The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Resource Dependence and in Terorganiza Tional Relations: Local Employment Service Offices and Social Services Sector Organizations
Abstract
A resource dependence model is proposed as a conceptual scheme to account for organizational behavior observed under conditions where interorganizational relations are a critical environmental contingency. The model is used to explain the pattern of transactions between 19 local Employment Service offices and 249 social service organizations in New York State. Four aspects of interorganization transaction are taken as problematic: intensity, reciprocity, standardization of interaction, and the degree of perceived cooperation in the relationship. The results support the important role assigned to the manipulation of authority by the resource dependence perspective, and the findings document the minimal role played by domain consensus.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Determinants of Interorganizational Relationships: Integration and Future Directions
Oliver, C. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4308156 · Cited by 2,408
Metadata
- Authors
- Aldrich, H.
- Venue
- Administration & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1976-02
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 419-454
- ISSN
- 0095-3997 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3039
- OpenAlex
- W2134332590
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
