Respond to the following 2 Discussions with at least 600-700 words. Each reply must incorporate at least 3 scholarly citations in the surrent APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. Each thread and reply must integrate at least 1 biblical principle.

Part 1

Discussion: Network Organizations and the Environmental Process

In this discussion the focus will be on network organizations and the environmental processes that affect networks. The term network has a very open definition which could be described as relationships between people, organizations, a process, and even thoughts. With a definition this open, we can realistically assume that any occurrence in nature or in an abstract theory that has a relationship could be considered a network. With this open definition in hand regarding networks, how are networks created, shaped, and evolving? In theory, we look to networks to reside in the domain of open systems of organizations. However, even closed organizational systems such as rational and natural systems of organizations have networks and are aware of outside forces. We look then to the environment in which networks reside. The environment in any network is not static, the process is always changing. Environments can inspire innovation in such a way as to progress a network to a new evolutionary process. Environments are pressure points to any network. However, networks must make the choice to evolve. Making a change from the “status quo” or evolving to the next level is not an easy process and will undoubtedly face resistance to change. In this discussion, we will attempt to better explain networks, their evolutions, and processes, and how they are affected by their respective environment. Environment processes come in many forms, and we must be able to react positively in overcoming those environmental processes and concerns. Also, we will look to a biblical reference to better summarize the challenges networks face not only in their relationships, but survival as well with environmental challenges that shape the decision-making processes of networks.

Network Organizations

The term network can mean many definitions to many people. In Information Technology, when the term network is used, most often it means a relationship between connections such as topologies, with examples of ring or bus topologies which show the relationships between connected devices. Electrical engineers look at networks in terms of relays, fuses, and wiring to create a continuous connection. In this discussion we will focus on network organizations of people, the organizations themselves, and how those relationships are created, fostered, and sometimes dissolved. First, lets look at the three main networks when determining social networks within an organization. Scott and Davis (2016) share that the three levels of networks in a social system are ego networks, overall networks, and network position. Ego networks are networks in a social analysis that are considered direct contacts. An ego network as summarized by Yan and Guan (2018) is a direct relationship of people to a main person and their interconnected relationships in the network. We could generalize this relationship in an example of a manager of a department. In this ego network, the employees are directly tied to the manager for resources and direction. The manager could also pull resources and direction from the employees in the department. A further example of an ego network in terms of information technology would be a server in a department tied to all the devices within that department. An overall network is all the networks within a particular organization. The overall network within an organization could be described as all the departments of an organization together. From this vantage point, we can see how well the individual, ego networks, function. Are these individual networks cohesive and work together, or are they separate and distinct from one another? This is an important aspect as when looking at an overall network, or more simply hierarchy of an organization. Are the organizations open to information from the other ego networks (departments) or is there a strict hierarchal process as found in rational and natural systems of organizations. In an open overall network or hierarchy, according to Zamani and Viscek (2017), an overall network should coordinate so that all the network departments create a flow for a partnership in sharing of information that results in a maximum efficiency. In an open system of organization, while still hierarchal in nature, organically works together to reduce the impact of environmental internal and external forces. Finally, we have the third network, which is network position. A network position is where the overall network “fits” with all the overall network’s place in topography, either as competitors or in an overall picture. In terms of an organization with competitors, according to Dolfsma and Van Der Eijk (2017), we look at how innovative (competitive advantage) an organization is which is a facilitating factor between an organization’s strategies and the overall performance of organizations within the overall topology. A simple example of an overall network would come from a sport’s analogy. For example, you have baseball team within a district of 12 competing teams. Within that district you have 4 regions. Finally, you have a state encompassing the 4 regions encompassing 48 district teams. Each team is an ego network, each region has an overall network, and the state would be the network position. Over the course of a season, the teams would compete against each other in their districts, then region, then finally for the state title. The state title would be considered the network position. The best team from the region and districts would be determined through competition. Next, let’s review network forms and types.

