Resource Dependence Theory In Management
Resource Dependence Theory In Management
According to Pfeffer and Salancik (1978):
… the elemental structural characteristics of environments are concentration, the extent to which power and authority in the environment are widely dispersed; munificence, or the availability or scarcity of critical resources; and interconnectedness, the number and pattern of linkages, or connections, among organizations. These structural characteristics, in turn, determine the relationships among social actors – specifically, the degree of conflict and interdependence present in the social system. Conflict and interdependence, in turn, determine the uncertainty the organization confronts (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978, p. 68).
Pfeffer and Salancik determined three factors that influenced the level of dependence organizations had on particular resources. First, the overall importance of the resource to the firm was critical in determining the resource dependence of the firm. Second, the scarcity of the resource was also a factor. The more scarce a resource was, the more dependent the firm became. Finally, another factor influencing resource dependence was the competition between organizations for control of that resource. Together, all three of these factors acted to influence the level of dependence that an organization had for a particular resource.
Resource dependence theory also inferred that a firm’s strategic options were determined to a great extent by the environment. Since firms were dependent on the environment for resources, they needed to enact strategies that would allow them to acquire these resources. Therefore, the external environment had already been determined for these firms, and they experienced little strategic choice. However, those who supported the notion of managerial choice argued that some organizations were more effective than others in the same environments, thus proving that strategic choice did exist.
Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) argued that strategic choice and environmental determinism did not have to be mutually exclusive. They reasoned, “control over scarce resources is central to the relationship between choice and determinism” (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1985, p. 343). Lawless and Finch (1989) found limited support for the model developed by Hrebiniak and Joyce, stating that “parts of the model were not supported by our analysis, and that further questions … are actually raised” (Lawless and Finch, 1989, p. 361). Bedeian (1990) argued that neither argument is completely accurate, as “organizational adaptation is an ongoing, multi-directional relationship in which organizations neither mechanistically react to environmental forces nor exercise unrestricted free will (strategic choice)” (Bedeian, 1990, p. 571).
Within the resource dependence school, the environment was seen as the source of scarce resources that were critical to a firm’s survival. It was the lack of control over these critical resources, rather than a lack of information, that gave rise to environmental uncertainty. Environments that contained high levels of resources were perceived as less hostile to the stability of organizations, whereas those with low levels of resources acted to increase the intensity of competition among firms. Accordingly, resource dependence theorists argued that in order to reduce the impact of this environmental uncertainty on organizational performance, it was necessary for organizations to develop and sustain effective relationships with their external environment.
Perceptual versus archival measures of uncertainty
In operationalizing the environmental uncertainty construct, researchers in the resource dependence school have utilized both perceptual and archival measures of environmental uncertainty. However, archival measures have been most commonly employed to yield an objective measure of resource hostility (Dess and Beard, 1984; Yasai-Ardekani, 1989; Boyd, 1990; Wiersema and Bantel, 1993; Goll and Rasheed, 1997; Simerly and Li, 2000). These authors believed that the scarcity of resources in an environment was an objective reality, and thus needed to be measured objectively. Yasai-Ardekani (1989, p. 133) stated that “environmental munificence and scarcity refer to the objective condition of an environment and were thus measured with objective industry-demand data”.
A limited number of researchers have instead used perceptual scales in order to measure the level of environmental resource dependence (Koberg, 1987; Koberg and Ungson, 1987; Tan and Litschert, 1994; Tan, 1996). In a study of the joint effects of environmental uncertainty and resource dependence, Koberg and Ungson (1987) claimed that “consistent with the argument that perceptions of organizational contingencies and not objective properties determine decision-making behavior, two perceptual measures of environment were employed. One was a measure of environmental uncertainty … the other was a measure of environmental resource dependence” (Koberg and Ungson, 1987, p. 729).
Simple and complex measures of environmental uncertainty
As conceptualizations of environmental uncertainty have continued to evolve in the management literature, so too have operationalizations of uncertainty. Since the seminal works in the information uncertainty and resource dependence schools both posited that only one primary source of uncertainty existed in the external environment, researchers utilized simple measures to operationalize the uncertainty construct. As research in this area matured, scholars increasingly argued that several factors acted together to determine the total amount of uncertainty a firm faced in the environment. To reflect this belief and to form a more comprehensive view of uncertainty that had been lacking in the early literature, multidimensional operationalizations of uncertainty were developed (Milliken, 1987; Tan and Litschert, 1994).
