatureoftheotherthreetypes.

Page 8: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.8

8

liberalprofessionsoftendevolveintoself-interestedmonopolies(Brint,1994;Waters,1989);andcooperativeundertakingsoftenreverttohierarchicaldomination(Freeman,1972).

Wecantracethechallengesinscaling-upvalue-rationalityineachoffourdimensionsoforganization.Werevieweachbrieflynowandthesubsequentsectiondiscusseshowtheymightbeovercome.Values:fragmentation.

Valuesplaythepivotalroleinvalue-rationalaction,andsharedvalues—intheformofpurpose—playthecentralroleinassuringthecohesionofacollegialstructure.Butthiscohesiondependsonsharedoccupationalsocialization,andasaresult,collegialstructuresrelyonoccupationalhomogeneity.Howthencanasenseofsharedpurposebecreatedandsustainedacrossanenterpriserequiringthecoordinatedeffortsofmultipledifferentoccupations?More:eveniftheyshareacommonbackground,oncepeopleareemployedbytheenterpriseandassignedtoadistinctsubunitwithaspecificsetsoftasks,newsubunitsub-culturesemerge:howcanthatsharedvaluecommitmentbesustainedinthecontextofsuchsubunitdifferentiation?Howcanpurpose’ssaliencebemaintainedgiventhepressofmoreimmediatedailytasks,diverseinterests,anddiverseidentities(Martin,1992)?Norms:goaldisplacement

Normsarethebehavioralexpectationsmembershaveofeachotherinthespecializedrolestheyplayatwork.Anylarger,morecomplexorganizationunderperformancepressurewillneedtostandardizeandformalizesomeofthesenorms(forexample,as“bestpractices”)inordertoachieveacceptablelevelsofefficiencyandcontrol.TheresultingchallengeisonedescribedbyMerton(1940)as“goaldisplacement”:insteadoforientingtheirconducttowardtheultimatevalue(purpose),memberswillorientthemselvestotheirsuperiors’demandforconformancewiththeseprocedures.Authority:centralization.

Atasmallscale,thecollegialstructure—aflatstructurecharacterizedbymutualadaptationamongpeers—sufficestocoordinateaction.Butatlargescaleandwithfunctionallydifferentiatedsubunits,organizationsunderperformancepressurecannotoperateeffectivelywithoutahierarchyofauthority(Jaques,1989).Thishierarchicalauthoritystructureinturnchallengestheveryfoundationofvalue-rationalaction,whichisactionwhereactorsdecideforthemselvesonthemostappropriatecourseofconductasafunctionoftheirowncommitmenttotheultimatevalue. Capabilities:specialization.

Largercomplexenterprisesrelyonspecializedskillsandonsubunitsthatgrouptogethersuchspecialties.Suchdifferentiationposesintegrationchallenges,bothbecauseactors’skillsetsarenarrowed,andbecausetheycometovaluetheirown“thoughtworld”overothers(Dougherty,1992).Thestandardmechanismsforcoordinatingthesesubunits—standards,plans,andspecializedintegratingroles—areeffectivepreciselybecausetheyobviatetheneedforwidelysharedpurpose,leavingthegreatermassofmembersfreetocultivatetheirspecializedskillsandtofocusonsubunits’localgoals(Galbraith,1973;Grant&Baden-Fuller,1995).Whengreatertaskinterdependencerequiresmoreintensivecross-unitintegration,theappropriatemechanismisthecross-functionalteam(VandeVen,Delbecq,&Koenig,1976);buthereorganizationsencounteraseveretradeoffbetweenbreadthanddepthofskills.Indeed,thereareimportanttensionsbetweencompensationpoliciesthatsupportthedevelopmentanddeploymentofbroadskillsrequiredforeffectiveparticipationincross-functionalteamsversusthepoliciesthatsupportthedeeplyspecializedskillsrequiredinacomplexdifferentiatedorganizationalstructure(Kretschmer&Puranam,2008).

Page 9: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.9

9

FROMCOLLEGIALITYTOCOLLABORATIONWeneedamodeloforganizationthatsupportsunityofpurposeacrossheterogeneous

groupsengagedininterdependent,uncertainactivity—unitaryorconjunctivecollaborationefforts,asdistinctfromadditivecooperationeffortsordisjunctivecoordinationefforts(Steiner,1972).4Theprevioussectionexplainedwhythecollegialmodeldoesnotscaletosupportsuchcollaboration.Tosustainpurposeinlarger,morecomplexbusinessenterprises,weneedaneworganizationalformdoesnotpresupposehomogeneityofbackgroundortasks.

Ourthesis,asnotedintheIntroduction,isthatthepersistentneedforcollaborationinindustryhaspromptedrepeatedeffortstobuildsuitableorganizations,andthatevenwithoutthebenefitofatheoreticalmodeltoguidetheseefforts,theyhavegivenrisetoafamilyofmanagerialinnovationsthat,takentogether,havebeguntogivebodytoanovelmodel.

Takingcognizanceofthispracticaleffortinspiresustothecorrespondingtheoreticaleffort.ItisinthisspiritthatweproposetobuildonWeber’sconceptofvalue-rationalitytoarticulatetheorganizationalprinciplesthatwouldcharacterizethiscollaborativeform,andthenusetheseinsightstobringtotheforethedeepersignificanceofthesevariousscatteredmanagerialinnovations.

Ourunderlyingtheoryisthateachofthefourdefiningcharacteristicsofthecollaborativetypeaddressesoneofthekeychallengesinscaling-upvalue-rationalitydiscussedintheprevioussection.Figure1showshowex-antepurpose(i.e.thedesireddegreeofpurpose)leads,underconditionsoflargesizeandcomplexity,tothesechallenges,andhowthecollaborativeformovercomeseachofthesetoleadtoex-post(i.e.realized)purpose.Thesectionsbelowexplicateinturneachofthefourdefiningcharacteristics.

------------------InsertFigure1abouthere

------------------Aswithotherideal-typeformulations(Doty&Glick,1994),ourworkingassumptionisthat

anygivenorganizationwillembodyamixoforganizationalideal-typesandformswherethecollaborativeformmightbeabsent,dominant,orpresentbutovershadowedbyothers.Wepostulatethatthemorepronouncedthecollaborativefeatures(inabsolutetermsandrelativetootherforms),thegreaterwillbetheorganization’scapacityforsustainedpurpose.

Inordertoillustrateourargument,wewillrefertotheexperienceofonehealthcareorganizationthathasachievedanotablelevelofsharedpurpose—KaiserPermanente.Thiscase

4AccordingtotheprimarymeaningsgivenintheMerriamWebsterOnlinedictionary,coordinationisthe“harmoniousfunctioningofpartsforeffectiveresults”;cooperationmeansan“associationofpersonsforcommonbenefit”;andcollaborationmeans“toworkjointlywithothersortogetherespeciallyinanintellectualendeavor.”ThesedefinitionssuggestaGuttmanscalethatparallelsThompson’s(1967):pooledcoordinationviastandards,sequentialcooperationviaplansandschedules,andreciprocalcollaborationviamutualadjustment.Alongthisscale,thereareincreasinglevelsandscopeoftaskinterdependence,andmorejointeffortrequiredtodeterminemeansandendsoftheactivity.Mostcritically,coordinationandcooperationassumethattheends(goals)oftheactivityaregivenattheoutset,wherecollaborationischaracterizedbyjointefforttodefinenotonlymeansbutalsoends. ThischaracterizationfitstheuseofthetermcollaborationinkeystudiessuchasMartinandEisenhardt(2010),Thompsonetal.(2009),andWood&Gray(1991).LikeLindenbergandFoss(2011)welinkcollaborationto“jointproduction,”thatis,“anyproductiveactivitythatinvolvesheterogeneousbutcomplementaryresourcesandahighdegreeoftaskandoutcomeinterdependence(thus,contextsinwhichworkeffortsareseparableandautonomousfalloutsidetherealmofouranalyses)”.

Page 10: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.10

10

allowsustoillustrateinonesettingsomeofthevariousspecificmanagementtechniquesthatoperationalizethefourcharacteristicsofthecollaborativeorganizationalform—seeFigure2forasummary.

------------------InsertFigure2abouthere

------------------Bywayofintroduction,weoffersomebackgroundonthisillustrativecase.Ouraccountis

basedonseveralstudies(Eaton,Konitsney,Litwin,&Vanderhorst,2011;Kochan,Eaton,McKersie,&Adler,2009;Litwin,2010;McKersieetal.,2008;Schillingetal.,2010a;Schillingetal.,2011b;Schillingetal.,2010b;Whippyetal.,2011)andthefirstauthor’sfieldresearchintermittentlysince2004.Thedemandforcollaborationandthelimitsofcollegialityinhealthcare

UShealthcaredeliveryorganizationsareunderincreasingpressuretoimprovecollaboration.Thispressureisdrivenbydemandstoassurepatientsfasteraccessandshorterhospitalstays;toadoptmorerapidlyradicalinnovationsintheirinfrastructure(forexample,withelectronichealthrecords);tostayabreastofrapidandradicalinnovationindiagnosticandtreatmenttechnologies;tobeflexiblyresponsivetotheincreasingvarietyofpatientneedsaswellastotheurgencyofmanyoftheseneeds;andtominimizeerrorsinhand-offsacrossdistinctrolesanddepartments.

Oneassetthatthehealthcareindustrymightleverageinattemptingtorespondtothispressureforcollaborationismedicalprofession’scollegialcommitmenttotheultimatevalueofassuringthepatient’shealth.However,thiscollegialityisrestrictedtophysicians,andincreasinglyrestrictedtospecializedcollegeswithinthatbroaderprofessionalumbrella.Itextendswithconsiderablygreaterdifficultytonurses—whooftenhavetheirowndistinctunderstandingofpurpose—andrelationsareevenmorefraughtwiththemyriadancillaryclinicalspecialtiesandadministrativefunctions.Moreover,asithasbeenunderstoodtraditionally,theprofession’svaluesorientsdoctorsandnursesawayfromanyconcernforeconomicefficiency,tothepointwhereanyconsiderationofcosthasbeenconsideredunethical(Angell,1993).Asaresult,thehealthcarefieldisunderincreasingpressedtorethinkmedicalvaluessoastomakeroomforpreventivecare,forpopulationhealthoutcomes,andfortheresponsibleuseofsociety’slimitedeconomicresources(Adler,Kwon,&Heckscher,2008).

Further:thepracticeofmedicineintheUShasoftendiluteditsdedicationtothepatient’shealthwithstrongelementsoftheguild-liketraditionalism,aswellaswithbureaucraticandmarkettypesofinstrumentalrationality(Adleretal.,2008).Theguild-likeelementshavelongbeenvisibleintheprofessionalloyaltythatbindsdoctorstogetherindefenseofpeersagainstcriticismorinterferencebyoutsiders,andinthedebilitatingeffectsofstatustensionsinmanyinteractionsbetweenphysiciansofdifferentspecialtiesandbetweenphysiciansandnurses.Theinstrumental-rationalelementsarevisibleinthegrowthofbureaucracy—intheformgovernmentmandatesandinternalbureaucraticcontrols—aswellasintheincreasingrelianceonfinancialincentivesto“drive”changesinbehavioramonghealthcaredeliveryorganizationsandprofessionals.Theseefforts,however,tendtoreinforceself-interestorientationsandyieldlittleoftheneededcollaboration(Cromwell,Trisolini,Pope,Mitchell,&Greenwald,2011;Jha,Joynt,Orav,&Epstein,2012).

