DISCUSSION THREAD 2 Network Organizations and the Environmental Process Dionna Ward-Stover Author

Network Organizations and the Environmental Process
Dionna Ward-Stover
Author Note
Dionna Ward-Stover
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Claudia S. Sample
Researchers are aware of the wide range of environments in which network organizations operate. That is because of their progressive growth and irrefutable practical proof of their importance. There is a growing awareness among business leaders and employees that the competitiveness of their products is only one facet of a much larger picture. This research focuses on various areas relating to network organizations and environmental processes, which include the types of organizational networks, such as dynamic, stable, and social networks, as well as evaluation of network impacts on environmental processes. The study research also covers the perspective of creating new organizations, technological and ecological processes, and organizational populations. Lastly, the research outlines biblical and personal perspectives view of network organizations and the environmental process. Network organizations for environmental preservation keep track of commercial enterprises’ commitment to sustainable projects and integrate their policies and operations accordingly. Involvement in an organization’s network may have a profound effect on the environment, especially when it comes to environmental issues. Changes in the environment and in technology are both included in the environmental process.
Keywords: Network, Environmental Process, Dynamic, Organizations, Technological Process
The debate concerning the value of network organizations has raged in the business and economics domain for a long time. The notion of network organizations operates because big and small enterprises do not survive in socially unstructured situations. Instead, they are interconnected on the social network web. Since the inception and realization of scientific truths, different sorts of networks and their repercussions on organizations have been identified. Network organizations must be ready to change and adapt to the existing environmental problems. It is also vital for such organizations to look at flexibility areas and the time needed for adjustments in a certain corporation. This research focuses on investigating the kinds of network organizations and their effect on environmental processes.
Types of Network Organizations
Network organizations for environmental preservation keep track of commercial enterprises’ commitment to sustainable projects and integrate their policies and operations accordingly (Fu & Cooper, 2020). To put it another way, network organizations refer to the setting in which people collaborate and plan their activities in pursuit of a shared purpose. By their purpose, method, and structural design features. They have described in this way that both intangible and specialized assets are subject to the same level of shared governance in a network organization’s organizational structure. They are also able to integrate intercommunication and support efficiently because they place such a focus on shared ownership. A blend of firm market vertical integration might be considered when analyzing network organizations. Many different types of networks exist today, each with their own unique set of stable, dynamic, and internal labeling (Rossetti & Cazabet, 2018).
Dynamic Network Organizations
Companies with a network structure based on internal units being exposed to the competitive market retain their inventive nature and gain the benefits of the marketplace without having to use external resources. Buying and selling commodities and services at open market pricing within the company is how it manifests. The operations of dynamic network architectures are supported by substantial outsourced funding (Shafigh et al., 2019). Temporary partnerships between potential partners and independent organizations working in the value chain are necessary for the development of a dynamic network. The fashion business, with its emphasis on fast-turnaround items, is an example of this network in action. For example, a well-known fashion company will get together all of its experts to create a new range of apparel for the upcoming season (De Silva et al., 2018). The specialist, on the other hand, will be excluded from working on the next season’s collection. Hollywood film production and high-tech companies are all part of this network (Du & Chen, 2018).
Stable Network Organizations
The value chain flexibility of stable networks is maximized through outsourcing. When a network is stable, large corporations play a major role in building market-based relationships for investors identified within the network, even if these investors or partners continue to serve other corporations outside the network (Penchev, 2021). This helps small businesses compete in the market, which is especially important for partners. The Nike corporation, for example, focuses its resources on research and marketing while allowing other companies to continue manufacturing in the meanwhile. According to Nike, these companies are allowed to produce for other companies in the industry (Horváth & Szabó, 2019). As compared to dynamic and internal networks, long-lasting and stable networks are considered.