Thompson (1967), in Organizations in Action, argued “uncertainty appears as the fundamental problem for complex organizations and coping with uncertainty, as the essence of the administrative process” (Thompson, 1967, p. 159). He conceptualized a firm’s external environment in terms of two main dimensions: heterogeneity/ homogeneity and stability/dynamism. A heterogeneous environment consisted of many elements that were different in nature; a homogeneous environment contained very similar elements. The stability/dynamism dimension referred to the rate of change present in the environment. A dynamic environment changed at a very rapid pace and thus created a great deal of uncertainty for firms; a stable environment typically remained unchanged and was therefore more predictable.
Duncan (1972), employing the works of Emery and Trist (1965) and Thompson (1967), also argued that there were two main dimensions along which the environment could be measured. Duncan called these the simple-complex dimension and the static-dynamic dimension. The simple-complex dimension measured the number of factors that were present in the environment. A simple environment consisted of a small number of key factors; a complex environment contained many different defining factors. The static-dynamic dimension of the environment was concerned primarily with the amount of change in these factors. A static environment experienced little or no change, while a dynamic environment was in a constant state of change.
Child (1972) utilized three dimensions to conceptualize the external environment. His first two dimensions were similar to those theorized by Thompson (1967) and Duncan (1972), measuring both rate of change and complexity. However, he also drew upon the resource dependence literature to develop a third dimension called “illiberality.” Illiberality referred to the overall availability of resources in the external environment.
Resource Dependence Theory In Management - To learn more about this author, visit Dr. Fathi El-Nadi's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) utilized the previous environmental literature to develop resource dependence theory. Resource dependence theory is based on the notion that environments are the source of scarce resources and organizations are dependent on these finite resources for survival. A lack of control over these resources thus acts to create uncertainty for firms operating in that environment. Organizations must develop ways to exploit these resources, which are also being sought by other firms, in order to ensure their own survival.
According to Pfeffer and Salancik (1978):
… the elemental structural characteristics of environments are concentration, the extent to which power and authority in the environment are widely dispersed; munificence, or the availability or scarcity of critical resources; and interconnectedness, the number and pattern of linkages, or connections, among organizations. These structural characteristics, in turn, determine the relationships among social actors – specifically, the degree of conflict and interdependence present in the social system. Conflict and interdependence, in turn, determine the uncertainty the organization confronts (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978, p. 68).
Pfeffer and Salancik determined three factors that influenced the level of dependence organizations had on particular resources. First, the overall importance of the resource to the firm was critical in determining the resource dependence of the firm. Second, the scarcity of the resource was also a factor. The more scarce a resource was, the more dependent the firm became. Finally, another factor influencing resource dependence was the competition between organizations for control of that resource. Together, all three of these factors acted to influence the level of dependence that an organization had for a particular resource.
Resource dependence theory also inferred that a firm’s strategic options were determined to a great extent by the environment. Since firms were dependent on the environment for resources, they needed to enact strategies that would allow them to acquire these resources. Therefore, the external environment had already been determined for these firms, and they experienced little strategic choice. However, those who supported the notion of managerial choice argued that some organizations were more effective than others in the same environments, thus proving that strategic choice did exist.
Hrebiniak and Joyce (1985) argued that strategic choice and environmental determinism did not have to be mutually exclusive. They reasoned, “control over scarce resources is central to the relationship between choice and determinism” (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1985, p. 343). Lawless and Finch (1989) found limited support for the model developed by Hrebiniak and Joyce, stating that “parts of the model were not supported by our analysis, and that further questions … are actually raised” (Lawless and Finch, 1989, p. 361). Bedeian (1990) argued that neither argument is completely accurate, as “organizational adaptation is an ongoing, multi-directional relationship in which organizations neither mechanistically react to environmental forces nor exercise unrestricted free will (strategic choice)” (Bedeian, 1990, p. 571).
Within the resource dependence school, the environment was seen as the source of scarce resources that were critical to a firm’s survival. It was the lack of control over these critical resources, rather than a lack of information, that gave rise to environmental uncertainty. Environments that contained high levels of resources were perceived as less hostile to the stability of organizations, whereas those with low levels of resources acted to increase the intensity of competition among firms. Accordingly, resource dependence theorists argued that in order to reduce the impact of this environmental uncertainty on organizational performance, it was necessary for organizations to develop and sustain effective relationships with their external environment.