KaiserPermanente(here,“Kaiser”forshort)isonehealthcareorganizationintheUSthathaslongsoughttoencouragedoctorstopracticemedicineinamorevalue-rationalandcollaborativeway(McCarthy,Mueller,Wrenn,&Fund,2009).Kaiseristhelargesthealthcareproviderandoneofthelargesthealthcareinsurancecompaniesinthecountry:asof2014,ithadover9millionhealth-planmembers,over177,00employees,over17,000physicians,38medicalcenters,and620medicaloffices.Itisorganizedasaconsortiumofthe(not-for-profit)Kaiser

Page 11: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.11

11

FoundationHealthPlan(insurance),the(not-for-profit)KaiserFoundationHospitals,andasetofaffiliatedregionalPermanenteMedicalGroups(whicharefor-profitphysicianpartnershipsorprofessionalcorporationsthatdobusinessalmostexclusivelywithKaiser).

ThechallengeofcollaborationinthehealthcareindustryhasnotonlyaffectedKaiser’smanagementbutalsotheunionsthatrepresentmostofitsemployees.GoingbacktoKaiser’searliestyears,unionshavelongbeenanessentialpartofthebusiness.MostofKaiser’snon-physician,non-managerialemployeesareunionized,andmanyofKaiser’shealth-planmembersalsounionized.Asaresult,andunlikemanyotheremployersintheUS,itisdifficultforKaisermanagerstoignoreorattackunionswithoutriskingbothinternalorganizationalturmoilanddamagetotheirreputationintheirtargetmarket.Conversely,however,theunionsseethatusingtheirpowerinconfrontationalwayswouldriskdestroyingKaiser,andthat,comparedtootheremployers,Kaiserpaysandtreatsitsworkersrelativelywell.Thepartiesrecognizedthisinterdependenceinalandmark“partnership”agreementthatwasincludedinthecollectivebargainingcontractin1997.Thisagreementlaunchedalabor/managementpartnershipthatwasuniqueinitsscaleandambition,anditisstillfunctioningatthetimeofthispaper’swriting(Kochanetal.,2008;Kochan,Eaton,McKersie,&Adler,2009)(Kochan,2013).ThecollaborationenabledbythispartnershiphasbecomecentraltoKaiser’seffortstomeetitsever-intensifyingcompetitivechallenges,providingafoundationforcombiningtop-downinitiativesbyspecializedtechnicalstaff(e.g.fornewcomputerizedmedicalrecords)withbottom-upinputandinvolvementbyabroadrangeofpersonnel(forlocalimprovementprojects),aswellaswithextensivelaterallearning(sothatsimilarlocationscansharelessonslearned).(Formorecriticalviewsofthepartnershipasunioncapitulation,seeBorsos(2013)andEarly(2011).)

Thefollowingsectionsshowhowvalue-rationalitycanbescaleduptosupportlarge-scalecollaboration,andweusetheKaisercasetoillustratesomeofthecorrespondingmanagementtechniques.Deployingthesevariousmanagerialtechniques,Kaiserhasindeedseendramaticperformancegains.Kaiserperformsnearthetopoftherankingsofhealthcaredeliveryorganizationsinmanyofthekeyoperationalmetrics(Schillingetal.,2010a;Whippyetal.,2011),andhasdevelopedanimpressivecapacityforradicalinnovation(Nelson,2010).Surveysofworkerattitudesconductedjointlybyunionandmanagementshowimprovedworkermorale,too,withwidespreadsupportforthepartnershipprocessanditsoutcomes(whichhave,inrecentyears,includedwageandbenefitgainsaswellasgrowthinunionmembership)(Kochan,2013).

VALUESWhenorganizationsattempttoscaleupvalue-rationality,thekeychallengeinthevalues

dimensionisthatofavoidingfragmentation.Letusunpackthatidea.Thecollaborativeorganizationalformmust,first,ensurethesalienceoftheultimatevaluesassuperordinategoals(Sherif,1958).Second,whereasthecollegialformreliesoncommitmenttoanultimatevalueintowhichitsmembersarealreadysocialized,thecollaborativeformmustfindawaytoforgeandsustainasharedpurposeagainstthefragmentationpressurescreatedbyadiversityofbackgroundsandadiversityoffunctionallydifferentiatedroles.Wededuce—extendingWeber’sconceptioninthedirectionproposedbyHabermas(1992)—thatbothend-goalsandmeansforachievingthemmustremainsubjecttodiscussionbasedonpublicstandardsofvalidity,ratherthanrevertingtobureaucraticauthority,traditionalisticstatusorcharismaticleadership.Third,ifpurpose(asvalue-rationalaction)istobeinstitutionalized,ultimatevaluesmustguideeverymember’sactions,notonlythetopexecutives’.Therefore,thecollaborativeorganizationformmustbeoneinwhichtheorganization’sultimatepurposesareatthecenteroforganizationallifeandinwhichallmembersshareanunderstandingofthosepurposes.Membersmustidentifywiththesepurposesastheirown:thepurposesmustbepersonallymeaningful,andeachmember’schoicesmustbeguidedbytheirowncommitmenttothesepurposes.Fourth,value-rationalactionmeansthatmembersusethoseultimatevaluestochooseappropriateactionswhenfacedwithnewandunforeseen

Page 12: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.12

12

circumstances.Thecollaborativeorganizationalmustthereforeformulateitsultimatevaluesinawaythatallowsmemberstoconnectthemtodailydecision-making.

Thecollaborativeorganizationalform,wesubmit,canmeetthischallengebyinstitutionalizinganethicofcontribution,whichwedefineasasharedconvictionthatthemostimportantvirtueiscontributingtotheachievementtheorganization’spurpose.Thesalienceofthissharedpurposecanthenmotivateandguidedecision-making.SeveralmanagementtechniqueshaveevolvedsinceWeber’stimethatoperationalizesuchanethicofcontributionandtherebycreateacontextthatsupportspurposeincomplexorganizations.

Someofthesetechniqueshelpfocusinternaldiscussiononthecontributiontheorganizationmakestothebroadersociety—howitmeetscustomers’needs.Thesetechniqueshaveblossomedinrecentdecadesascompaniesorientthemselvesawayfromcommodityproductsandtowardscustomer-specific,integratedsolutions.NumerouscompanieshaveadoptedtechniquessuchasQualityFunctionDeployment(Akao,2004),a“front-back”organizationstructures(Brady,Davies,&Gann,2005;Galbraith,2002),theBalancedScorecard(Kaplan&Norton,2001),andtheHoshinKanriplanningprocess(Cole,1999).Theseallarticulatemultidimensionalvalueprioritiesinwaysthatalloweveryonetoconnecttheirdailyworktothesatisfactionofcustomerneeds.Thesetechniqueshelptranslatethevalueprovidedbytheorganizationtoitscustomersintotermsthatcanguideeverydaydecision-makingthroughouttheorganization.

Othertechniqueshelporchestrateabroadervarietyofvoicesinthestrategydiscussion.Forvalue-rationalitytobetrulyrational,boththeultimatevaluesthemselvesandthemeansofachievingthemmustbesubjecttodiscussionbasedonpublicstandardsofvalidity(Habermas,1992).Inthisrespecttoo,historyhasovertakenWeber.WhereWeberassumedthatvalue-rationalityreliedonnon-rationalcommitmentstotheultimatevalues—Nietzscheanactsofwill(Hennis,1988)anddevotiontoquasi-religious“deities”(Friedland,2013)—Habermasandlaterscholarshaveidentifiedarangeoftechniquesformakingvalue-rationaldiscoursemorethoroughlyrationalthroughanoperationalizationofthe“idealspeechsituation”(Habermas,2001).Inthepracticalworldofindustry,wefindthestrategyprocess—defining,implementing,monitoring,andadjustingstrategy—sometimestakingadialogicalanddeliberativeformthatcorrespondssurprisinglycloselytoHabermas’smodel.Arangeoftechniquesarenowavailabletosupportsuchstrategydialoguebothwithintheorganization,asparticipativestrategyprocesses(Forester,1999),andbeyondtheorganizationalboundaries,intheformofmulti-stakeholderstrategydialogues(Roloff,2008;Zadek,2008).Andarangeoftechniqueshasemergedtofacilitateexplicitdiscussionofvaluesandpurposeandorchestratingculturechange(theliteratureisenormous:e.g.Kim,2005;Lewis,1996;Scott,Mannion,Davies,&Marshall,2003;Shook,2010).

Athirdbundleoftechniquesaimtoshape“organizationalculture”—members’valuesandidentities.Whileorganizationalcultureasa“fad”mayhavepassed(PhillipsCarson,Lanier,Carson,&Birkenmeier,1999),itbequeathedaconsiderablebodyofmanagerialtechnologythatfacilitatesdeliberateeffortstoprovokereflectionandchange(Cameron&Quinn,2005;Schein,2010).Kaiserillustration.

Kaiserillustratesthekeyroleofanethicofcontributionincreatingandsustainingsharedpurpose.Manyhealthcareorganizationsare“segmented,”wherethehospitalmanagersoperateunderinstrumentally-rationalmarketvaluesandthedoctorswhopracticeinthehospitaladheretoverydifferent,professionalvalues.Somewhatcontroversially,Kaiserpushedhardforasinglesharedpurpose:managersanddoctorsalikeareexpectedtoconsiderbothpatientclinicaloutcomesandtheeconomicconsequencesofclinicaldecisions.Wheremanydoctorsinprivatepracticelongrefusedanyroleincontrollinghealthcareexpenditures,Kaiser’sdoctorsparticipateinthateffort.ThecreationandmaintenanceofthissharedpurposeissupportedbynumerousforumswhereKaiser’sphysiciansdiscussthemeaningofthiscomplex,multi-dimensionalvalue-commitment.

Page 13: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.13

13

DoctorsoutsideKaiserareoftenlefttomaketheirowncostversusqualitytradeoffchoicesinthediagnosticsandtreatmentstheyorder;increasinglyoften,theyarepenalizedfinanciallybytheiremployersorinsurancecompaniesfororderingthemoreexpensiveoptionevenwhenthatoptionpromisedbetterclinicalresults.AtKaiser,incontrast,therewasastrongcommitmentthatthesechoiceswouldnotdegradeclinicaloutcomes;however,wherethereisanequallyeffectiveoptionthatislessexpensive,doctorsareencouragedtoconsiderit.Forexample,Kaiserdoesitsownresearchontheclinicalequivalenceofgenericmedicationsanddisseminatesthoseresultstoitsdoctors.Thesecost/qualitychoicesandtheassociatedresearcharediscussedinweeklyormonthlymeetingsofphysiciansatthemedical-officebuildinglevel,inmonthlymeetingsofphysiciansintheirspecialtydepartments,andinbi-monthlyoff-siteretreatsfordoctorsfromtheentireservicearea.Medicaldepartmentsregularlyreviewunblindedcomparisonsofdoctors’outcomes.Asonedoctorexpresseditinaninterviewweconducted:“AtKaisertherewillbenocost/qualitytradeoffs.Butwemustbegoodstewardsofourmembers’dollars.”ThesetechniquesfosteradistinctivelycollaborativeidentityamongKaiserdoctors.Wheredoctorselsewherearethetargetsofextensive“drugdetailing”effortsbypharmaceuticalcompanies,Kaiserbanneddrugdetailinginitsfacilities.Conversely,whenKaiser’sdoctorschooseaquestionablepathofdiagnosisortreatment,theyarelikelytoreceiveacallfromacolleagueaskingforapeer-to-peerdiscussionoftheirchoices.(Theprocessiscalled“academicdetailing”:see,forex.,Postlethwaite,Shaber,Mancuso,Flores,andArmstrong(2007).)Kaiserthuscarefullycultivatesanethicofcontribution.

