According to Layne and Lee (2001), electronic Government (e-Government, e-Gov) progresses towards higher levels of integration and interoperability among and between government levels and branches. Interoperability in essence leads to extensive information sharing among and between governmental entities. However, the obstacles, which prevent a rapid progress into that direction, are not merely technical. In fact, the technology side may prove the least difficult to address, while the organizational, legal, political, and social aspects may prove much more of a challenge. The case in point presented in this paper is Washington State’s Justice Information Network (JIN), which attempts to share and interoperate criminal and judicial information between state and local governments. Progress towards sustainable information sharing requires many players seeking the same ends in an ongoing fashion, not just a huge upfront and one-time effort as the case illustrates.

Government leaders and IT executives increasingly recognize that interorganizational information integration (III) is a critical and complex process. Due to the need for integrated information at all levels of government, interorganizational information integration can no longer be pursued through ad hoc approaches that primarily rely on intuitive understandings of the way government operates [1]. This paper presents an effort currently underway to model the social and technical processes of interorganizational information integration to improve our understanding of information system development and of interorganizational collaboration. This research seeks to enhance both the conceptual and practical models of III by building new understanding of the interaction among the social and technical processes in interorganizational information integration.

Intensive Work First draft – please do not cite without author’s permission This paper examines how and why a professional elite – the so-called “Magic Circle” of UK law firms – has become a taken-for-granted, legitimate, and extremely durable categorization of the most highly-reputed firms in the UK legal profession. Using both interview and documentary data, this study examines the process of institutionalization and belief formation in the context of two previously unresearched, and unconnected, models- the discursive model of institutionalization proposed by Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy (2004), and the model of industry belief systems described by Porac, Ventresca, & Mishina (2002). The study traces the historical evolution of this elite group, finding evidence to confirm the status of the Magic Circle categorization as both an institution, and as part of a cognitive belief system about the structure of the UK legal market. In particular, the study presents evidence to suggest that the business and professional media are important

managing the pragmatic boundary

We are indebted to Cailin B. Hammer for taking on the labor intensive and painstakingly detailed tasks of gathering all of the articles reviewed here, creating matrices for coding, conducting the citation count, and keeping the entire project organized. We could not have carried out this research without her able assistance. We would also like to thank Don Conlon, Deepak Malhotra and all of those in the OB group at Washington University for their helpful comments on earlier versions. Running head: Phenomenological Assumptions Phenomenological Assumptions and Knowledge Dissemination within Organizational Studies Phenomenological assumptions—assumptions about the fundamental qualities of the phenomenon being studied—affect the dissemination of knowledge from sub-fields to the broader field of study. Microprocess research in organizational studies reveals implicit phenomenological assumptions that vary in the extent to which micro-processes are treated as parts of larger systems. We suggest that phenomenological assumptions of recursive interactions between the phenomenon and the environment will make the relevance of micro-process research findings to broader organizational questions easier to discern, and therefore more likely to disseminate to the larger field of organizational research. We empirically assess this assertion by analyzing studies of negotiation published in top peer-reviewed management,

Abstract not found

ACROSS THE WATERS:

Discourse as a Strategic Resource In this paper, we explore how discourse can be used as a strategic resource. Using an illustrative example of Mère et Enfant, an international NGO operating in Palestine, we show how an individual brought about strategic change by engaging in discursive activity. We use this to outline a model of how discourse can be mobilized as a strategic resource. The model consists of three circuits. First, in circuits of activity individuals attempt to introduce symbols aimed at connecting objects to particular concepts. Second, for circuits of activity to be successful, they must intersect with circuits of performativity i.e. the concept is grounded in a period and context in which it has meaning; the subject position of the enunciator warrants voice; and the symbols used possess receptivity. Third, circuits of connectivity occur when the new discursive statements “take”.

The determinants of strategic alliance performance have not been explored adequately in the literature. Empirical studies abound with numerous kinds of performance measures but, thus far, there is no coherent theoretical basis for the determinants of alliance performance. In this article we present a theoretical framework for understanding alliance performance in terms of its key antecedents. We submit that alliance performance is strongly influenced by particular characteristics of the partner firms as mediated by alliance conditions. We use the term ‘‘partner analysis’ ’ to denote the integrated approach comprising market analysis and resource analysis of partner firms. Alliance conditions are composed of collective strengths, interpartner conflicts, and interdependencies. We discuss the various linkages between the components of partner analysis, alliance conditions, and alliance performance. Finally, we develop a number of propositions to facilitate empirical testing of our partner analysis framework, and indicate its key implications for future research and managerial practice.

This is a chapter about power in groups and organizations. In the following pages, we suggest that the analysis and exploration of the complexities of organizational power by managers and workers is both necessary and useful. We begin by discussing three of the prominent theoretical perspectives on power from the literatures of social and organizational psychology and critical management studies. We then outline some of the dilemmas and challenges faced by executives, managers and workers around empowerment, disempowerment and organizational democracy. Then, building on the seminal works of Follet, Deutsch, Tjosvold, Clegg, Mumby and others, we offer a framework of organizational power which views power as a multifaceted phenomenon; as thoughts, words and deeds which are both embedded within and determining of a complex network of relations, structures and meaning-making processes at different levels of organizational and community life. Such a framework enables us to understand the relational aspects of power and authority within the context of the macro structures and ideologies that give them meaning. It can also help identify those domains in organizations where the potential for sharing cooperative power is, in fact, not