Perceptual versus archival measures of uncertainty
In operationalizing the environmental uncertainty construct, researchers in the resource dependence school have utilized both perceptual and archival measures of environmental uncertainty. However, archival measures have been most commonly employed to yield an objective measure of resource hostility (Dess and Beard, 1984; Yasai-Ardekani, 1989; Boyd, 1990; Wiersema and Bantel, 1993; Goll and Rasheed, 1997; Simerly and Li, 2000). These authors believed that the scarcity of resources in an environment was an objective reality, and thus needed to be measured objectively. Yasai-Ardekani (1989, p. 133) stated that “environmental munificence and scarcity refer to the objective condition of an environment and were thus measured with objective industry-demand data”.
A limited number of researchers have instead used perceptual scales in order to measure the level of environmental resource dependence (Koberg, 1987; Koberg and Ungson, 1987; Tan and Litschert, 1994; Tan, 1996). In a study of the joint effects of environmental uncertainty and resource dependence, Koberg and Ungson (1987) claimed that “consistent with the argument that perceptions of organizational contingencies and not objective properties determine decision-making behavior, two perceptual measures of environment were employed. One was a measure of environmental uncertainty … the other was a measure of environmental resource dependence” (Koberg and Ungson, 1987, p. 729).
Simple and complex measures of environmental uncertainty
As conceptualizations of environmental uncertainty have continued to evolve in the management literature, so too have operationalizations of uncertainty. Since the seminal works in the information uncertainty and resource dependence schools both posited that only one primary source of uncertainty existed in the external environment, researchers utilized simple measures to operationalize the uncertainty construct. As research in this area matured, scholars increasingly argued that several factors acted together to determine the total amount of uncertainty a firm faced in the environment. To reflect this belief and to form a more comprehensive view of uncertainty that had been lacking in the early literature, multidimensional operationalizations of uncertainty were developed (Milliken, 1987; Tan and Litschert, 1994).
Thompson (1967), in Organizations in Action, argued “uncertainty appears as the fundamental problem for complex organizations and coping with uncertainty, as the essence of the administrative process” (Thompson, 1967, p. 159). He conceptualized a firm’s external environment in terms of two main dimensions: heterogeneity/ homogeneity and stability/dynamism. A heterogeneous environment consisted of many elements that were different in nature; a homogeneous environment contained very similar elements. The stability/dynamism dimension referred to the rate of change present in the environment. A dynamic environment changed at a very rapid pace and thus created a great deal of uncertainty for firms; a stable environment typically remained unchanged and was therefore more predictable.
Duncan (1972), employing the works of Emery and Trist (1965) and Thompson (1967), also argued that there were two main dimensions along which the environment could be measured. Duncan called these the simple-complex dimension and the static-dynamic dimension. The simple-complex dimension measured the number of factors that were present in the environment. A simple environment consisted of a small number of key factors; a complex environment contained many different defining factors. The static-dynamic dimension of the environment was concerned primarily with the amount of change in these factors. A static environment experienced little or no change, while a dynamic environment was in a constant state of change.
Child (1972) utilized three dimensions to conceptualize the external environment. His first two dimensions were similar to those theorized by Thompson (1967) and Duncan (1972), measuring both rate of change and complexity. However, he also drew upon the resource dependence literature to develop a third dimension called “illiberality.” Illiberality referred to the overall availability of resources in the external environment.
Resource Dependence Theory In Management - To learn more about this author, visit Dr. Fathi El-Nadi's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
 | |
 |
resource dependence
Commented on Resource Dependence Theory In Management. |
| |
Leave Your Feedback |
 | |
| |||
David AchesonDavid Acheson is the founder of DCJA Consultancy. DCJA Consultancy is a management consultancy business specialising in B2B sales consultancy. They offer bespoke and packaged sales consultancy including Sales Optimisation Review, Interim Sales Management, Sales & Marketing Review, 1:1 Sales & Management Staff Analysis, Management Training, Solution Sales Training, Creation of New Pay Plan, KPI's, run Customer Feedback Campaigns, assist with Recruitment, Coaching, Appraisals and set up Strategic Marketing Campaigns. David spent his early career in accountancy and then moved into sales in 1982, working in Office Equipment, IT, Advertising, Training, Outsourcing and Consultancy. He has held many Senior Positions in SMBs and Global Organisations including Head of Sales Operations & Head of Business Development. His knowledge, skills and great experience of the Sales Industry has led to David making keynote speeches and running educational sessions to key businesses through organisations including The Chamber of Commerce and Business Link. - Visit David Acheson's Website |