Theoperationalizationofanethicofcontributionandtheinstitutionalizationofvalue-rationalityacrossphysicianandnon-physiciancategoriesatKaiserhavealsobenefittedfromthedefinitionofthe“ValueCompass”in2010(Schillingetal.,2011a).TheCompassshows“patientandmemberfocus”atthecenterandfourgoalsatitsfourpoints—“Bestquality,bestservice,mostaffordable,bestplacetowork.”TheValueCompassoperationalizestwokeyfeaturesofcollaborativeorganizationalform.First,thesegoalswerenotdictatedbytopmanagement;instead,theywerejointlydefinedthroughintensivedialoguebetweenmanagementandunions(KaiserPermanente&CoalitionofKaiserPermanenteUnions,2012).Second,itdefinesthesharedpurposeoftheorganizationintermsthatcaninformdailyworkacrosstheentireorganization.Asdiscussedfurtherbelow,peopleatalllevelsareengagedinworkingouthowtheycantranslatethetop-levelValueCompassgoalsintotheirlocalworkprocesses,givingthemaunityofpurposeintheirdailyworkandtheirdailyimprovementefforts.

NORMSThekeychallengeinthenormsdimensionisgoaldisplacement.Inasmall,collegialgroup,

interactionalnormscanremaininformalwithoutlosingtoomuchefficiency;butacrossalarger,heterogeneousorganization,efficientcoordinationrequiresmoreformalizednorms.ThisformalizationwasamajorfactormotivatingWeber’sskepticism:hefearedthatformalizationwouldbetheoccasionforspecializedstaffstoimposeproceduresontheoperatingcore.Formalizationwouldthusunderminethesalienceoftheorganization’sultimatevalues,replacingtheethicofcontributionwithabureaucraticethicofinstrumental-rationalconformance.

Forvalue-rationalactiontoprevailatscale,thecollaborativeorganizationmustinstitutionalizeameta-normofsubstantiverationality.Thatis,thebehavioralexpectationsforeachrolemustbeevaluatedconstantlyforboththeirefficiencyandtheirappropriatenesstotheultimatepurpose(Kalberg,1980).

Inthecollaborativeform,normsmightbemoreorlessformalizedasprocedures,butwhatevertheextentofformalization,theseproceduresaredesignedandimplementedwiththeorganizations’ultimatepurposeconstantlyinview.ThissubstantivetypeofrationalitycontrastswithwhatWeber(1978:p.85)called“formal”rationality,whichisoperativewhenthecourseofactionisdecidedinlightofitsconformancewithrationally-derived,formalizedrules.Substantiverationalitydoesnotprecludeformalrationality,butitsubordinatesthelattertotheactors’

Page 14: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.14

14

constantconsiderationofultimatevalues(Biggart&Delbridge,2004).(Intheclassiccaseoflegalreasoning,thedistinctionbetweenformalandsubstantiverationalityisthatbetweendecisionsbasedonconsistencywithestablishedcanonsoflegalreasoninganddecisionsbasedonwhethertheoutcomeisconsideredjust.)

Thisprincipleofsubstantiverationalitycanbeoperationalizedifactorsatalllevelsmanagetheirinterdependenciesthroughacombinationof(a)dialogueaimedatdecidinghowbesttopursuetheirsharedgoals,and(b)formalproceduresthatarethemselvestheproductofdialogueaimedatdecidingwhichproceduresmightbestsupportsuchsharedgoals.Wecallthiscombination“interactiveprocessmanagement.”Thisinteractiveprocessgeneratesnorms—bothformalizedandinformal—thatarewidelyexperiencedas“enabling”ratherthanascoercivelyimposedormerelyceremonial(seeAdler,1999a;Adler&Borys,1996,buildingonGouldner's(1954)distinctionbetweenrepresentative,punishment-centered,andmockbureaucracy).

Suchnormsallowthecollaborativeorganizationalformtoovercometheriskofgoaldisplacementandsustainpurpose.SinceWeber’stime,managementtechniqueshavebeendevelopedtoside-stepthisriskbyfosteringcollaborationintheprocessofformalizationitself.Protocolssuchforkaizen,processmapping,brainstorming,participatorymeetingmanagement,decision-makingwithmultiplestakeholders,andprojectmanagementnowallowthecollaborativeorganizationtomobilizesizeablecross-functionalandcross-organizationalteamstowardsbothmanagingtheircurrentinterdependenciesanddesigningformalsystemsthatcanfacilitatethatmanagement.Theformalizationoftheseprotocolsgeneratessystems—bothformalandinformal—thatareexperiencedasenabling:theyfacilitatethefluidmovementofpeopleamongprojectsinordertobringspecializedknowledgetobearattherighttimesandplaces,andthefluidformationofprojectteams(seeforex.Geraldi,2009;Mom,VanDenBosch,&Volberda,2009).Suchnormsfacilitatecollaborationbyprovidingaplatformforthedeliberateandcontinualrenegotiationofworkingrelations;theymakeitpossibleforpeopletoadjusttheirexpectationsofeachotherastaskdemandsshift(Juillerat,2010).Kaiserillustration.

ThefabricofnormsatKaiserexemplifiesseveralfeaturesofthecollaborativemodelandtheoperationalizationofthesubstantiverationalityprinciple.WhileKaiserphysiciansaremanagedunderrelativelyformalizedprocedures,Kaiser’sleadershiphassoughttoensurethatthesesystemsareexperiencedasenablingtoolsratherthanascoercivebureaucraticconstraints.

Clinicalguidelinesillustratethepoint.Wheremanydoctorsinprivatepracticechafeunderthebureaucraticconstraintsofmedicalguidelinesimposedbygovernmentorinsurancecompanies,Kaiser’sdoctorscollaboratewiththeirKaiserpeersandwithotherclinicalandnon-clinicalpersonneltodefineguidelines.Whentheactivityisentirelywithinpurviewofamedicalspecialty,therelevantgroupofdoctorswilldeveloptheseguidelinesthemselvesorreviewandadaptnationally-establishedguidelines.Whentheactivityinvolvesmultiplespecialtiesandotherstaff,theseguidelinesaredevelopedandrefinedwithinputandparticipationofabroaderrangeofoccupations(Whippyetal.,2011).

Thelabor/managementpartnership,too,bothinitsstrategicandoperationalformshasshapednormstosupportvalue-rationalcollaboration.Asalaborrelationsstrategy,thepartnershiphelpsKaisersustainpurposethroughitsrelianceonnormsof“interest-basedbargaining”(McKersieetal.,2008).Interest-basedbargainingisaniceexampleofhowsubstantiverationalitycanbeoperationalizedandinstitutionalizedthroughinteractiveprocessmanagement.Underthesenorms,managementandlabornegotiatetofindareaswheretheycanfindcommonpurposeandcraftwin-winsolutionsthatcreateabiggerpie(“integrative”bargaining).Inareaswheretherearenowin-winsolutionstobefound,theybargainovertherelativesharesofthepie(“distributive”bargaining).Takingtheintegrativepartseriouslymeansthattheunionisdeeplyinvolvedinhelpingshapetheorganization’sgoalsaswellasitsoperations.Takingthedistributivepart

Page 15: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.15

15

seriouslymeansthat,evenastheycollaboratewithmanagement,unionsworktopreserveandstrengthentheircapacityforindependentaction.

Asanoperationsstrategy,labor-managementpartnershiphasledtothecreationof“unit-basedteams,”whereunionizedstaff,management,andphysicianscooperateinexaminingeverystepoftheworkprocesstoanalyzewhy,when,andhowpeopleperformtheirtasks,andtoaskiftheremightbeamoreefficientandeffectivewaytooperate(Cohen,Ptaskiewicz,&Mipos,2010).Thisteam-basedinnovationeffort,too,embodiessubstantiverationality,astheseunit-basedteamsworkonimprovementsthattheyseeasmostrelevanttotheirwork,choosingtargetsthatcontributeinsomewaytooneoftheover-archingorganizationalpurposesdefinedbytheValueCompass.(Thecollectivebargainingagreementprotectsunionmembersfrombeinglaidoffasaresultofanyoftheseimprovementefforts:wherechangesinservicesortechnologyhavemadejobsredundant,theagreementprovidesrelativelygenerousprovisionsforretrainingandacommitmenttodoingwhateverisfeasibletofindemploymentelsewherewithinKaiser.)TheUBTsrelyonastandardizedprocedureina“plan-do-study-act”cycle,andhaveinstitutionalizeddaily“huddles”toreviewworkandimprovementprioritiesfortheday.

By2013,over80%ofdepartmentsatKaiserhadatleastonesuchUBTteam.Workingintheseteams,physicianshavebeenchallengedtogiveuptheirhierarchical,status-basedauthorityandtoworkcollaborativelywithnurses,technicians,cleaners,andadministrators(Cohenetal.,2010).In2013,aboutaquarteroftheseteamswerefocusedonimprovingservicequality,aboutaquarteronreducingcostswithoutimpairingquality,andabout10%onimprovingclinicalperformancethroughpreventionanddiseasemanagement.

AUTHORITYThekeychallengeintheauthoritydimensionposedbyeffortstoscaleupvalue-rationality

iscentralization.Large,complexbusinessorganizationsunderperformancepressuretypicallyrequirethecentralizationofatleastsomedecisions.However,theconceptofvalue-rationalactionseemstoprecludearoleforcentralizedauthority,sinceinvalue-rationalactioneachactordecidesontheircourseofactionasafunctionoftheircommitmenttotheultimatevaluesratherthansubmittingtoanyelse’scommand.

Thecollaborativeorganizationalformmeetsthischallengebyensuringthatauthorityflowstothoserecognizedasbeingbestpositionedtocontributetothepurposeoftheorganization.Authorityhereisendorsedfrombelowasafunctionofsharedpurpose,ratherthandelegatedfromaboveandacceptedinutilitarianexchange,oracceptedpassivelyastraditional,orderivedfromaffectual,charismaticbonds.Regardlessofthedegreeofcentralization—whetherauthorityis“distributed”(Cullen&Yammarino,2014),centralized,ordual(asinmatrixforms)—authorityflowstothosewhoarewidely-acknowledgedasbestabletocontributetotheorganization’ssharedpurposes(assuggestedbyAime,Humphrey,DeRue,&Paul,2013).

Thisidealisoperationalizedinthecollaborativeformthroughtheprincipleofparticipativecentralization.Underthisprinciple,centralizationisparticipativeintwosenses:(a)thedegreeofcentralizationisdecidedparticipatively,and(b)whereandinsofarasauthorityiscentralized,itneverthelessfunctionsinaparticipativemanner.Ifmemberssharethepurposesoftheorganization,theresultingauthoritystructure(whethermoreorlessextensive)willnotbeexperiencedasalienating,butinsteadwillbeexperiencedas“autonomy-supporting”(Deci&Ryan,1987)andwillsupportvalue-rationalcollaboration.