Network Forms and Types

There two main types of network forms, internal and external. Internal network forms focus on the social aspect of the internal organizations. In the natural systems of organizations, there are multiple examples of internal network information through organizational behavior. The personal experience within an organization has taken significance in network organizations, particularly in the internal network discussion. According to Khawaja (2020), functions such as human resources management has taken a large significance in hiring and retaining exceptional talent within an organization. The major factors in hiring includes not only technology such as skills and intellectual abilities, but also compatibility of the employees. Essentially, employees must be able to work together and in a cohesive way. Lim and Moon (2020) state that managers have to create an environment that focuses on job satisfaction and job performance. By creating a social environment within a network, leaders and managers must work to fulfill the needs of the organization, not only in efficiency, but a social atmosphere that employees can succeed in their careers but also flourish socially through theories found in organizational behavior.

External networks, on the other hand, focuses on looking to outside suppliers to help in the process of doing business. According to Scott and Davis (2016), partnering with external suppliers to produce components for a product or service, reducing vertical integration and focusing on core competencies. By utilizing the external networks, organizations can find an advantage in competition. “Productivity is determined by the efficiency with which a given resource combination is used at any time, whereas innovativeness is related to the development of new resource combinations over time” (Bastholm and Munksgaard, 2020, para. 12). By looking outside of the network, opportunities can be found through outsourcing.

There are three types of network organizations which are stable networks, dynamic networks, and internal networks. Stable networks are typically mature organizations that are responsive to the needs of the customer and organizational survival. According to Onufrey and Bergek (2021), to achieve a competitive advantage in relation to its competitors, an organization must find a way to lower costs or offer product differentiation in relation to the organization’s competition. We see organizations such as Nike and Apple keeping Research and Development here in the US, but outsourcing manufacturing to the lower cost countries for production. By reducing costs and providing better value in product differentiation, these stable network organizations create a competitive advantage. Dynamic networks are short term partnerships providing an advantage in a short time frame. Wei et al. (2020) states that creating partnerships with external business networks have become a critical part of an organization’s business strategy. By focusing on a short-term partnership due to customer demand and external environments, this limited partnership can become advantageous to an organization. Finally, we discuss the internal network of organizations. Internal networks are networks that either contract departments such as human resources through a third party or procuring or producing products internally and selling those products to production or distributors for example. A great example is a producer of a product sells the products to franchisees for direct sell to customers. An example would be McDonald’s in which the franchisee’s much purchase products from McDonalds and their suppliers and cannot purchase goods from other suppliers.

Environmental Processes on Networks

Environmental processes are at work in all network organizations, both closed and open. As much as closed organizational systems such as rational and natural systems try to deflect environmental processes, the environment does affect these organizations. Open systems of organizations on the other hand seem to adapt better to the environment because of their organizational nature. One major environmental process that affect organizations today is the social factors internally with employees. Natural organizational systems, while a closed system, attempts to overcome these environmental concerns with theories from organizational behavior particularly with the example of organizational citizenship behavior. According to Pratano and Han (2021) believe a commitment to organizational citizenship behavior creates a stronger tie between employees and especially communities where the employees work and live. By creating this strong bond in the organization, there is a strong possibility that organizational citizenship behavior would create stronger network bonds (relationships) not only with employees within a department, but a strong relationship within the hierarchal organization. We also look at the environmental capital brought forth in an organization. Yan and Guan (2018) state that

Relational capital describes relationships people have with others; structural capital refers to the overall pattern of personal network; cognitive capital means the resources an individual develops in sharing expertise and experience (para. 4).

Environmental processes can present in many forms, from employees to their technology that they bring to the discussion. Next, we will now look to entrepreneurs and their environmental processes.

We are also able to see environmental processes occur with new organizations, particularly with entrepreneurs. The innovative entrepreneur, which with the optimal environment has the potential to create new populations of organizations. According to Manaresi et al. (2021), innovative entrepreneurs that are “transformational,” which have the capability to generate profits and new jobs in the future via innovations in products, are difficult to create and often end in failure. However, according to Scott and Davis (2016), the majority of entrepreneurs are “reproducers” which essentially take over an existing organization with little to no change (p.249). We see in many instances, through environmental processes, entrepreneurs are typically not singular in nature, but by groups of individuals, ego networks, which create organizations.

