CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 235Management and Organizational StudiesInnovation and Knowledge ManagementManagement Theory and Practice

Resource Dependence Theory – How Well Does It Explain Behavior of Organizations?

Open access
Nienhüser, Werner·2008·management revu
DOI 10.5771/0935-9915-2008-1-2-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article evaluates to what extent Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) is able to explain organizational processes and structures.The evaluation criteria are the empirical corroboration of the theory, its information content and generality, but also how realistic the assumptions of the RDT are.The evaluation shows that the theory is empirically well confirmed.On the whole, Resource Dependence Theory significantly contributes to explaining behavior, structure, stability, and change of organizations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5771/0935-9915-2008-1-2-9

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Actors with power can attempt to change the broader environment by forcing resource recipients to conform to specific norms and behaviors, which may result in a loss of autonomy for resource-scarce organizations.

    “Within these inter-organizational resource relationships, actors with power (i.e., resource providers) can attempt to change the broader environment by forcing resource recipients to conform to specific norms and behaviors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Nienhuser, 2008), which may result in a loss of autonomy for those resource-scarce organizations (Benson, 1975; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).”

    From Understanding Government-Nonprofit Funding Agreements in Human Service Organizations Using Resource Dependence Theory and Organizational Legitimacy (2026) · cites this paper as Nienhuser, 2008