Muchofthescholarshipinourfieldwouldbeskepticalofanyconceptthatpurportstocombineparticipationandcentralization,assumingthatcentralizationandparticipationarepolaropposites(e.g.McCaffrey,Faerman,&Hart,1995).However,astheseconstructshavebeendefinedmorepreciselyinorganizationalresearch,theyshouldnotbetakentobemutuallyexclusive.Centralizationisassessedbyascertainingthelowesthierarchicallevelatwhichadecisioncanbemadewithoutpriorconsultationwithasuperior(Pugh&Hickson,1976).Participationisassessed

Page 16: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.16

16

byascertainingthelowesthierarchicallevelatwhichrealinfluenceonthedecisionisexerted(Hage&Aiken,1970).Whereascentralizationandautonomyareinacleartrade-offrelation,centralizationandparticipationarebetterconceptualizedasindependent,orthogonaldimensionoftheauthoritystructure.Thecollaborativeorganizationis,weargue,highonbothdimensions.

Thematrixtypeofauthoritystructureisonekeyinnovationinmanagementtechniquethathasoperationalizedcontribution-baseauthorityandtherebyfacilitatedparticipativecentralizationandsustainedpurpose.Whenorganizationsrelyonthefamiliarmonocraticcentralizedhierarchyofauthority,theresultistypicallyanoveremphasisonlocalgoalsratherthanorganizationalpurpose.Collaborationthereforeoftenrequiresamatrixstructurewithmultipledimensionsofaccountability,wheredecisionsonthelocusofauthorityarecontingentonthenatureofthedecisionsthatneedtobetaken(Galbraith,1994).Matrixstructures,however,arenotoriousforthechallenging“organizationalpolitics”engenderedbytheirmultiplereportingrelationships,andasaresult,thesestructuresaredifficulttosustainandorganizationshavesufferedmanyimplementationfailures(Burns,1989;Larson&Gobeli,1987).Nevertheless,competitivepressureshavepushedfirmstopersistintryingtomasterthesechallenges,andinmanyfirmstodaymatrixisataken-for-grantedcondition;indeed,therehasbeenanevolutionovertimetowardmatrixstructureswithmorethantwodimensions(Galbraith,2008;Heckscher,2007;Strikwerda&Stoelhorst,2009).Thekeytomasteringtheseimplementationchallengesliesinavalue-rationalcommitmenttosharedpurposeandtheethicofcontribution:itisthissharedpurposethatenablesindividualcontributors,functionalmanagers,andprojectmanagersfindcommongroundintheirdecision-making.Kaiserillustration.

Tofacilitatethepursuitofitsdiversegoals,Kaiserhascreatedasizable“PerformanceImprovement”staff,whichfunctionsinamatrixrelationshipwithline-managementclientgroups(Schillingetal.,2010a).Indeed,Kaiser’sauthoritystructureisextensivelymatrixed.Managersandnon-managerialpersonnelhavelearnedtoaccommodatethemselvestotheunusualdegreeoforganizationalcomplexityrequiredtoensurethattheorganization’sultimatepurposeiskeptconstantlyinview.

Thelabor-managementpartnershiphelpsKaisermeetitsexternalchallengesbysupportingparticipativecentralizationacrossthewiderorganization.First,theunit-basedteamsaffordimportantopportunitiesfordistributedleadership:leadershipwithintheseteamsisdeterminedbycontribution,notbyhierarchicalposition.Second,theseteamsarecharteredthroughanexplicitnegotiationprocessthatisanchoredintheValueCompass:theteamsnegotiatewithgoalswithmanagementandunionsponsorasafunctionoftheirabilitytoadvanceoneormoreoftheValueCompassgoals(KaiserPermanenteLaborManagementPartnership,2015).Andthird,totheextentthatdecisionsneedtobecentralized,ahierarchyofjointlabor/managementcommitteesgovernsdecision-making,fromthenational,totheregional,anddowntothefacilitylevel.Whilethiscentralizedstructurehasundoubtedlyaddedorganizationaloverhead,itensuresthatthedecisionsmadecentrallybyhigher-leveldecision-makersareseenaslegitimatebylowerlevelsintheorganization.Theunioncoalition’spartnershipwithmanagementinjointpursuitoftheValueCompassgoalsreassuresmembersthatthatthesecentralizeddecisionsareorientedtowardstheorganization’sultimatepurposes.ThislegitimacyhasenabledKaisertoundertakeseveralpotentiallyhighlycontroversialmoveswithoutmajorinternalconflict.Someofthesemovesinvolvedcost-cuttingandworkforceredundancies:thesewerehandledwithoutconflictthankstoadvanceplanningandpartnershipcommitmentstoretrainingandredeployment.

Page 17: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.17

17

CAPABILITIESThekeychallengeinthecapabilitiesdimensionliesinspecialization.Asorganizationsgrow

insizeandcomplexity,tasksbecomespecializedandvalue-rationalactionstumblesforlackofthecapabilitiesrequiredforeffectivecollaborationacrossthesedifferentiatedskillsandmind-sets.

Thecollaborativeorganizationisdistinctiveindeliberatelyfosteringthedevelopmentofthecapabilitiesthatactorsneedinordertocontributetotheorganization’spurpose.Insteadofleavingmembers’freetodeveloptheirskillsinwhateverdirectionappearstothemasinstrumentallyrationalinpursuitoftheirindividualcareerandlabor-marketgoals,thecollaborativeorganizationdeliberatelyplansmembers’skilldevelopmenttosupporttheirabilitytocontributetotheorganization’sultimatepurposes.(SeealsoLindenbergandFoss2011,p.509ontheimportanceof“Trainingschemesthatincreasetheunderstandingofhowsubgoalachievementhelpsrealizehigher-ordergoalsinthefirm.”)

Thecollaborativeorganizationalformsystematicallycultivates“T-shaped”skills(Iansiti,1993;Leonard-Barton,1995).T-shapedtechnicalskills—deepknowledgeinone’sownspecialtycombinedwithbreadthofknowledgeoftherelatedtechnicalspecialties—facilitatetheemergenceofthe“commonground”thatiscriticaltolearningfromandcollaboratingwithothers(Puranam,Singh,&Chaudhuri,2009).Thesetechnicalskillsmustbebuttressedbycomplementarysocialskillstoenableeffectivecross-functionalteamwork(Cordero,1999;Kang&Snell,2009).Thecollaborativeformthusrejectstheolderideaof“expertise”(describedbyWeberinhistreatmentofformalrationalityinbureaucracy),inwhichspecializedknowledgeisappliedseparatelyandautonomouslybyeachactortoproblemswithinhisorherdomain(or“office”).Thecollaborativeformrequiresthatone’sspecializedknowledgebecombinedwithothers’withanintentionalfocusonthecommonpurpose.

Thecollaborativeorganizationalformbuildsthesecapabilitiesthroughbothpersonnelselectionandskillformation.Asconcernsselection,thecollaborativeorganizationselectspeoplewiththeappropriateT-shapedskillsandteamworkpropensitiesinsofarasthisunusualcombinationisavailable.Avastportfoliooftechniques(andanassociatedfieldofscholarship—industrial/organizationalpsychology)hasemergedsinceWeber’stimetoassistorganizationsinselectingpersonnelwhofitsuchdemands(see,forex.,Schmidt&Hunter,1998).

Asconcernsskillformationtrajectories,thecollaborativeorganizationdoesnotleaveitentirelytoindividualemployeestodecideforthemselvesbasedontheirindividualinstrumental-rationalcareeradvancementgoals.Collaborativeorganizationsleveragetheethicofcontributionandthesalienceofsharedpurposetoorientthisskillformationprocesstowardstheorganization’spurposes,withpoliciesthatencouragemembersbothtodeepenandtobroadentheirskillsthroughaplannedsequenceofprojectexperiencesandcross-functionalassignments.OrganizationssuchasToyotamobilizethissenseofsharedpurposetoassuretheirworkers’buy-intothefirm’sformalized,comprehensive,andlong-termskill-developmentpolicies(Adler,1999b;Brown&Reich,1997).Bothmanagementandshop-floorpersonnelaresystematicallyrotatedthroughvariousdepartments,progressivelybroadeninganddeepeningtheirskills.

Ahostofnewmanagementtechniqueshaveariseninthepastfewdecadestoidentifyandplanforthedevelopmentofvariouswork-relatedcompetencies(Dubois,1998,2010;McClelland,1973).Today,wehavemanyinformation-technologytoolsthatsupportallaspectsofcompetencymapping,diagnosis,developmentplanning,andmonitoring(Draganidis&Mentzas,2006).Informationtechnologyalsocontributesmoredirectlytotheorganizationalcapabilitiesrequiredbycollaborationwhenitisdeployedintheorganization’soperatingcoretostretchoutwardthetrade-offfrontierbetweencost-efficiencyandflexibility,reducingminimumefficientscaleandreducingthegapbetweencustomizationandmassproductionbydeployingmasscustomizationtechniques(Pine,1993).

ToensurethatskillsaredevelopedanddeployedinthisT-shapeddirection,thecollaborativeformrequiresadistinctivecompensationapproachthatrewardspurpose-oriented

Page 18: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.18

18

skillformation.Here,compensationisbasedbothontheentireorganization’sprogresstowardsitspurposesandontheindividual’scontributiontothatprogress.Thecollaborativeorganizationmaydifferentiatecompensationamongindividualsbasedonperformance,butitdoesnotdosothroughtheusualpay-for-performanceapproach,whichrewardspeopleformeetingfixedtargetssetbyhigherauthorities.Instead,thekeycriterionistheindividual’scontributiontothecomplex,multidimensionalorganizationalpurposes,thusbothleveragingandbuttressingtheorganization’sethicofcontribution(seeLindenbergandFoss2011,p.512,ontheimportanceof“Grouprewardsthatemphasizethecontributiontocommongoalsatahigherorganizationallevelthanthegroupitself”).Organizationshavedevelopedinnovativewaystoassessandreinforceorientationtoteamworkandtohelpingothers(Gittell,2000;Rubinstein&Kochan,2001).Just“doingagoodjob”isnotsufficient;individualsarestretchedtothinkandactbeyondtheirjobsandtoavoidthedysfunctionsofinappropriatebureaucraticrule-following.Becauseformalsupervisorscannotbeawareoftheentirerangeofactivitiesoftheirsubordinateswhentheselatterareengagedonmultipleprojectsandcontributingoncross-cuttingdimensions,collaborativeorganizationsusesystemssuchas360-degreefeedbacktodevelopandvalidatereputationalinformation(Bracken,Timmreck,Fleenor,&Summers,2001;Peiperl,2001).Kaiserillustration.

DoctorsnewtoKaisergothroughathree-yearprobationaryperiodduringwhichtheyareregularlyevaluatedandcoachednotonlyontheirtechnicalcompetencebutalsoontheircollegialrelationswithotherdoctors,therespecttheyshowforotherstaffandpatients,andtheirwillingnesstocontributeideasandefforttoimprovingtheorganization’sperformance.Managers,includingphysicianswhotakeonmanagerialresponsibilities,undergoregular360assessments.PhysiciansareresponsiblecollectivelyforthemanagementoftheregionalPermanenteMedicalGroups,andasaresult,aconsiderableproportionofthembroadentheirskillsbyacquiringsophisticatedmanagement,business,andleadershipcompetencies.

Moregenerally,allKaiserstaffcategories,fromphysicianstojanitorialpersonnel,havebeendrawnintopartnershipactivities,andinparticular,intotheworkofunit-basedteams,wheretheyhavedevelopednewskillsinproblem-solving,leadingmeetings,analyzingworkprocesses,identifyingimprovementopportunities,presentingcogentargumentsinteammeetingsandinbiggerforums,energizingotherstogetinvolved,dealingwithconflictingviewsanddivergentinterests,andunderstandingthebusinesssideofKaiserandtheeconomicsofhealthcare.Kaiserhasconsiderablyexpandedtheirinternaltrainingprogramstosupportthedevelopmentofthesenewskills.KaiserhasalsoinvestedenormousresourcestocreateanITinfrastructure—”KPHealthconnect”—thatsupportscollaborativeresponsestotheindividualpatient’sneeds(Mohrman&Kanter,2012).Litwin(2010)showsthatthistechnologyinfrastructureyieldsgreaterperformanceoutcomeswhereitisassociatedwithhigherlevelsofemployeeinvolvementthroughKaiser’slabor-managementpartnership.