Environmental processes could also be considered evolutionary, as in the case of Darwinism in organizations. Although change in organizations is needed for survival, in many instances change is difficult to produce. We also see that to innovate and change, we must be able to carry on the “DNA” from the organization. Thomas (2017) states “the abundance of business routines, as a store of copy-ready information that is capable of guiding the development of an organization, is taken to be an important factor in the growth of the modern economy and in the shaping of worker behavior within it” (para. 35). By learning the experiences of the past environments and how organizations handled those experiences, going forward we can learn from those experiences and be better prepared to overcome future environmental processes. By evolving to the environment, organizations and their networks have an opportunity to survive environmental pressures which may include societal, natural occurrences, or most likely competitive influences from other organizations.

Biblical Perspective

Throughout history there have been networks from the beginning of time. Humans evolved through networks to survive environmental events. Organizations are no different. Networks evolved in business not only for the potential for profits, but for survival as well based on environmental changes. The biblical reference that most aligns with this discussion comes from the Book of John. “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13). We see in this passage that knowledge learned through our networks gives us the capability not only understand our environments, but to live and thrive with all that comes before us. This is a very powerful verse and relates to this discussion.

References

Bastholm, S., Munksgaard, K. (2020). Purchasing’s task at the interface between internal and external networks. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. 35(1), 159-171. DOI:10.1108/JBIM-12-2018-0393

Dolfsma, W., Van der Eijk, R. (2017). Network position and firm performance-the mediating role of innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 29(6). https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1080/09537325.2016.1216095

The Holy Bible, ESV. (2001) Crossway Bibles.

Khawaja, J. (2020). Does perceived organizational support and employee development influence organizational citizenship behavior? Person-organization fit as moderator. European Journal of Training and Development. 44(6/7), 637-657. DOI:10.1108/EJTD-02-2020-0032

Kim, J., Moon, K. (2020). Transformational leadership and employees’ helping behavior in public organizations: Does organizational structure matter? Public Personnel Management. 50(4). https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1177/0091026020977565

Manaresi, F., Menon, C., Santoleiri, P. (2022). Supporting innovative entrepreneurship: An evaluation of the Italian “start up act.” Industrial and Corporate Change. 30(6). 1591-1614.; DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtab033

Onufrey, K., Bergek, A. (2021). Transformation in a mature industry: The role of business and innovation strategies. Technovation. 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102190

Pratono, A., Han, L. (2021). From family business orientation to organizational citizenship behavior: prosocial behavior in family business performance. Journal of Family Business Management. DOI 10.1108/JFBM-02-2021-0014

Scott, W., Davis, G. (2016). Organizations and organizing rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Routledge.

Thomas, Rod. (2018). The claims of generalized Darwinism. Philosophy of Management. 49(2), 149-167. DOI: 10.1007/s40926-017-0060-3

Wei, J., Felix, M., Zhao, W. (2020). The impact of business networks on dynamic capabilities and product innovation: The moderating role of strategic orientation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 37(4), 1239-1266. DOI:10.1007/s10490-018-9628-2

Yan, Y., Guan, J. (2018). Social capital, exploitive and exploratory innovations: The mediating roles of ego network dynamics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 126, 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.004

Zamani, M., Vicsek, T. (2017). Glassy nature of hierarchal organizations. Natural Library of Medicine. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01503-y

Part 2

Discussion Thread: Network Organizations and the Environmental Process

Organizations are complex and unique. There are many factors that shape how an organization operates, one such contributing factor is the network inside and outside the organization. Networks can be used to describe a variety of different things from computer systems, the world wide web, to relationships inside an organization to those that expand to the outside and bring value into the organization. It can be complex with many layers or simple and straightforward. Strong networks can bring value, strength, and dimension into the organization while adding diversity and versatility. Our text shares that a “…network consists of “nodes” and “ties”, or relationships among the nodes. Nodes can be actors – such as persons, groups, or organizations – or other entities…” (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 278). More simply, it is a system of relationships among parts. This definition alone gives us a perspective of the versatility and the broad use of networks. We can find strong networks within organizations, but also in nearly every facet of our personal life as well. Networks, whether formal or informal, offers connection that enhance the “node”. The relationships between the nodes can be basic or complex and most demonstrate a mutually beneficial relationship.