Social Network Organizations
The ego network, the general network, and the network positions of an organization are all analyzed at three different levels of social network in an organization (Agneessens & Labianca, 2022). There are several ways to determine who a person’s friends are and what they know, but the ego network is one of the most important. Its goal is to establish a connection between the organization and other organizations directly, and all participants in a given network are members of the larger network. They evaluate and identify the density of the network and the degree of centralization or balkanization of the networks. Depending on their centrality, these organizations are classified as hierarchical, flat, matrix, or silo (Whetsell et al., 2021). Identifying an individual’s organizational network position is the goal of a social network. Distance, structural, centrality, and clustering holes, which define network cohesiveness, can be quantified in addition to the analytical levels.
Internal Labeling
Contingency and transaction cost analysts are challenged by institutionalists and ecologists who argue that enterprises cannot readily modify their core structural characteristics (Obayi & Ebrahimi, 2021). Institutions, according to these two schools of thought, are only inertia structures that may be easily altered. Many people believe that altering an organization’s network might be risky since it is difficult, unusual, and extremely risky for an organization to do so. Organizational life cycles are seen by ecologists as the most important predictor of future outcomes. Differences occur in how much attention is paid to the external environment. Many research has focused on the population level, although evolutionary models may be applied to any network level (Chen et al., 2021).
All organization’s general forms are subdivided into organizational populations. The evolutionary principal model’s major goal is to explain the organization’s variety. As time goes on, an organization’s characteristics evolve, resulting in a diversity of characteristics. Organizations in network evolution are selectively selected by environments depending on the adaptability of their organizational forms to environmental features. In evolutionary analysis, there are a number of distinct stages (Paradis & Schliep, 2018). In addition to the production and selection of forms, this covers their distribution and retention. A multitude of processes, some deliberate and some not, result in the formation of organizations. Differentiated selection is used to ensure their survival, and duplication or repetition ensures that the organizations are not lost. In the ecological model, the importance of the environment is considered strongly. This is based on a natural system approach, which is ineffective.
How the Network Organizations Can Impact the Environment Process
Involvement in an organization’s network may have a profound effect on the environment, especially when it comes to environmental issues (Nagy et al., 2018). Changes in the environment and in technology are both included in the environmental process. The few resources that are available to organizations functioning in a network are better shared throughout those organizations. There may be new organizations created, as well as access to cash important for managing the company. This would shield the organization from having to rely on high-interest-rate loans from banks. This would result in decreased production costs because of reduced transaction costs.
Creation of New Organizations
The link between entrepreneurship and the creation of a new company is one of its most important aspects. Many people in the early 20th century had difficulty starting new businesses or organizations (Srivastav & V, 2020). To start a new business, one needs to invest in things like real estate, personnel, business plans, and other necessary resources. Entrepreneurial characteristics and inclinations were emphasized in the process of forming new companies. They looked at things like willingness to take risks and the desire to succeed. There has been a greater emphasis on the founder’s background and relationship network in sociology and economics than in the past. According to their findings, there is no fair playing field when it comes to starting a business. In addition, there are various structural opportunities and people’s abilities to take advantage of these changes that vary widely. When a new company is formed, networks, resources, and knowledge are all factors that impact it. It is crucial to diversify one’s network since it raises one’s chances of getting information from it.
Technological Changes
When new technologies emerge, network organizations can save resources by not having to invest as much in technology. This is frequent, especially for small businesses that have limited resources and must fight in a dynamic market with severe competition. Those small businesses and start-ups that share a network with larger companies have a better chance of surviving. There are several beliefs that new technology spawned new industries, new people, and new organizations (Kim et al., 2019). Some technology advancements helped existing partners improve their abilities, while others decimated their abilities. Creating new groups was a more common source of harmful innovations.
Organizational Populations
There are several groupings of individuals inside an organization called organizational populations. An excellent illustration is the situation of universities or media (Smithman et al., 2020). According to organizational ecologists, the first forms of organization were based on genetic systems of some sort. It should also be described in terms of the organizational action pattern for changing inputs into output; the primary key to recognizing population is the existence of an ordinary organizational form. Various techniques to define organizational populations have emerged as a result of a substantial study. Also, to begin, the traditional technique of classifying institutions such as hospitals, colleges, and corporations might be employed as a starting point.