Tosupportpurpose,Kaiseralsoimplementsdistinctivecompensationpolicies.UnlikeindependentpractitionerswhooncepredominatedintheUShealthcaredeliverysystem,Kaiser’sphysiciansaresalariedmembersofagrouppractice.RecentyearshaveseenashiftinpaymentsystemsforKaiser’sphysicians,awayfromstraightsalarytowardsmoreperformance-basedpay,butdesignedneverthelesstobuttressthevalue-rationalethicofcontribution.Some30%ofthephysician’ssalaryis“atrisk,”butthatcomponentisbasedentirelyonpatientsatisfactionandclinicaloutcomes—notoncostnoronphysicians’“utilization”rates.Anycostssavingsthemedicalgroupmakes(relativetothetargetedoverallcost-per-patientovertheyear)arereinvestedinmedicalequipmentandprograms.

Non-managerialpersonnelunderthePartnershipagreementshareinKaiser’snetrevenuesbasedonbonusplansregionallynegotiated.Thebonusespayoutequalamountstoalltheregion’semployeesbasedonwhethertheregionhasmettargetsthatarenegotiatedbetweenunionsand

Page 19: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.19

19

managementandthatreflectamixofvariablesfromthevariouspointsontheValueCompass,suchasattendance,safety,service,andclinicaloutcomes.Startingwiththe2012collectivebargainingagreement,thesebonusesarealsobasedonthehealthstatusofKaiser’sownpersonnel.

DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONThispaperaimedtospecifytheorganizationalformthatcouldcreateandsustainawidely-

sharedcommitmenttotheorganization’spurposeinlarge,complexbusinesses.Weshowedthatvalue-rationalactionprovidesthemostappropriatefoundationforsuchpurpose,andweidentifiedfourkeychallengesinscalingupvalue-rationalitybeyondsmallcollegialgroups.Wepointedtowaysinwhich,notwithstandingWeber’sownskepticism,arobustorganizationalform—welabeledit“collaborative”—couldinstitutionalizevalue-rationalitythroughthedeploymentofmanagerialtechniquesdevelopedsinceWeber’stime.

Inthisconcludingsection,weaddressinturnthemoderatorsthatconditionthevalueofpurposetoperformanceandthosethatconditionthevalueofthecollaborativeformtopurpose.Wethenturntosomelimitationsandpossibleextensions.Moderators

Frompurposetoperformance.Priorresearchsuggeststhattheimportanceofpurposetofirmperformancedependsontaskinterdependenceanduncertainty.Wherecoretasksaremoreroutineandlessinterdependent,employees’conformanceisperhapsmoreimportantthantheirdiscretionaryeffort,cooperation,andcreativity,andheretheappropriatedesignofextrinsicrewardsandsanctionswilllikelybemoreeffectivethanthecreationandongoingmaintenanceofasenseofsharedpurpose.Thecoretaskcharacteristicsdependinpartonindustry,industrycontext,andfirmstrategy.

Industrycontextwarrantsspecialconsideration:inthebusinesssector,purposeitselfisaproblematicfeatureoforganizations.Perhapsmostfundamentally,intherealworldofbusiness,marketcompetitionandwage-costpressureoftenpushexecutivestomakechangesthatconflictwithotherelementsofsharedpurpose.Itishardlysurprising,then,thatthestabilizationofthevalue-rationalorganizationformisdifficultandnotyetcompleteinanyfor-profitbusinesssettingthatweknowof.

WeshouldnoteinparticularthatourportraitofthecollaborativeformatKaisershouldnotbereadtoimplythatKaiserstandsasapristineembodimentofthatmodel.TherearemanymomentsandlocationsatKaiserwherethepressureofperformanceandofhumanfrailtiesbeliethataspiration.Ontheotherhand,theperformancebenefitsofpurposeandcollaborationareconsiderable,atleastwheretaskinterdependenceanduncertaintyarehigh,andorganizationssuchasKaiserareinterestingbecausewecanseetracedthereinoutlinewhatsuchaformconsistsof.

Fromcollaborativeformtopurpose.Theimportanceofthecollaborativeorganizationalformforcreatingandsustainingpurposewilllikelydependonorganizationalsizeandcomplexity.Asimplerform—thecollegialmodeldiscussedbyWeber—willbemorecosteffectiveforsmallerorganizationswithmorehomogeneousmembers(intermsofpriorsocializationandcurrenttaskrequirements).Thecollaborativeformdependsonreliablemechanismsforestablishingandupdatingreputations;butweknowthatthesemechanismsarevulnerabletoopportunisticmanipulation.Thehighlevelofparticipationincollaborativeorganizationsrequiresconsiderablemeetingtime;butsuchmeetingsarecostlyandburdensome.Thecollaborativeformrequiresopennesstodiversity,difference,anddisagreement;butitofferslittleassurancethesewillnotexplodethecollectivityorsealtheorganizationofffromtheoutsideworldasaclosedsect.

Inamorespeculativevein,futureresearchmightalsoconsiderwhetherthecollaborativeform,ratherthanbeingjustoneorganization-designoptionamongseveral,representsinsteadanevolutionaryadvancebeyondthoseothers.Inthisperspective,ifasocialinnovationprocesshasyieldednewmanagementtechniquesthatalloworganizationstoinstitutionalizevalue-rationality

Page 20: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.20

20

inlarge,complexorganizations,perhapsthiscollaborativeorganizationalformmightbecomeanefficientsolutiontothechallengesfacingabroaderrangeoforganizations.Ifwehavelearnedhowtosustainpurposeinlarger,morecomplexorganizations,thenperhapsitbecomescosteffectivetoshiftworkdesignstoallowforandleveragemoreemployeediscretionandcreativityeveninsettingswherepreviouslythemarketorbureaucraticformsoforganizationseemedoptimal.

WemightlinkthisconjecturetoBarleyandKunda’s(1992)argumentthatmodelsofmanagementhaveswunginapendulummovementbetweentheculturalantinomiesofcontrolandcommitment.Ouranalysissuggeststhatacrossthesequenceof“commitment”models—fromIndustrialBetterment,toHumanRelations,toOrganizationalCulture—thereisanunderlyingtrendlinerepresentingtheprogressiveemergenceandrefinementofthevalue-rationalcollaborativeideal-type.Futureresearch

Micro-foundations.Futureresearchshouldaimtoexplicatetheindividualcognition,motivation,emotion,orbehaviorsimplicitinourcausalmodel.Animportantnextstepinthelineofresearchwehaveproposedwouldbetodevelopamulti-levelmodelthatallowsustoseehowthecollaborativeorganizationalformshapescollaborativeindividualbehaviors,andthenhowtheseindividualbehaviorsaggregatetogeneratetheex-postpurposeinFigure1.

Extensiontoambidexterity.Agrowingliteratureonambidexteritysuggeststhatcreatingandsustainingasenseofsharedpurposemightbeacriticalsuccessfactorfororganizationspursuingsimultaneouslyexplorationandexploitation.Thelocusanddegreeofrequisitecollaborationvariesacrossthevariousambidexterityapproaches;butinallofthem,alltherelevantactorsmustfeelconfidentthatotherswillbeorientedtotheirsharedultimatepurposeevenincircumstancesthatcannotcurrentlybedefinedorpredicted—andthevalue-rationalcollaborativeformoffersthisadvantage.

Inthefunctionalapproachtoambidexterity,thefirmneedsasenseofsharedpurposeacrossfunctionally-differentiatedsubunits,suchasR&Dandoperations(e.g.Lovelace,Shapiro,&Weingart,2001):theR&Dunitmustbewillingandabletoanticipatedownstreamissues(suchas“manufacturability”),andtheoperationsunitsmustbewillingandabletoembraceratherthanresistthedisruptionoccasionedbytheintroductionofnewdesigns.Inthestructuralapproach,ambidexterityrequiresastrongsenseofsharedpurposewithinthetop-managementteamifitistocombinesuccessfullytheeffortsofexploitationandexplorationbusinesslines(e.g.Jansen,George,VandenBosch,&Volberda,2008;Tushman,Smith,Wood,Westerman,&O'Reilly,2010).Inthecontextualapproach(Gibson&Birkinshaw,2004)itseemslikelythatachievementoftheambidexteritywouldbenefitfromthecollaborativeforminsofarasitwouldhelpactorsmanagetheirinterdependenceunderthestressofjugglingincommensurableexploitationandexplorationgoalsintheireverydayworkactivities.

Extensionstootherhybridorganizations.Ourargumentmightalsobeextendedfurther,tosituationswheretheorganizationfacesmultipleheterogeneousdemandsofvariouskinds.Forexample,manyorganizationstodayareunderpressurebothtoofferhigherqualityproductstotheircustomersandtoreducetheirenvironmentalfootprint.Moregenerally,manyorganizationsareunderpressuretosatisfythedemandsofmorediversestakeholders.Incurrentscholarship,thesechallengeshavebeenaddressedbytheliteratureon“hybrid”organizationsininstitutionaltheory(Greenwood,Raynard,Kodeih,Micelotta,&Lounsbury,2011)orhybrididentities(Albert,Ashforth,&Dutton,2000).Insofarastheseorganizationsaimtosynthesizemultiplepurposes,ourcollaborativemodelprovidesacompassheadingthatcanguidetheirefforts.

Extensiontonon-profit,volunteerorganizations.Ourconceptofpurposeisclosetotheconceptof“civicaction”advancedbyLichtermanandEliasoph(2014),buttheworldofcivicvoluntaryactionthattheystudyispopulatedbysmallerandsimplerorganizations.Ourargumentimpliesthatlargermorecomplexorganizationsofthistypearelikelytobemoreeffectiveifthey

Page 21: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.21

21

adoptthecollaborativeformsketchedhere.Futureresearchcouldusefullytestourargumentandenrichtheconceptintheprocess.LichtermanandEliasoph’sconceptof“styles,”forexample,suggeststhatwithinthecollaborativeform,wearelikelytofindavarietyofwaysofenactingvalue-rationality.

Externallegitimacy.Onelessonfromthisidentityliteratureisthat,insofarasorganizationsaimtocreateahybrididentity,theymustcontendnotonlywiththeinternalmanagerialchallengesthathavebeenthefocusofthepresentpaper,butalsowithexternallegitimacychallenges.Eachoftheconstituentidentitiesandlogicswilltypicallyrequiresomedegreeofsupra-organizationalinstitutionallegitimacy,andthesuccessoftheorganizationinhybridizinginternallywillbeinfluencedbythesebroaderfield-levelactorsandfactors.Kaiserprovidesaniceexample.Kaiser’ssuccesshingedconsiderablyonitsabilitytoenrollarangeofexternal,field-levelactorssoastolegitimateitsefforts,suchasthemedicalprofession,patient-rightsgroups,andtherelevantstateagencies.Scott,Ruef,Mendel,andCaronna(2000)exploresomefacetsofthisstruggle,andfutureresearchmightexplorehowappealstovalue-rationalityacquirelegitimacyinthisbroader,field-leveltransformation.