Our text shares that networks do not necessarily need to involve humans. The internet, ecosystem, and electrical power grids are all excellent examples shared of networks that have significant impact. There are three analytical levels of networks that can be explored to understand the broadening scope of networks. The ego network involves the nodes most direct contacts. This would be the most intimate network. The next level would be the overall network which identifies how well connected or dense the network is. This expands the network broadly one more level. Lastly, the most broad view would be the network position in which an individual’s place within the larger system is evaluated. When reading this I imagined various divisions of a company. For example, in banking you may have the local branch network, expanded then the regional branch territory, and then lastly more broadly the national level. In this hierarchy, you will find the role the local branch within the region and similarly, the region within the national perspective. Each individual branch can also demonstrate the expanse of the bank when evaluating on a national perspective.

Scott and Davis (2007) share that there are two important factors to consider when evaluating networks, the nature of relationships being mapped (friendships, hatred, lawsuits, etc) and understanding networks are often multiplex meaning that there may be overlapping relationships within the network. “Multiplex networks provide a simple yet expressive way to model a wide range of physical and social systems as sets of entities connected by multiple types of relationships” (Brodka et al., 2018, p. 1). It is important to recognize and appreciate that networks can be complex and involve layers that may impact how a network works and interacts with the organization.

Types of Network Organizations

There are a variety of different types of networks that can be explored. Each has specific types of characteristics that can benefit, develop, and enhance organizations in a unique way. Scott and Davis (2007) describe three primary types of networks, the stable network, dynamic network, and internal network. A stable network has relatively long-lived relationships with upstream and/or downstream partners. An example provided in our text was Nike. Internally Nike supports all the marketing and R&D while manufacturing nearly all occurs with Asian manufacturers who may also be producing products for competitors. Nike’s network remains within existing relationships that are stable. Stable networks are often found within mature organizations. In contrast to the stable network, the dynamic network has temporary alliances with a larger pool of potential partners. Industries with short product life cycles can often have dynamic networks. The fashion industry is an excellent example of the dynamic network as fashion trends vary by season, style, and designer. High-tech industries are also good examples of organizations that may have dynamic networks. As technology is rapidly expanding, growing, and advancing into nearly every facet of our lives, the dynamic network provides organizations the agility to advance quickly. Dynamic networks can also be seen more broadly outside a formal organization to operations inside our own brain leading to underlying cognitive behaviors and mindfulness (Dixon & Gross, 2021). Lastly, internal networks handle all their business within the organization at open market prices versus using external vendors or support. The example of the computer manufacturer getting parts internally for assembly is highlighted in our text. Despite having options to utilize external vendors or suppliers, internal networks work within their organization.

Networks are necessary in this day and time with any functioning organization. It allows organizations to increase its capabilities while focusing on growth and a broader consumer base. An excellent example is shared in our text regarding the operations of the Dell computer company. Online consumers place an order for a new computer system. The synchronization of building the computer system and using external networks to supply the monitors and coordinate the delivery of the product to the consumers preferred destination takes an established and stable network. In a similar fashion, organizations have built networks to support their operations.

Environmental Process

When reviewing the structure of different organizations, we can see a variety of different network types within these organizations. The networks allow the organizations to perform at a higher level and enhances the depth and breath of services offerings. There are several examples that I would like to highlight to demonstrate the importance of having a strong network. Chedid et al. (2021) (2021) highlights in their article the importance of supply networks and internal networks for organizational performance. Multinational companies and corporations have complex internal and external networks that impact performance. The study demonstrates an inherent link between the supply network and internal network. This is validated even today with the supply chain crisis that we are in the midst of. In the hospital setting we look to our comprehensive supply chain network to stock the supplies we need to run the organization. At times we utilize our internal warehouse to replenish supplies to the various locations; but, much of the needs are met through our external supply chain network. Even with the many resources our hospital has, we constantly find ourselves up against a rolling list of back orders or limited allocations. Moggi et al. (2018) share of another example of how networks are utilized in food waste. The article highlights how farmers’ market organizations can make an impact in food waste, fight poverty, and improve public health. When studying each of these individual components we can see the expanse of the network from the farmers’ market to external sources to collectively meet social, public health, and humanitarian needs in the community. Corporate social responsibility is addressed in this article a lever and address the food waste challenge. This level of responsibility exceeds a single organization’s work and really requires collaborative effort, partnerships, and established networks to focus on this important topic.