Changes in organizational structures throughout time are a factor in yet another process, and the inertia features of organizational formations leave an impact (Moradi et al., 2021). Apart from that, it is possible they will keep any characteristics they gained upon emerging. Organizations founded within a specific period may have structural characteristics, and early twentieth-century organizations were organized according to their function. Diversification initiatives in most firms led to a growth in administrative choices across a variety of functional areas, including finance, manufacturing, engineering, sales, and marketing.
Ecological Processes
Ecological processes need the use of knowledge and information resources by businesses and organizations that are linked together (Hamdoun et al., 2018). In this situation, networks act as vital channels for disseminating both old and new knowledge. As a result, companies that are part of a network have access to data and expertise that they would not otherwise have. Organizations can better deal with environmental changes, such as fluctuating client needs, when information is readily available. Ecologists discuss two sorts of survival strategies for organizations. Limits on tolerance for environmental change are inherent in this technique. The capacity to reproduce and survive in a wide range of environments is a key component of the generalist strategy. Organizations can adapt to environmental shifts that are not conducive. They go hand in hand and aid in the creation of favorable conditions for the establishment of organizations.
Aside from the fact that being in-network might have a detrimental effect on businesses, Organizational networks, while their numerous advantages, can sometimes limit the partners in the network (Soda et al., 2021). The partners can, for example, be locked inside one network, preventing them from joining other, more advantageous networks. Organizational performance inside the network will be affected, as well as the sector’s output and contribution. Even the organization’s allies could be able to gain access to crucial information. Their ability to gain a long-term edge in a competitive market is hindered because of the ecological process. Membership in a network can also cause established businesses to adopt standards and ideals that fall short of their own. Organizational performance may be negatively impacted if certain attitudes and norms are adopted and implemented.
Biblical and Personal Perspectives
The dynamic nature of organizations necessitates an ongoing change to keep up with the times. It is imperative that an organization’s operations be restructured to fit the changing environment (Lin & Huang, 2020). Any number of things might be altered or modified as a result of this adjustment, including business practices, culture, rules, technology, and even the organizational structure of the company. Solomon built God’s temple as an exemplary illustration of network organization in the Bible. To complete this project, many people collaborated with one another. In other words, if people and organizations work together, they can achieve their aims. “There are many sorts of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them all,” says the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:4–7 (NIV) (Levison, 2017).
However, the Lord is the same regardless of what type of duty one performs for him or her. There are many ways to labor, but the same God is at work in each one of them. The manifestation of the Holy Spirit is now being given to each person “for the common good.” Mutual dependence and togetherness, as well as what each of us contributes, are at the heart of this discussion. If they were not open systems, they would not be concerned about the safety of the external environment.
Also, it is imperative to keep in mind that members of an organization can have a direct impact on the organization and its surroundings. The workplace is a location where social norms influence employee conduct (Li et al., 2019). By following processes and a set of regulations, members are made aware of the social standards that are expected of them. Any institution has a set of social standards that are either natural, reasonable, or subject to interpretation. Customers, business partners, shareholders, and workers all gain from organizations that focus on developing resources for their benefit. It is Moses who emphasizes in Genesis 2:15 the need for humans to labor and protect the world. “You must not wrong one another when we sell or purchase from our neighbor,” says Leviticus 25:14. As a result, a company’s success depends on establishing trust with its customers and treating them fairly.
It is evident from the research that in a network organization, individuals work together to achieve a common goal in an atmosphere that encourages collaboration. It is possible that some groups may benefit from these networks while others could be harmed. In addition, networks have an impact on the effectiveness and value of a certain company. Due to the rising impact of industrialization on human health, organizations and businesses must prioritize efforts to preserve society and the environment. Environmental rules and regulations should also be followed by businesses. To spread an environmental-protection culture, institutions need to help. This can be accomplished by enforcing environmental protection rules within the organization. Despite the consequences for environmental preservation, these actions must have a beneficial influence on sustainability and safeguard human life from harm.