Externalenablers.Theimportanceofthebroadercontextextendsbeyondthesymbolic-culturallegitimacyitmaybestow:thecollaborativeformisfarmorelikelytoemergeandpersistiftheorganizationfunctionsinacontextthatblocksthefirmanditscompetitorsfromtakinga“lowroad”ofworkintensificationasapathtoprofitabilityandcompetitivesurvival.Kristensen(Kristensen,forthcoming)forexample,discussesformsofintra-andinter-firmorganizationinDenmarkthatappearveryclosetoourvalue-rationalcollaborativemodel,andexplainshowtheseformsareencouragedonthe“supplyside”byenablinglabortotakeactivepartinshapingenterprisessupportedbysocialwelfareservices(training,child-andeldercare,supportforhousing,etc.)andonthe“demandside”bygovernmentpoliciesthatareresponsivetonewneeds(suchasenvironmentalprotection,health,andcityplanning).

Page 22: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.22

22

References

Adler,P.S.1999a.Buildingbetterbureaucracies.AcademyofManagementExecutive,13(4):36-

50.Adler,P.S.1999b.HybridizationofHumanResourceManagementattwoToyotatransplants.InJ.K.

Liker,W.M.Fruin,&P.S.Adler(Eds.),RemadeinAmerica:TransplantingandtransformingJapanesemanagementsystems,:75-116.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Adler,P.S.2001.Market,Hierarchy,andTrust:TheKnowledgeEconomyandtheFutureofCapitalism.OrganizationScience,12(2):215-234.

Adler,P.S.,&Borys,B.1996.TwoTypesofBureaucracy:EnablingandCoercive.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,41(1):61-89.

Adler,P.S.,Kwon,S.,&Heckscher,C.2008.Professionalwork:Theemergenceofcollaborativecommunity.OrganizationScience,19(2).

Aime,F.,Humphrey,S.,DeRue,D.,&Paul,J.2013.Theriddleofheterarchy:Powertransitionsincross-functionalteams.AcademyofManagementJournal,57(2):327-352.

Akao,Y.2004.Qualityfunctiondeployment:integratingcustomerrequirementsintoproductdesign.NewYork:ProductivityPress.

Albert,S.,Ashforth,B.E.,&Dutton,J.E.2000.OrganizationalIdentityandIdentification:ChartingNewWatersandBuildingNewBridges.AcademyofManagementReview,25(1):13-17.

Angell,M.1993.Thedoctorasdoubleagent.KennedyInstituteofEthicsJournal,3(3):279-286.Barley,S.R.,&Kunda,G.1992.Designanddevotion:Surgesofrationalandnormativeideologiesof

controlinmanagerialdiscourse.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,37(3):363.Barnard,C.I.1938.Thefunctionsoftheexecutive.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Bendix,R.1956.Workandauthorityinindustry.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.Besharov,M.L.,&Khurana,R.2015.Leadingamidstcompetingtechnicalandinstitutional

demands:RevisitingSelznick’sconceptionofleadership.InstitutionsandIdeals:PhilipSelznick’sLegacyforOrganizationalStudies(ResearchintheSociologyofOrganizations,Volume44)EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited,44:53-88.

Biggart,N.W.,&Delbridge,R.2004.Systemsofexchange.TheAcademyofManagementReview,29(1):28-49.

Borsos,J.2013.TheSurrenderofOakland:The2012NationalAgreementbetweentheCoalitionofKaiserPermanenteUnionsandKaiserPermanente.WorkingUSA,16(2):269-276.

Bracken,D.,Timmreck,C.,Fleenor,J.,&Summers,L.2001.360feedbackfromanotherangle.HumanResourceManagement,40(1):3-20.

Brady,T.,Davies,A.,&Gann,D.M.2005.Creatingvaluebydeliveringintegratedsolutions.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,23(5):360-365.

Brint,S.G.1994.InanAgeofExperts:TheChangingRoleofProfessionalsinPoliticsandPublicLife.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Brown,C.,&Reich,M.1997.Micro-macrolinkagesinhigh-performanceemploymentsystems.OrganizationStudies,18(5):765.

Burns,L.R.1989.Matrixmanagementinhospitals:Testingtheoriesofmatrixstructureanddevelopment.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly:349-368.

Cameron,K.S.,&Quinn,R.E.2005.Diagnosingandchangingorganizationalculture:Basedonthecompetingvaluesframework:JohnWiley&Sons.

Cohen,P.M.,Ptaskiewicz,M.,&Mipos,D.2010.Thecaseforunit-basedteams:Amodelforfront-lineengagementandperformanceimprovement.ThePermanenteJournal,14(2):70-75.

Cole,R.E.1999.Japanesequalitytechnology.InJ.Liker,M.Fruin,&P.S.Adler(Eds.),RemadeinAmerica:TransplantingandTransformingJapaneseManagementSystems:

Page 23: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.23

23

TransplantingandTransformingJapaneseManagementSystems:203-231.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Collins,J.C.,&Porras,J.I.1996.Buildingyourcompany'svision.HarvardBusinessReview(September-October):65-77.

Cordero,R.1999.DevelopingtheknowledgeandskillsofR&Dprofessionalstoachieveprocessoutcomesincross-functionalteams.TheJournalofHighTechnologyManagementResearch,10(1):61-78.

Cromwell,J.,Trisolini,M.G.,Pope,G.C.,Mitchell,J.B.,&Greenwald,L.M.2011.Payforperformanceinhealthcare:Methodsandapproaches:RTIPress.

Cullen,K.,&Yammarino,F.J.2014.Specialissueoncollectiveandnetworkapproachestoleadership.TheLeadershipQuarterly,25(1):180-181.

Deci,E.L.,&Ryan,R.M.1987.Thesupportofautonomyandthecontrolofbehavior.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,53(6):1024-1037.

Doty,D.H.,&Glick,W.H.1994.Typologiesasauniqueformoftheorybuilding:Towardimprovedunderstandingandmodeling.AcademyofManagementReview,19(2):230-251.

Dougherty,D.1992.Interpretivebarrierstosuccessfulproductinnovationinlargefirms.OrganizationScience,3(2):179-202.

Draganidis,F.,&Mentzas,G.2006.Competencybasedmanagement:areviewofsystemsandapproaches.InformationManagement&ComputerSecurity,14(1):51-64.

Drucker,P.F.,&Maciariello,J.A.2008.ManagementRevEd:Zondervan.Dubois,D.D.1998.Thecompetencycasebook:twelvestudiesincompetency-basedperformance

improvement.AmherstMA:HRDPress.Dubois,D.D.2010.Competency-basedhumanresourcemanagement.BostonMA:Nicholas

BrealeyPublishing.Early,S.2011.TheCivilWarsinUSLabor:BirthofaNewWorkers'MovementOrDeathThroes

oftheOld?:HaymarketBooks.Eaton,A.E.,Konitsney,D.,Litwin,A.S.,&Vanderhorst,N.2011.ThePathtoperformance:AStudyof

high-performingunit-basedteamsatKaiserPermanente:KaiserPermanent,Labor-ManagementPartnership

Etzioni,A.1975.ComparativeAnalysisofComplexOrganizations,Rev:SimonandSchuster.Follett,M.P.,Metcalf,H.C.,&Urwick,L.F.1942.Dynamicadministration.Forester,J.1999.Thedeliberativepractitioner:Encouragingparticipatoryplanningprocesses.

CambridgeMA:TheMITPress.Foss,N.J.,&Lindenberg,S.2013.Microfoundationsforstrategy:agoal-framingperspectiveonthe

driversofvaluecreation.TheAcademyofManagementPerspectives,27(2):85-102.Freeman,J.1972.TheTyrannyofStructurelessness.BerkeleyJournalofSociology,17:151-164.Freeman,R.E.,Wicks,A.C.,&Parmar,B.2004.StakeholderTheoryand"TheCorporateObjective

Revisited".OrganizationScience,15(3):364-369.Friedland,R.2013.God,loveandothergoodreasonsforpractice:Thinkingthroughinstitutional

logics.InstitutionalLogicsinAction:ResearchintheSociologyofOrganizations,39:25-50.

Galbraith,J.1973.DesigningComplexOrganizations.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.Galbraith,J.2002.Organizingtodeliversolutions.OrganizationalDynamics,31(2):194-207.Galbraith,J.2008.DesigningMatrixOrganizationsthatActuallyWork:HowIBM,Proctor&

GambleandOthersDesignforSuccess.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.Galbraith,J.R.1994.CompetingwithFlexibleLateralOrganizations(2nded.).Reading,MA:

Addison-Wesley.Geraldi,J.2009.Reconcilingorderandchaosinmulti-projectfirms.InternationalJournalof

ManagingProjectsinBusiness,2(1):149-158.

Page 24: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.24

24

Gibson,C.,&Birkinshaw,J.2004.Theantecedents,consequences,andmediatingroleoforganizationalambidexterity.AcademyofManagementJournal,47:209-226.

Gittell,J.H.2000.Paradoxofcoordinationandcontrol.CaliforniaManagementReview,42(3):101-117.

Gouldner,A.W.1954.PatternsofIndustrialBureaucracy.Glencoe,IL:FreePress.Grant,A.M.2008.Thesignificanceoftasksignificance:Jobperformanceeffects,relational

mechanisms,andboundaryconditions.JournalofAppliedPsychology,93(1):108.Grant,R.M.1996.TowardaKnowledge-basedTheoryoftheFirm.StrategicManagementJournal,

17:109-122.Grant,R.M.,&Baden-Fuller,C.1995.AKnowledge-basedtheoryofInter-firmcollaboration.

AcademyofManagementJournal:17-21.Greenwood,R.,Raynard,M.,Kodeih,F.,Micelotta,E.R.,&Lounsbury,M.2011.Institutional

complexityandorganizationalresponses.TheAcademyofManagementAnnals,5(1):317-371.

Habermas,J.1992.Moralconsciousnessandcommunicativeaction.CambridgeMA:TheMITPress.

Habermas,J.2001.Onthepragmaticsofsocialinteraction:preliminarystudiesinthetheoryofcommunicativeaction:MITPress.

Hackman,J.R.,&Oldham,G.R.1976.MotivationthroughtheDesignofWork:TestofaTheory.OrganizationalBehavior&HumanPerformance,16(2):250-279.

Hage,J.,&Aiken,M.1970.SocialChangeinComplexOrganizations.NewYork:RandomHouse.Heckscher,C.2007.TheCollaborativeEnterprise.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.Hennis,W.1988.ThetracesofNietzscheintheworkofMaxWeberMaxWeber:Essaysin

Reconstruction:146-162.London:Allen&Unwin.Hinings,C.,&Greenwood,R.2015.Missinginaction:ThefurthercontributionofPhilipSelznickto

contemporaryinstitutionaltheory,Institutionsandideals:PhilipSelznick’slegacyfororganizationalstudies:121-148:EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited.

Hollensbe,E.,Wookey,C.,Hickey,L.,George,G.,&Nichols,C.V.2014.Organizationswithpurpose.AcademyofManagementJournal,57(5):1227-1234.

Howell,B.M.,&Avolio,B.J.1993.TransformationalLeadership,TransactionalLeadership,LocusofControl,andSupportforInnovation:KeyPredictorsofConsolidated-Business-UnitPerformance.JournalofAppliedPsychology,78(No.6):891-903.

Humphrey,S.E.,Nahrgang,J.D.,&Morgeson,F.P.2007.Integratingmotivational,social,andcontextualworkdesignfeatures:ameta-analyticsummaryandtheoreticalextensionoftheworkdesignliterature.JournalofAppliedPsychology,92(5):1332.

