TO SUE
OR NOT TO SUE: ORGANIZATIONAL RESISTANCE, RELATIONSHIPS, ISSUE
FRAMES AND CONTEXT
Phyllis
C. Panzano, Psychology Department, The Ohio State University,
1827 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210
Robert S. Billings, Psychology Department, The Ohio State University
ABSTRACT
The
stances taken by 48 Community Mental Health Boards (plaintiff,
non-party, intervenor, defendant) in a lawsuit against the mental
health department were conceptualized as levels of resistance
to institutional pressure. An expanded strategic issue diagnosis
model (context --> frames --> working relationships -->
organizational resistance) was used to explain this unusual interorganizational
response.
INTRODUCTION
This
study examines litigation among organizations in the same system,
which is an unusual and powerful event. In 1993, 53 Community
Mental Health Boards were forced by an Ohio court to choose among
four possible stances (e.g., plaintiff, defendant) in a lawsuit
brought against the Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH). Plaintiff
Boards contended that ODMH was in violation of the Mental Health
Act (Act) by withholding funds owed to Boards to the care for
severely mentally disabled (SMD) clients. The lawsuit was unexpectedly
initiated shortly after we completed a survey of the Boards. The
implementation of the Act was the focal issue in the survey and
in the lawsuit. Thus, although we did not design the survey to
predict this outcome, our theoretical framework allowed us to
develop and test a model predicting response to the lawsuit.
The
key elements of this model are as follows. Board stance is conceptualized
as organizational resistance to institutional pressure using a
typology developed by Oliver (1991). This organizational decision
is also conceptualized as the product of strategic issue diagnosis,
using Thomas, Shankster & Mathieu's (1994) model. In addition,
as stance in the lawsuit is an interorganizational response, relationships
among the organizations involved is a relevant concept. Our general
conceptual model is presented in the top portion of Figure 1.
Following a description of the research context, we discuss the
specific components of the model.
-------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
-------------------------------
RESEARCH
CONTEXT
ODMH
directs the public mental health system within the state and provides
funds to Boards, who control the system in their area and provide
services to clients through local mental health agencies. Because
ODMH depends on the Boards to carry out its community service
mission and Boards rely on ODMH for the funds to provide services,
Boards and ODMH have an agent-sponsor relationship. According
to Oliver (1990), agents and sponsors are expected to be motivated
by reciprocity, even when agents are heavily dependent on the
sponsor for financial resources, although heavy reliance may increase
an agent's susceptibility to domination and influence.
The
linkage between Boards and ODMH is mandated; they are locked into
an interorganizational relationship (IOR) with no option to dissolve
the relationship, and Board responses are enacted within the institutional
environment governed by ODMH. The Board response to the court-approved
motion initiated by ODMH can therefore be interpreted within Oliver's
(1991) framework of strategic responses to institutional pressure.
Research
Home - Page 1 | 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
| NEXT >