    In “External distribution of power and the management of dependency relationships” (page unavailable), Nienhüser says controllers of critical resources can make high demands and that organizations may comply, giving up scope for action. The paper does not establish that providers force recipients to adopt specific norms and behaviors in order to change the broader environment. The sentence cites other works, not Nienhüser, for the resulting loss of autonomy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Allen, M.P./Panian, S.K. (1982): Power, Performance, and Succession in the Large Corporation. In: Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 27: 538-547.
  2. Armstrong-Doherty, A.J. (1996): Resource Dependence-Based Perceived Control: An Examination of Canadian Interuniversity-Athletics. In: Journal of Sport Management, 10: 49-64.
  3. Bacharach, S.B. (1989): Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation. In: Academy of Manage- ment Review, 14: 496-515
  4. Balkin, D.B./Bannister, B.D. (1993): Explaining Pay Forms for Strategic Employee Groups in Organiza- tions: A Resource Dependence Perspective. In: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology, 66: 139-152.
  5. Begg, C.B./Berlin, J.A. (1988): Publication Bias: A Problem in Interpreting Medical Data. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 151: 419-463.
  6. Boeker, W. (1992): Power and Managerial Dismissal: Scapegoating at the Top. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 400-442.
  7. Boyd, B. (1990): Corporate Linkages and Organizational Environment: A Test of the Resource Depend- ence Model. In: Strategic Management Journal, 11: 419-430.
  8. Burkhardt, M.E./Brass, D.J. (1990): Changing Patterns or Patterns of Change: The Effects of a Change in Technology on Social Network Structure and Power. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 104-127.
  9. Butler, R./Sohod, S. (1995): Joint-Venture Autonomy: Resource Dependence and Transaction Costs Per- spectives. In: Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11: 159-175.
  10. Buvik, A./Reve, T. (2002): Inter-firm Governance and Structural Power in Industrial Relationships: the Moderating Effect of Bargaining Power on the Contractual Safeguarding of Specific Assets. In: Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18: 261-284.
  11. Campling, J.T./Cook, J./Michelson, G. (1998): A Strategic Choice-Resource Dependence Analysis of Un- ion Mergers in the British and Australian Broadcasting and Film Industries. In: Journal of Manage- ment Studies, 35: 579-600.
  12. Casciaro, T./Piskorski, M.J. (2005): Power Imbalance, Mutual Dependence, and Constraint Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 167-199.
  13. Chadwick, S. (1997): Resource Dependence in the Further Education Marketplace: Considerations for Managers of College Mergers. In: Journal of Further and Higher Education, 21: 305-316.
  14. Clegg, S.R./Rura-Polley, T. (1998): Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1946-) and Gerald R. Salancik (1943-96). In: Warner, M. (Ed.): The IEBM Handbook of Management Thinking. London: 537-543.
  15. Cropanzano, R./Mitchell, M.S. (2005): Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. In: Journal of Management, 31: 874-900
  16. Corcoran, D.J./Shackman, J.D. (2007): A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Value of Beyond Compliance Occupational Health and Safety Programs. In: Journal of Business Strategies, 24: 49-68.
  17. Donaldson, L. (1995): American Anti-Management Theories of Organizations. Cambridge.
  18. Dunford, R. (1987): The Suppression of Technology as a Strategy for Controlling Resource Dependence. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 512-525.
  19. Emerson, R.M. (1962): Power-Dependence Relations. In: American Sociological Review, 27: 32-41.
  20. Finkelstein, S. (1997): Interindustry Merger Patterns and Resource Dependence: A Replication and Ex- tension of Pfeffer (1972). In: Strategic Management Journal, 18: 787-810.
  21. Fligstein, N. (1987): The Intraorganizational Power Struggle: Rise of Finance Personnel to Top Leader- ship in large Corporations, 1919-1979. In: American Sociological Review, 52: 44-58.
  22. Goodstein, J.D. (1994): Institutional Pressures and Strategic Responsiveness: Employer Involvement in Work-Family Issues. In: Academy of Management Journal, 37: 350-382.
  23. Hambrick, D.C. (1981): Environment, Strategy, and Power within Top Management Teams. In: Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 26: 253-275.
  24. Hambrick, D.C./Finkelstein, S. (1995): The Effects of Ownership Structure on Conditions at the Top: The Case of CEO Pay Raises. In: Strategic Management Journal, 16: 175-193.
  25. Handfield, R.B. (1993): A Resource Dependence Perspective of Just-in-Time Purchasing. In: Journal of Operations Management, 11: 289-311.
  26. Hickson, D.J./Hinings, C.R./Lee, C.A./Schneck, R.E./Pennings, J.M. (1971): A Strategic Contingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 216-229.
  27. Hillman, A. J./Shropshire, C./Cannella Jr., A. A. (2007): Organizational Predictors of Women on Corpo- rate Boards. In: Academy of Management Journal, 50: 941 -952.
  28. Hinings, D.J./Hickson, D.J./Pennings, J.M./Schneck, R.E. (1974): Structural Conditions of Intraorgani- zational Power. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 22-43.
  29. Ingram, P./Simons, T. (1995): Institutional and Resource Dependence Determinants of Responsiveness to Work-Family Issues. In: Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1466-1482.
  30. Jacobs, D. (1974): Dependency and Vulnerability: An Exchange Approach to the Control of Organiza- tions. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 45-59.
  31. Johnson, D.E. (1995): Transactions in Symbolic Resources: A Resource Dependence Model of Congres- sional Delibaration. In: Sociological Perspectives, 38: 151-173.
  32. Jun, S.P./Armstrong, G.M. (1997): The Bases of Power in Churches: An Analysis from a Resource De- pendence Perspective. In: The Social Science Journal, 34: 105-130.
  33. Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. zu (1997): On our way to a resource orientated paradigma? Resource- Dependence-Theory of Organisations and Resource-based View of Strategic Management in Com- parison. In: Ortmann, G./Sydow, J./Türk, K. (Eds.): Theories of Organisations. Opladen: 452-480.
  34. Lachman, R. (1989): Power From What? Reexamination of Its Relationships with Structural Conditions. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 231-251.
  35. Lang, J.R./Lockhart, D.E. (1990): Increased Environmental Uncertainty and Changes in Board Linkage Pattern. In: Academy of Management Journal, 33: 106-128.