Iansiti,M.1993.Real-worldR&D:Jumpingtheproductgenerationgap.HarvardBusinessReview,71(3):138-147.

James,J.2012.Healthpolicybrief:pay-for-performance.HealthAffairs,11:2043-2050.Jansen,J.,George,G.,VandenBosch,F.,&Volberda,H.2008.SeniorTeamAttributesand

OrganizationalAmbidexterity:TheModeratingRoleofTransformationalLeadership.JournalofManagementStudies,45(5):982-1007.

Jaques,E.1989.Requisiteorganization:TheCEO'sguidetocreativestructureandleadership:CasonHallArlington,VA.

Jha,A.K.,Joynt,K.E.,Orav,E.J.,&Epstein,A.M.2012.Thelong-termeffectofpremierpayforperformanceonpatientoutcomes.NewEnglandJournalofMedicine,366(17):1606-1615.

Juillerat,T.L.2010.Friends,notfoes?:Workdesignandformalizationinthemodernworkcontext.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,31(2-3):216-239.

Jyoti,J.,&Dev,M.2015.Theimpactoftransformationalleadershiponemployeecreativity:theroleoflearningorientation.JournalofAsiaBusinessStudies,9(1):78-98.

KaiserPermanente,&CoalitionofKaiserPermanenteUnions.2012.NationalAgreement.

Page 25: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.25

25

KaiserPermanenteLaborManagementPartnership.2015.Kalberg,S.1980.MaxWeber'sTypesofRationality:CornerstonesfortheAnalysisofRationalization

ProcessesinHistory.TheAmericanJournalofSociology,85(5):1145-1179.Kang,S.C.,&Snell,S.A.2009.Intellectualcapitalarchitecturesandambidextrouslearning:a

frameworkforhumanresourcemanagement.JournalofManagementStudies,46(1):65-92.

Kaplan,R.S.,&Norton,D.P.2001.Transformingthebalancedscorecardfromperformancemeasurementtostrategicmanagement:PartII.AccountingHorizons,15(2):147-160.

Kim,W.C.2005.BlueOceanStrategy:HowtoCreateUncontestedMarketSpaceandMakeCompetitionIrrelevant/W.ChanKim,ReneeMauborgne–HarvardBusinessReview.

Klein,H.J.,Molloy,J.C.,&Brinsfield,C.T.2012.ReconceptualizingWorkplaceCommitmenttoRedressaStretchedConstruct:RevisitingAssumptionsandRemovingConfounds.AcademyofManagementReview,37(1):130-151.

Kochan,T.A.2013.TheKaiserPermanenteLaborManagementPartnership:2009-2013.CambridgeMA:MITSloanSchoolInstituteforWork&EmploymentResearch.

Kochan,T.A.,Eaton,A.E.,McKersie,R.B.,&Adler,P.S.2009.Healingtogether:thelabor-managementpartnershipatKaiserPermanente.Ithaca:ILRPress.

Kristensen,P.H.forthcoming.ConstructingChainsofEnablersforAlternativeEconomicFutures:DenmarkasanExample

.AcademyofManagementPerspectives.Larson,E.W.,&Gobeli,D.H.1987.Matrixmanagement:contradictionsandinsights.California

ManagementReview,29(4):126-138.Leonard-Barton,D.1995.WellspringsofKnowledge:BuildingandSustainingtheSourcesof

Innovation.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Lewis,D.1996.Theorganizationalculturesaga-fromODtoTQM:acriticalreviewoftheliterature.

Part1-conceptsandearlytrends.Leadership&OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,17(1):12-19.

Lichterman,P.,&Eliasoph,N.2014.CivicAction.AmericanJournalofSociology,120(3):798-863.Ling,Y.,Simsek,Z.,Lubatkin,M.H.,&Veiga,J.F.2008.TheimpactoftransformationalCEOsonthe

performanceofsmall-tomedium-sizedfirms:doesorganizationalcontextmatter?JournalofAppliedPsychology,93(4):923.

Litwin,A.S.2010.Technologicalchangeatwork:Theimpactofemployeeinvolvementontheeffectivenessofhealthinformationtechnology.IndustrialandLaborRelationsReview,64(5):863-888.

Lovelace,K.,Shapiro,D.L.,&Weingart,L.R.2001.Maximizingcross-functionalnewproductteams'innovativenessandconstraintadherence:Aconflictcommunicationsperspective.AcademyofManagementJournal,44(4):779-793.

March,J.G.,&Sutton,R.I.1997.Crossroads-organizationalperformanceasadependentvariable.Organizationscience,8(6):698-706.

Marens,R.2009.It'snotjustforcommunistsanymore:Marxianpoliticaleconomyandorganizationtheory.InP.S.Adler(Ed.),TheOxfordHandbookofSociologyandOrganizationStudies:ClassicalFoundations:92-117.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Martin,J.1992.Culturesinorganizations:Threeperspectives.N.Y.:OxfordUniversityPress.Martin,J.A.,&Eisenhardt,K.M.2010.Rewiring:Cross-business-unitcollaborationsin

multibusinessorganizations.TheAcademyofManagementJournal53(2):265-301.Marx,K.1990[1867].Capital(B.Fowkes,Trans.).London:Penguin.McCaffrey,D.P.,Faerman,S.R.,&Hart,D.1995.Theappealanddifficultiesofparticipativesystems.

OrganizationScience,6:603-627.

Page 26: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.26

26

McCarthy,D.,Mueller,K.,Wrenn,J.,&Fund,C.2009.KaiserPermanente:Bridgingthequalitydividewithintegratedpractice,groupaccountability,andhealthinformationtechnology.NewYork:CommonwealthFundNewYork.

McClelland,D.C.1973.Testingforcompetenceratherthanfor"intelligence".AmericanPsychologist,28(1):1-14.

McKersie,R.B.,Sharpe,T.,Kochan,T.A.,Eaton,A.E.,Strauss,G.,&Morgenstern,M.2008.BargainingTheoryMeetsInterest-BasedNegotiations:ACaseStudy.IndustrialRelations,47(1):66-96.

Merton,R.K.1940.Bureaucraticstructureandpersonality.SocialForces,18:560-568.Michels,R.1966.PoliticalParties.NewYork,NY:TheFreePress.Mintzberg,H.1989.Mintzbergonmanagement:Insideourstrangeworldoforganizations:

SimonandSchuster.Mohrman,S.A.,&Kanter,M.H.2012.DesigningforHealth:LearningfromKaiserPermanente.InS.

A.Mohrman,&A.B.R.Shani(Eds.),OrganizingforSustainableHealthCare:77-111.Bingley,UK:Emerald.

Mom,T.,VanDenBosch,F.,&Volberda,H.2009.UnderstandingVariationinManagers'Ambidexterity:InvestigatingDirectandInteractionEffectsofFormalStructuralandPersonalCoordinationMechanisms.OrganizationScience,20(4):812-828.

Mommsen,W.J.1974.Theageofbureaucracy:PerspectivesonthepoliticalsociologyofMaxWeber.NewYork:Blackwell.

Morgan,P.I.,&Ogbonna,E.2008.Subculturaldynamicsintransformation:amulti-perspectivestudyofhealthcareprofessionals.HumanRelations,61(1):39-65.

Nelson,F.2010.FullNelson:Healthcareinnovation:Kaiser'sGarfieldCenter.InformationWeek,Feb23.

Ouchi,W.G.1979.Aconceptualframeworkforthedesignoforganizationalcontrolmechanisms.ManagementScience,25(September):833-848.

Ouchi,W.G.,&Jaeger,A.M.1978.TypeZorganization:Stabilityinthemidstofmobility.AcademyofManagementReview(April):305-314.

Peiperl,M.2001.Getting360degreesfeedbackright.HarvardBusinessReview,79(1):142-147.PhillipsCarson,P.,Lanier,P.A.,Carson,K.D.,&Birkenmeier,B.J.1999.Ahistoricalperspectiveon

fadadoptionandabandonment.JournalofManagementHistory,5(6):320-333.Pillai,R.,&Meindl,J.1998.Contextandcharisma:A"meso"levelexaminationoftherelationshipof

organicstructure,collectivism,andcrisistocharismaticleadership.JournalofManagement,24(5):643-671.

Pine,B.J.1993.Masscustomization:Thenewfrontierinbusinesscompetition.Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Porras,J.I.,&Collins,J.C.1997.Builttolast:HarperBusiness.Postlethwaite,D.,Shaber,R.,Mancuso,V.,Flores,J.,&Armstrong,M.A.2007.Intrauterine

contraception:evaluationofclinicianpracticepatternsinKaiserPermanenteNorthernCalifornia.Contraception,75(3):177-184.

Pugh,D.S.,&Hickson,D.J.1976.Organizationalstructureinitscontext:TheAstonprogrammeI.Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooks.

Puranam,P.,Singh,H.,&Chaudhuri,S.2009.IntegratingAcquiredCapabilities:WhenStructuralIntegrationIs(Un)necessary.OrganizationScience,20(2):313-328.

Roloff,J.2008.Learningfrommulti-stakeholdernetworks:Issue-focussedstakeholdermanagement.JournalofBusinessEthics,82(1):233-250.

Rubinstein,S.A.,&Kochan,T.A.2001.LearningfromSaturn:possibilitiesforcorporategovernanceandemployeerelations.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Satow,R.L.1975.Value-rationalauthorityandprofessionalorganizations.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,20(4):526-531.

Page 27: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.27

27

Schein,E.H.2010.Organizationalcultureandleadership:JohnWiley&Sons.Schilling,L.,Chase,A.,Kehrli,S.,Liu,A.Y.,Stiefel,M.,&Brentari,R.2010a.KaiserPermanente's

performanceimprovementsystem,Part1:Frombenchmarkingtoexecutingonstrategicpriorities.JointCommissionJournalonQualityandPatientSafety,36(11):484-498.

Schilling,L.,Dearing,J.W.,Staley,P.,Harvey,P.,Fahey,L.,&Kuruppu,F.2011a.KaiserPermanente'sperformanceimprovementsystem,Part4:Creatingalearningorganization.JointCommissionJournalonQualityandPatientSafety,37(12):532-532.

Schilling,L.,Dearing,J.W.,Staley,P.,Harvey,P.,Fahey,L.,&Kuruppu,F.2011b.KaiserPermanente'sperformanceimprovementsystem,Part4:Creatingalearningorganization.JointCommissionJournalonQualityandPatientSafety,37(12):532-543.

Schilling,L.,Deas,D.,Jedlinsky,M.,Aronoff,D.,Fershtman,J.,&Wali,A.2010b.Kaiserpermanente'sperformanceimprovementsystem,part2:Developingavalueframework.JointCommissionJournalonQualityandPatientSafety,36(12):552-560.

Schmidt,F.L.,&Hunter,J.E.1998.Thevalidityandutilityofselectionmethodsinpersonnelpsychology:Practicalandtheoreticalimplicationsof85yearsofresearchfindings.PsychologicalBulletin,124(2):262.

Schmitt,C.1988.Thecrisisofparliamentarydemocracy.Boston:MITPress.Scott,T.,Mannion,R.,Davies,H.T.O.,&Marshall,M.N.2003.Implementingculturechangeinhealth

care:theoryandpractice.InternationalJournalforQualityinHealthCare,15(2):111-118.

Scott,W.R.,Ruef,M.,Mendel,P.J.,&Caronna,C.2000.InstitutionalChangeandHealthCareOrganizations:FromProfessionalDominancetoManagedCare.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Selznick,P.1957.Leadershipinadministration;asociologicalinterpretation.Evanston,Ill.,:Row.