Project network organizations are becoming more and more important as inter-organizational contexts and project collaboration are becoming more and more essential (Manning, 2017). These project network organizations have a unique and dynamic network that take fairly independent organizations and connect them with various flexible partner groups that can help to enhance and grow the programs of the organization – infusing new ideas and talents into the established organization. The ability to mobilize important resources to achieve specific organizational goals and metrics is among the many benefits of project network organizations. Similarly, Wu et al. (2021) has determined through their study that establishing internal and external networks can influence enterprise growth performance. The study also shared that internal and external networks also help to promote learning within the organization allowing individuals to be connected to various resources outside their traditional organization’s bounds. In addition to enterprise growth, organizational networks can also impact strategic business performance through organizational flexibility (Yousaf & Majid, 2018). Organizational networks can be defined as the relationships among a set of individuals, groups, or organizations or the nodes and the relationships that connect them. These relationships show, “… informal collaboration; and relationships based on mutual benefit, trust and reciprocity” (Yousaf & Majid, 2018, p. 269). This is a great point as networks seek to have mutual benefit – whether that is monetary, services, or trade. When organizations engage in strong networks, items such as innovation, business growth, effective decision making, competitiveness, and enhanced organizational performance can all be observed. When an organization evaluates the network that they will form to support their operations and needs it is important to look and see if the network of resources will compliment the how the organization sees its operations and future growth.

Personal and Biblical Perspective

Networks can be found all around us. The different types of networks play an important role in how an organizations functions and achieves key metrics. Within my own organization, I see components of all three types of networks. Yes, it may seem a little contradictory – but, in larger institutions we may find several smaller organizations within. Our supply chain falls under the stable network. Our institution contracts with a group purchasing organization who has several vendors contract to provide supplies or services. Although the network can be fairly vast, it is primarily limited to those that our institution has an existing relationship with. I see the dynamic network in our information services department and our clinical equipment services. New IT equipment and clinical equipment is constantly being reviewed to expand services, increase security, and advance technology. Items are evaluated outside the normal standard vendors to ensure we competitive in our services, offerings, and pricing. I see the internal network in our patient referrals. When patients arrive to the hospital without a primary care home or established specialist, they are typically routed to one of our 90 ambulatory clinics for follow up with a provider or to one of our locations for outpatient ancillary services (rehabilitation, lab, imaging, pharmacy, etc.). This offers many advantages in the management of patient care as all care is documented in a single medical record system for review by all on the care team. In addition, this allows the health system to grow its book of business.

Most hospitals have established networks within their own healthcare system which provides support, backup, and resources for the management of operations. Hospital networks can also be used to establish, share, and reinforce best practices in the management of various disease process. These networks may include researchers, hospitals, outpatients services, and supply chain. For those hospitals that do not belong to a larger system, they seek to develop their own network for support and leverage purposes. For example, when I worked at a small community hospital we established a relationship with a group purchasing organization to provide us with better pricing for our supplies. In contrast, because we were a single small hospital outside of a large hospital network, it was difficult for us to negotiate really favorable managed care contracts because our leveraging power was limited.

Biblically, we see networks all throughout scripture. I would like to highlight the network that Paul created in his ministry. We can see Paul’s steadfast leadership and spiritual guidance to his network of churches as he addresses them through letters recorded in the Bible. Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians are just a few of his letters recorded in the Bible that demonstrate the network Paul created for the sole purpose of brining people to the saving grace of Jesus. God never created us to be alone, but to have fellowship with others. Acts 2: 44-47 shares how the early believers ate and worshiped together – encouraging each other in faith adding to their numbers day by day (The Quest Study Bible, 1984). The network of believers helped to deepen and encourage the faith of early believers of the church. We too need this same network of believers in our own lives to help us through the storms and joys of life. Family and friends become our personal network. Various church ministries become the network for the body of the church. I feel strongly that God created networks to encourage, strengthen, and broaden us. We can take these same principles and apply them into our organizations. Networks, regardless of their expanse and stability, play a key role in how an organization operates, develops, delivers services, and grows. Just as it is important for us personally to manage who is in our own personal network, organizations should seek to develop a network that can promote and enhance its organizational mission and goals.

References

Brodka, P., Chmiel, A., Magnani, M., & Ragozini, G. (2018). Quantifying layer similarity in multiplex networks: a systematic study. Royal Society Open Science, 5(8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171747

Chedid, F., Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C., & Ries, J. (2021). The interaction between supply networks and internal networks: performance implications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(6), 860–881.