  36. Lieberson, S./O'Connor, J.F. (1972): Leadership and Organizational Performance: A Study of Large Cor- porations. In: American Sociological Review, 37: 117-130.
  37. Medcof, J.W. (2001): Resource-based Strategy and Managerial Power in Networks of Internationally Dis- persed Technology Units. In: Strategic Management Journal, 22: 999-1012.
  38. Meznar, M.B./Nigh, D. (1995): Buffer or Bridge? Environmental and Organizational Determinants of Public Affairs in American Firms. In: Academy of Management Journal, 38: 975-996.
  39. Palmer, D./Barber, B.M./Zhou, X./Soysal, Y. (1995): The Friendly and Predatory Acquisition of Large U.S. Corporations in the 1960s: The Other Contested Terrain. In: American Sociological Review, 60: 469-499.
  40. Pfeffer, J. (1972a): Interorganizational Influence and Managerial Attitudes. In: Academy of Management Journal, 15: 317-330.
  41. Pfeffer, J. (1972b): Merger as a Response to Organizational Interdependence. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 382-394.
  42. Pfeffer, J. (1972c): Size and Composition of Corporate Board of Directors: The Organization and its En- vironment. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 218-228.
  43. Pfeffer, J. (1973): Size, Composition, and Function of Hospital Board of Directors: A Study of Organiza- tion-Environment Linkage. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 18: 349-364.
  44. Pfeffer, J. (1981): Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms. In: Staw, B. M./Cummings, L.L. (Eds.): Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3. Greenwich: 1-52.
  45. Pfeffer, J. (2003): Introduction into the Classic Edition. In: Pfeffer, J./Salancik, G.R.: The External Con- trol of Organizations. A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford: xi-xxix.
  46. Pfeffer, J. (2005): Developing Resource Dependence Theory: How Theory is Affected by its Environ- ment. In: Smith, K.G./Hitt, M.A. (Hg.): Great Minds in Management. The Process of Theory De- velopment. Oxford: 436-459.
  47. Pfeffer, J./Davis-Blake, A. (1987): Understanding Organizational Wage Structures: A Resource Depend- ence Approach. In: Academy of Management Journal, 30: 437-455.
  48. Pfeffer, J./Moore, W.L. (1980): Power in University Budgeting: A Replication and Extension. In: Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, 25: 637-653.
  49. Pfeffer, J./Salancik, G.R. (1977): Organizational Context and the Characteristics and Tenure of Hospital Administrators. In: Academy of Management Journal, 20: 74-88.
  50. Provan, K.G./Beyer, J.M./Kruytbosch, C. (1980): Environmental Linkages and Power in Resource- Dependence Relations between Organizations. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 200-225.
  51. Provan, K.G./Skinner, S.J. (1989): Interorganizational Dependence and Control as Predictors of Oppor- tunism in Dealer-Supplier Relations. In: Academy of Management Journal, 32: 202-212.
  52. Saidel, J.R. (1991): Resource Interdependence: The Relationship Between State Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations. In: Public Administration Review, 51: 543-553.
  53. Salancik, G.R. (1979): Interorganizational Dependence and Responsiveness to Affirmative Action: The Case of Women and Defense Contractors. In: Academy of Management Journal, 22: 3375-394.
  54. Salancik, G.R./Cooper Brindle, M. (1997): The Social Ideologies of Power in Organizational Decisions. In: Shapira, Z. (Ed.): Organizational Decision Making. New York: 111-132.
  55. Salancik, G.R./Goodrick, E. (1996): Organizational Discretion in Responding to Institutional Practices: Hospitals and Cesarean Births. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 1-28.
  56. Salancik, G.R./Pfeffer, J. (1974): The Bases and Use of Power in Organizational Decision Making: The Case of a University. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 453-473.
  57. Salancik, G.R./Pfeffer, J. (1977): Constraints on Administrator Discretion. The Limited Influence of Mayors on City Budgets. In: Urban Affairs Quarterly, 12: 475-498.
  58. Salancik, G.R./Pfeffer, J. (1980): Effects of Ownership and Performance on Executive Tenure in U.S. Corporations. In: Academy of Management Journal, 23: 653-664.
  59. Saunders, C.S./Scamell, R. (1982): Intraorganizational Distribution of Power: Replication Research. In: Academy of Management Journal, 25: 192-200.
  60. Schreyögg, G./Papenheim-Tockhorn, H. (1995): Personelle Verflechtungen als Ressourcenmanagement - Eine Längsschnittstudie zur Kooptationspolitik deutscher Großunternehmen auf der Basis der Broken-tie-Methode. In: Schreyögg, G./Sydow, J. (Eds.): Managementforschung 5: Empirische Studien. Berlin; New York 1995: 107-165.
  61. Tolbert, P.S. (1985): Institutional Environments and Resource Dependence: Sources of Administrative Structure in Institutions of Higher Education. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 1-13.
  62. Tremblay, M./Côté, J./Balkin, D. B. (2003): Explaining Sales Pay Strategy Using Agency, Transaction Cost and Resource Dependence Theories. In: Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1651-682.
  63. Westphal, J.D./Zajac, E.J. (1995): Who Shall Govern? CEO/Board Power, Demographic Similarity, and new Director Selection. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 60-83.
  64. White, P.E. (1974): Resources as Determinants of Organizational Behavior. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 366-379.
  65. Williamson, O.E. (1995): Transaction Cost Economics and Organization Theory. In: Williamson, O.E. (Ed.): Organization Theory. From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond. New York/Oxford: 207-256.
  66. Wright, P.M./McMahan, G.C. (1999): Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Manage- ment. In: Schuler, R.S./Jackson, S.E. (Eds.): Strategic Human Resource Management. Oxford, Mal- den (MA): 49-72.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nienhüser, W.
Affiliations
University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Nienhüser, Werner
ORCID
Nienhüser, Werner
Venue
management revu
Publisher
IMR Press
Published
2008
Volume
19
Issue
1-2
Pages
9-32
ISSN
0935-9915 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5771/0935-9915-2008-1-2-9
OpenAlex
W2112714193
Cited by
235
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • management revue (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
Keywords
resource dependence theory, organizational behavior, organizational structure, organizational stability, organizational change, theory evaluation, empirical validation

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