‘Walls or Boxes’: The Effects of Professional Identity, Power and Rationality on Strategies for Cross-Functional Integration

Abstract

Small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are recognized as drivers of economic growth, yet commonly face low innovation and organizational success due to insufficient cross-functional integration. We pose the simple question: what factors hinder cross-functional integration from occurring? We analyse cross-functional integration at management level by developing the framework of dominant ideological modes of rationality, composing professional identity, power relations and rationalities and through the construct of ‘members’ categorization devices’ (MCDs). The article builds theory from a longitudinal in-depth empirical investigation of ‘everyday’ micro-political processes involved in cross-functional integration by drawing on political and ethnomethodological perspectives. It provides novel findings on the dynamics between power relations and cross-functional integration, the influence of ‘thought worlds’ of different functions involved in the innovation process, and contributes empirical evidence that professional identity produces power relations and rationality. Implications for theory, method and practice are considered.

Modelo Conceitual Para a Servitização Do PDP Através Da Transferência De Conhecimento Interfuncional

“…A TC interfuncional tem se mostrado como fonte de sucesso do PDP em termos do desempenho do produto (Nakata & Im, 2010) e de inovação para as empresas (Tsai et al, 2012;Baunsgaard & Clegg, 2013). No caso do desenvolvimento de PSS, a necessidade de haver uma maior integração interfuncional para o sucesso da oferta servitizada tem sido destacada por diferentes autores (e.g.…”

Dominant Cognitive Frames and The Innovative Power Of Social Networks

“…Where particular frames become dominant they help to advance certain interests and views, while suppressing others (Azad & Faraj, 2011;Baunsgaard & Clegg, 2013 (Kaplan, 2008). Where particular frames 'resonate' and are seen as legitimate by organization members, however, they have a greater chance of prevailing and thereby mobilising action (Kaplan, 2008).…”

“…Echoing this emphasis in previous work on the frames of dominant groups, previous research linking frames to an organization's capacity for innovation and change has focused, at the micro-level, on the strategic frames of senior leaders within particular organizations (Baunsgaard & Clegg, 2013;Hodgkinson, Bown, Maule, Glaister, & Pearman, 1999;Kaplan, 2008;Nadkami & Narayanan, 2007). Here, senior managers are found to be skilled in framing the strategic objectives and change processes that inform members' understandings of their role or the organization's position in its environment (Cornelissen & Werner 2014).…”

“…Here, senior managers are found to be skilled in framing the strategic objectives and change processes that inform members' understandings of their role or the organization's position in its environment (Cornelissen & Werner 2014). Dominant frames are thus seen as F o r P e e r R e v i e w 9 creating a capacity for change (or inertia -see Baunsgaard & Clegg, 2013), be that in relation to organizational change programs (Chreim, 2006), the implementation of technology (Davidson & Pai, 2004) or knowledge transfer between organizations (Burg, Berends & Raaij, 2014). This previous work has been conducted, however, almost exclusively within hierarchical organization settings, where senior managers exercise significant position power.…”

“…In this view, equally important to the structural aspects of networks, are the cognitive frames -or 'definitions of the situation' (Goffman, 1974) -that emerge and come to prevail among network members (cf. Baunsgaard and Clegg, 2013). Previous research on innovation, for example, has found that a social structure's capacity for achieving innovation is dependent on the establishment of shared interpretations across specialist groups (or shared 'thought worlds ' -Carlile, 2004;Dougherty, 1992).…”