Selznick,P.1994.Themoralcommonwealth:Socialtheoryandthepromiseofcommunity:UnivofCaliforniaPress.

Sherif,M.1958.Superordinategoalsinthereductionofintergroupconflict.AmericanJournalofSociology:349-356.

Shook,J.2010.Howtochangeaculture:LessonsfromNUMMI.MITSloanManagementReview,51(2):42-51.

Singleton,L.2014.UnderstandingtheEvolutionofTheoreticalConstructsinOrganizationStudies:Examining“Purpose”.PaperpresentedattheAcademyofManagementProceedings.

Singleton,L.G.2011.UnderstandingtheEvolutionofTheoreticalConstructsinOrganizationStudies:ExaminingCooperationandPurpose.BostonCollege.

Steiner,I.D.1972.Groupprocessandproductivity.NewYork,:AcademicPress.Strikwerda,J.,&Stoelhorst,J.2009.Theemergenceandevolutionofthemultidimensional

organization.CaliforniaManagementReview,51(4):11-31.Sundaram,A.K.,&Inkpen,A.C.2004.Thecorporateobjectiverevisited.Organizationscience,

15(3):350-363.Thompson,J.D.1967.OrganizationsinAction:SocialScienceBasesofAdministrativeTheory.

NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Thomson,A.M.,Perry,J.L.,&Miller,T.K.2009.Conceptualizingandmeasuringcollaboration.

JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,19(1):23.Tushman,M.,Smith,W.,Wood,R.,Westerman,G.,&O'Reilly,C.2010.Organizationaldesignsand

innovationstreams.IndustrialandCorporateChange:1331-1366.VandeVen,A.H.,Delbecq,A.L.,&Koenig,R.J.1976.Determinantsofcoordinationmodeswithin

organizations.AmericanSociologicalReview,41:322-338.

Page 28: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.28

28

Wallace,W.1990.Rationality,humannature,andsocietyinWeber'stheory.TheoryandSociety,19(2):199-223.

Waters,M.1989.Collegiality,bureaucratization,andprofessionalization:AWeberiananalysis.AmericanJournalofSociology,94:945-972.

Weber,M.1978.Economyandsociety.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Whippy,A.,Skeath,M.,Crawford,B.,Adams,C.,Marelich,G.,Alamshahi,M.,&Borbon,J.2011.Kaiser

Permanente'sperformanceimprovementsystem,part3:multisiteimprovementsincareforpatientswithsepsis.JointCommissionJournalonQualityandPatientSafety,37(11):483-495.

Wood,D.J.,&Gray,B.1991.Towardacomprehensivetheoryofcollaboration.TheJournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,27(2):139.

Zadek,S.2008.Globalcollaborativegovernance:thereisnoalternative.CorporateGovernance,8(4):374-388.

Page 29: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.29

29

Figure1:Sustainingpurposeinlarge,complexorganizations

Ex-antepurpose

Scale,Complexity Challengesinscaling

upvalue-rationality:•Fragmentation

•Goaldisplacement

•Centralization

•Specialization

Keyfeaturesofthecollaborativeform:

• Ethicofcontribution

• Substantiverationality

• Contribution-basedauthority

• Contribution-orientedcapabilitydevelopment

Ex-postpurpose

Page 30: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Figure2:Scaling-upvalue-rationality Challengesof

scalingupvalue-rationality

Keyfeaturesofthecollaborativeform

Managerialtechniquesthatoperationalizethecollaborativeform’scharacteristicfeatures,withexamplesfromKaiserPermanente

Values Fragmentation:lossoftheorganization’sabilitytodefineacommonpurposeorpreserveitssalience

Institutionalizeanethicofcontribution

1.Focusoncustomerneeds(Solutions-orientedbusinessmodel,Front-backstructure,QualityFunctionDeployment,etc.)tolinkstrategytodailywork

*ValueCompassguidesactivityateverylevel

2.Widestrategydialogue

*ValueCompassdefinedjointlybyPartnership

3.Cultivatepurpose-orientedidentities

*Regularunblindedcomparisonofdoctorsoutcomes

*Regularmeetingsamongdoctorsoncost-efficacytension

*Bandrugdetailingandfosteracademicdetailing

*Recruitfor,andcelebratecombinedidentities

Norms Goaldisplacement:conformancereplacespurpose

Institutionalizeameta-normofsubstantiverationalitytocreateenablingsystems

1.Interactiveprocessmanagement(Protocolsforkaizen,processmapping,brainstorming,participatorymeetingmanagement,decision-makingwithmultiplestakeholders,andprojectmanagement)

*Standardizedproceduresforclinicalguidelinedevelopment

*StandardizedproceduresforPDSAcycle,dailyhuddles,etc.

2.Interactiveprocessdesign

*Participativedesignandrefinementofprocedures

*Multi-stakeholderparticipationinclinicalguidelinedevelopmentandrevision

*Unit-basedteamsdevelopandrefineprocessestoimproveservicequality,clinicalperformance,workersafety,andreducecosts

Authority Centralization:Delegatedauthoritydisplacesendorsedauthority,andcentralizationunderminesautonomy

Contribution-basedauthoritytocreateparticipativecentralization

1.Participativedecision-makinginsettingthedegreeofcentralization

*UBTsarecharteredbyjointlabor-management/doctorsponsors

2.Participativeexerciseofcentralizedauthority

*Hierarchyoflabor-managementcouncilsfromBoarddowntounitlevel

*UBTsaimatentireworkgroup,butarerepresentativewherethatismoreproductive

3.Distributedleadership

*UBTsledbywhomeverismostqualifiedtoleadtheproject

4.Multidimensionalauthoritystructures

*SpecializedstaffsforPerformanceImprovementandInnovationmatrixedwithlineorganizationsonprogramsand

Page 31: MANAGING FOR SHARED PURPOSE: HOW … for shared purpose: how business enterprises scale-up value-rationality from collegiality to collaboration paul s. adler (univ of southern california)

Fromcollegialitytocollaborationp.31

31

projects

*Medicalspecialty-coordinatorsacrosstheRegiondriveperformanceimprovementamongdoctors

Capabilities Specialism Contribution-orientedcapabilitydevelopmenttocreateT-shapedcapabilities

1.Purpose-orientedrecruitingandselectioncriteria

*Doctorsrecruitedforandevaluatedperiodicallyduringthree-yearprobation,ontechnicalcompetence,butalsocollegiality,respectforotherstaffandpatients,willingnesstocontributeideas,effortstoimprovetheorganization’sperformance

2.Socialandtechnicalcompetenciesformation

*Jointmanagement-unionfundforskilldevelopmentinproblem-solving,leadingmeetings,analyzingworkprocesses,identifyingimprovementopportunities,presentation,leadership,economicsofhealthcare

*Leadershiptrainingfordoctors

3.Contribution-orientedrewards

*Compensationbasedoncontributiontosharedpurpose

*30%ofdoctors’salaryis“atrisk,”basedonpatientsatisfactionandclinicaloutcomes–notoncosts

*360evaluationsofdoctorsandmanagers

*Workers’bonusdependsonregion-wideresultsonattendance,safety,service,clinicaloutcomes,andhealthstatusofKPpersonnel

4.Technologyinfrastructuresupport

*ITjointlyplannedandimplemented

*ITsupportsbothcentralizedanddistributedauthority

*ConductanddisseminateKPresearchongenericdrugequivalents


A Passion for TEACHING - · PDF fileThe collegiality of the faculty around the shared intellectual and moral ... Cinderella Cricket in Times ... value. Who a teacher is

Shared Purpose:

Towards General-Purpose Resource Management in Shared ...cs.brown.edu/~jcmace/presentations/mace14resource... · Towards General-Purpose Resource Management in Shared Cloud Services

Linda Holbeche PhD/media/Employers/Documents/Cam… · innovation – Tribal vs united by shared purpose ... • Shared purpose, values‐driven, patient care at the heart of

Virtual Teachers Real Collegiality ECOO 26-Oct-2012

Collegiality, ethics and the dilemmas of professionalism

A Shared Purpose for English Language Learners · A Shared Purpose for English Language Learners 16431 Lexington lvd. Department of Multilingual Services Newsletter Sugar Land, TX

INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS AND COLLEGIALITY AT THE …

Promoting ongoing cross institutional AALL collegiality, professionalism and research

What is Teacher Collegiality? - 2010.ccpc-conference.net2010.ccpc-conference.net/sites/default/files/presentationfiles/Preparing Teachers for a...What is Teacher Collegiality? Collegiality

Download Shared Purpose 8 Leadership Lessons for the - ARM

Collegiality, the Nursing Practice Environment, and Missed

Principal collegiality and school district effectiveness ...summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/5553/b1506055x.pdf · PRINCIPAL COLLEGIALITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT EFFECTIVENESS: A COMPARISON

Commitment ~ Communication ~ Collegiality - Napa Elks #832 · NAPA ELKS LODGE #832 Grapevine Express Commitment ~ Communication ~ Collegiality . ... Douglas FitzGibbon 27th Michael

Building for the Future - WordPress.com · 2019. 7. 1. · “When teachers engage in reflective practice, collegiality, and shared leadership, they come to understand themselves

COLLEGIALITY IN ORGANIZATIONS: AN ECONOMIC APPROACH …

Purpose Strength Model: Towards a Shared Purpose · 2020. 1. 8. · 5 IESE Business School - Purpose Strength Model: Towards a Shared Purpose / ST-524-E 8 Scherer, A. G., Palazzo,

GLOBAL COOPERATION: SHARED PURPOSE, MUTUAL TRUST (08.30.2012)

Shared Purpose - Sorbet as a Company Behaving Awesomely

Bishop John England and Episcopal Collegiality

Collegiality as a Fourth Criterion for Personnel Decisions Presentation … · Collegiality as a Fourth Criterion for Personnel Decisions! Dr.Bob Cipriano$ Dr.$Richard$L.$Riccardi$

Collegiality and intellectual love - CORE · Collegiality and intellectual love ... approach of Freud, ... Such policy undermines the capacity for intellectual love by fragmenting

Our Shared Purpose newsletter - November 2018 · 2 OUR SHARED PURPOSE OUR SHARED PURPOSE 3 Sara says her “heart feels warm” every time she thinks about the team at the Newcomers

Review of Tuesday Parking lot Classroom Design and Delivery ISAT Shared Vision and Code of Cooperation Consens-o-gram Collegiality Continuum Overview of

CSR for Purpose, Shared Value and

The New Normal: A shared purpose in Canadian Sport

ARM Shared Purpose

NYSDOT Shared Lane Marking (SLM) Policy...Page1of5. SLM Policy – 12/09/13. NYSDOT Shared Lane Marking (SLM) Policy. Purpose. The purpose of this policy is to explain how Shared Lane

Psyche: A General-Purpose Operating System for Shared-Memory

Tribal Colleges & Universities (TCU ’ S) Exploring Faculty Collegiality Exploring Faculty Collegiality Nora Antoine

SHARED BELIEFS AND PRACTICES FOR PUTTING PURPOSE … · Purpose-Driven Practices The following statements capture our shared beliefs, provide a guiding framework for how this work

Collegiality HER paper

From Social Risk to Shared Purpose: Reframing Mining’s

Our Shared Purpose newsletter - November 2018...OUR SHARED PURPOSE November 2018 Welcome to Canada Specialized clinic provides support to children with chronic illnesses (pg. 2) Support

Naf teacher collegiality 08