Cosmopolitanism

From CFIR Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Cosmopolitanism
Taxonomy
Domain
Outer Setting
Siblings
Cosmopolitanism
External Policies & Incentives
Patient Needs & Resources
Peer Pressure
Measurement maturity
Quantitative tools


The degree to which an organization is networked with other external organizations.

Contents

Description

The degree to which an organization is networked with other external organizations. Organizations that support and promote external boundary-spanning roles of their staff are more likely to implement new practices quickly[1]. The collective networks of relationships of individuals in an organization represent the social capital of the organization[2]. Social capital is one term used to describe the quality and the extent of those relationships and includes dimensions of shared vision and information sharing. One component of social capital is external bridging between people or groups outside the organization[1].

Rationale for inclusion

The degree to which an organization is externally networked with other external organizations.

Informal inter-organizational networks demonstrate the degree to which an organization is externally networked which in turn, indicates the degree of cosmopolitanism[1]. Organizations that support and promote external boundaryspanning roles are more likely to implement new practices quickly[1][3][4][5][6]. Active participation with professional group(s), keeping up with salient literature and research findings, updating skills, and providing opportunities for external training is associated with implementation[7]. Professional knowledge typically arises because of increased boundary spanning activities, self-confidence and commitment to move beyond status quo[8]. There is a negative relationship between cosmopolitanism and implementation until clear advantages of the intervention become apparent[1][9]. But the relationship is positive once the innovation is accepted as the norm by others in the in/formal network (see Peer Pressure)[1]. Greenhalgh et al call this external boundary spanning (internal boundary spanners are included under Network and Communications below) and describe some aspects of cosmopolitanism under informal interorganizational networks. When organizations promote and support external linkages with outside organizations through their staff, they will assimilate innovations quicker[1]. Several strands of research explore relationships inside and outside one’s organization and apply to both Cosmopolitanism and Networks and Communications in the inner setting. Social capital is one term often used to describe the quality and the extent of social interactions. Dimensions of social capital include trust, shared vision, and information sharing. Social capital can be subdivided into 1) internal bonding social capital that examines behavior within a group of people within the same facility and 2) external bridging social capital that examines connections to or with people or groups outside the facility. Each individual's relationships with other individuals both within and outside of the organization represent that individual's social capital. In turn, the collective networks of relationships of the individuals in an organization represent the social capital of the organization[2][10][11][12].

Measurement

Qualitative codebook guidelines

Inclusion criteria

Include descriptions of outside group memberships and networking done outside the organization.

  • “I am a member of the ADA and go to a conference about once per year.”
  • “Networking is very important to me… I get a lot of ideas.”
  • “I’m president of the local chapter.”
  • “My department pays to send each of us to a conference every year.”



Exclusion criteria

Exclude statements about general networking, communication, and relationships in the organization, such as descriptions of meetings, email groups, or other methods of keeping people connected and informed, and statements related to team formation, quality, and functioning and code to Networks & Communications.



Quantitative measures

Attachments

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Brehem J, Rahn W: Individual Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital. American Journal of Political Science 1997, 41:999-1023.
  3. Barnsley J, Lemieux-Charles L, McKinney MM: Integrating learning into integrated delivery systems. Health Care Manage Rev 1998, 23:18-28.
  4. Kimberly JR, Evanisko MJ: Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Acad Manage J 1981, 24:689-713.
  5. Aiken M, S.B. Bacharach and J.L. French. : Organizational Structure, Work Process, and Proposal making in Administrative Bureaucracies. The Academy of Management Journal 1980, 23:631-652.
  6. Baldridge JV, Burnham RA: Organizational Innovation: Individual, organizational and environment impacts. Adm Sci Q 1975, 20:165-176.
  7. Simpson DD, Dansereau DF: Assessing Organizational Functioning as a Step Toward Innovation. NIDA Science & Practice Perspectives 2007, 3:20-28.
  8. Damanpour F: Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. The Academy of Management Journal 1991, 34:555-590.
  9. Burns LR, Wholey DR: Adoption and Abandonment of Matrix Management Programs: Effects of Organizational Characteristics and Interorganizational Networks. Acad Manage J 1993, 36:106-138.
  10. Gladwell M: The Tipping Point. New York: Little, Brown and Company; 2000.
  11. Gittell R, Vidal V: Community Organizing: Building Social as a Development Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
  12. Leana CR, Pil FK: Social Capital and Organizational Performance: Evidence from Public Schools. Organization Science In Press, 17:353-366.
Personal tools
Etiquette and Help