|||
John AlexanderJohn has taught keyword research and SEO skills to small groups of business owners and Webmasters from over 80 different countries world wide since 2002. John is also the Director of Search Engine Academy ; Co-director of Training at Search Engine Workshops offering live, SEO Workshops with his partner SEO educator Robin Nobles, author of the very first comprehensive online search engine marketing courses at SEO Training Online and the SEO Workshop Resource Center. I look forward to hearing from you! - Visit John Alexander's Website |
|||
Dave KurlanDave Kurlan is the founder and CEO of Objective Management Group, Inc., the industry leader in sales assessments and sales force evaluations, and the CEO of David Kurlan & Associates, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in sales force development. Dave has been a top rated speaker at Inc. Magazine's Conference on Growing the Company, the Sales & Marketing Management Conference and the Gazelles Sales & Marketing Summit. He has been featured on radio and TV, including World Business Review with General Norman Schwarzkopf, in Inc. Magazine, Selling Power Magazine, Sales & Marketing Management Magazine and Incentive Magazine. He is the author of Mindless Selling and Baseline Selling – How to Become a Sales Superstar by Using What You Already Know about the Game of Baseball. He created and wrote STAR, a proprietary recruiting process for hiring great salespeople, and he writes Understanding the Sales Force, a popular business Blog and is a contributing author to The Death of 20th Century Selling and 101 Great Ways to Improve Your Life, Volume 2. - Visit Dave Kurlan's Website |
|||
Linda RichardsonLinda Richardson is the Founder and Executive Chairwoman of Richardson, a global sales training and performance improvement company. As a recognized leader in the industry, she has won the coveted Stevie Award for Lifetime Achievement in Sales Excellence and she was identified by Training Industry, Inc. as one of the “Top 20 Most Influential Training Professionals.” Ms. Richardson is credited with the movement to Consultative Selling and is the author of ten books on selling and sales management, including Sales Coaching — Making the Great Leap from Sales Manager to Sales Coach, and Stop Telling, Start Selling. She teaches sales and management at the Wharton Graduate School of the University of Pennsylvania and the Wharton Executive Development Center. Linda is a frequent speaker at industry and client conferences, has been published extensively in industry and training journals, and has been featured in numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Nation’s Business, Selling Power, Success, and The Conference Board Magazine. Learn more about Richardson's sales training and performance improvement solutions at http://www.richardson.com web - Visit Linda Richardson's Website |
|||
Stephanie RobeyStephanie Robey is President and CoFounder of Pivot Positive, LLC - an Internet marketing business focused on helping people start work at home ventures. Previously, she was employed at The Search Agency with over 20 years experience in graphic design and 10 years experience in online marketing. She was responsible for launching the Conversion Path Optimization (CPO) unit where she and her team have conducted hundreds of optimization tests for online companies across multiple verticals. She is a successful entrepreneur having started and sold 2 companies and remains on the board of directors of the third, PhotoSpin.com Stephanie began her career in the direct marketing realm creating and producing direct mail for many of the major cable television companies and directly attributes her understanding of Internet marketing to those early offline experiences. Stephanie is a graduate of San Diego State University with a BFA in Graphic Arts and also holds an Executive MBA from the Graziadio School of Business and Management at Pepperdine University. Read Steph's Blog Meet Steph and Dave Sign up for our Free 7-Day BootCamp: Self Employed & Rich - Visit Stephanie Robey's Website |
|||
|
To learn more about the Evan Elite Author Program please contact us. | |||
 | |
|  |
Subscribe to Dr. Fathi's articles
 | |
|
|  |
 | |
|
| |
 | |||||||
|
 | ||
|
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
| ||
 |
| Have you written articles that would be of value to entrepreneurs? Become an expert on our site by publishing them! Expose yourself to a wide audience, drive more traffic to your website and get more sales! Click Here for details. |
|
|
 |
| Modeling the Masters: Learn the true secrets behind Walt Disney's business success factors & grow your company! Video produced by Phanta Media |
|
|
 |
"Learn straight from Evan how you can Make a Full Time Income (And More) from a Website"
Click Here To Learn More |
|
|
|
|
Get advice & tips from famous business owners, new articles by entrepreneur experts, my latest website updates, & special sneak peaks at what's to come!
|
|
|
 Aromatic Networking Why Banks Say No eguide Networking To Get Results Quick Start Guide Instant Yellow Pages |
|
 | ||
 |
More PR Resources
Press Release Builder | |
 |
Top 50 Geek Business Blogs
Top 50 Geek Business Blogs | |
| ||
 | ||||
| ||||
|
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Email us your ideas on how to make our website more valuable! Thank you Sharon from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for your suggestions to make the newsletter look like the website and profile younger entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez and Sean Combs!
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||