Jeffrey Pfeffer and Phillip Nowak
There are many varieties of interorganizational linkage. Corporations interlock their boards of directors ( Dooley, 1969; Levine, 1972; Pfeffer, 1972a); there is movement of personnel from one organization to another ( Baty, Evan, and Rothermel, 1971; Pfeffer and Leblebici, 1973); forms of contractual and noncontractual relations develop ( Macaulay, 1963); and, at times, organizations absorb other organizations through merger ( Pfeffer, 1972b). The varieties of linkage have been discussed by Thompson and McEwen ( 1958), who noted that goals and actions of organizations inevitably are constrained by their environments. Interorganizational linkages enable the organization to manage some of its environmental constraints and control some of the contingencies it confronts. Thompson and McEwen wrote that organizations face a dilemma in dealing with their environments. To the extent that the organization becomes more interlocked with another organization, it can rely more on the other organization's performance; but, also, it loses some of its own independence and discretion. Guetzkow ( 1966), discussing interorganizational relations, has hypothesized that less formal varieties of interorganizational linkage precede more formal arrangements.
There are several conceptual frameworks available for use in understanding interorganizational phenomena. Levine and White ( 1961) have argued for the utility of an exchange framework, and Evan ( 1966) has proposed the organization-set as a useful analytical concept. Pfeffer ( 1972b) has argued that interorganizational activity is undertaken to manage the____________________