Agneessens, F., & Labianca, G. J. (2022). Collecting survey-based social network information in work organizations. Social Networks, 68, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.04.003
Chen, J., Fang, H., & Liu, Z. (2021). The Application of a Deep Convolutional Generative Adversarial Network on Completing Global TEC Maps. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126(3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ja028418
De Silva, R., Rupasinghe, T. D., & Apeagyei, P. (2018). A collaborative apparel new product development process model using virtual reality and augmented reality technologies as enablers. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology, and Education, 12(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2018.1462858
Du, J., & Chen, Z. (2018). Applying Organizational Ambidexterity in strategic management under a “VUCA” environment: Evidence from high tech companies in China. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2018.03.003
Fu, J. S., & Cooper, K. R. (2020). Interorganizational network portfolios of nonprofit organizations: Implications for collaboration management. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(3), 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21438
Hamdoun, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & ben Othman, H. (2018). Knowledge transfer and organizational innovation: Impacts of quality and environmental management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 193, 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.031
Horváth, D., & Szabó, R. Z. (2019). Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021
Kim, P. H., Kotha, R., Fourné, S. P., & Coussement, K. (2019). Taking leaps of faith: Evaluation criteria and resource commitments for early-stage inventions. Research Policy, 48(6), 1429–1444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.004
Levison, J. (2017). The Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 72(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020964317731327
Li, L., He, W., Xu, L., Ash, I., Anwar, M., & Yuan, X. (2019). Investigating the impact of cybersecurity policy awareness on employees’ cybersecurity behavior. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.017
Lin, C. Y., & Huang, C. K. (2020). Employee turnover intentions and job performance from a planned change: the effects of an organizational learning culture and job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 42(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-08-2018-0281
Moradi, E., Jafari, S. M., Doorbash, Z. M., & Mirzaei, A. (2021). Impact of organizational inertia on business model innovation, open innovation, and corporate performance. Asia Pacific Management Review, 26(4), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2021.01.003
Nagy, J., Oláh, J., Erdei, E., Máté, D., & Popp, J. (2018). The Role and Impact of Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things on the Business Strategy of the Value Chain—The Case of Hungary. Sustainability, 10(10), 3491. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103491
Obayi, R., & Ebrahimi, S. N. (2021). A neo-institutional view of the transaction cost drivers of construction supply chain risk management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 26(5), 592–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-09-2019-0350
Paradis, E., & Schliep, K. (2018). ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics, 35(3), 526–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633
Penchev, G. (2021). Planning and Implementing Change in Cyber Security Network Organisations. Information & Security: An International Journal, 50, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.11610/isij.5008
Rossetti, G., & Cazabet, R. (2018). Community Discovery in Dynamic Networks. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(2), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3172867
Shafigh, A. S., Glisic, S., Hossain, E., Lorenzo, B., & DaSilva, L. A. (2019). User-Centric Distributed Spectrum Sharing in Dynamic Network Architectures. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 27(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnet.2018.2880843
Smithman, M. A., Descôteaux, S., Dionne, M., Richard, L., Breton, M., Khanassov, V., & Haggerty, J. L. (2020). Typology of organizational innovation components: building blocks to improve access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations. International Journal for Equity in Health, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01263-8
Soda, G., Mannucci, P. V., & Burt, R. S. (2021). Networks, Creativity, and Time: Staying Creative through Brokerage and Network Rejuvenation. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1164–1190. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.1209
Srivastav, A., & V, R. (2020). Value co-creation through customer engagement in virtual communities for product innovation. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbg.2020.10039719
Whetsell, T. A., Kroll, A., & DeHart-Davis, L. (2021). Formal Hierarchies and Informal Networks: How Organizational Structure Shapes Information Search in Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab003