Otwarty dostęp

The maturity of using the organization’s relational intelligence in the processes of building relational capital: a smart organization example


Zacytuj

Figure 1.

The nature and key success factors of a SMART organization.
Source: own study.
The nature and key success factors of a SMART organization. Source: own study.

Assessment of relational intelligence of surveyed organizations in relation to different stakeholder groups

MANIFESTATIONS OF THE RELATIONAL INTELLIGENCE OF THE SURVEYED SMART ORGANIZATIONS IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholders Homogeneity Symmetry Symbiosis Entropy Institutionalization
M Me STD M Me STD M Me STD M Me STD M Me STD
Employees 5.36 5.00 1.25 5.50 6.00 1.24 5.61 6.00 1.18 5.10 5.00 1.42 5.33 5.00 1.39
Management 5.08 5.00 1.67 5.19 6.00 1.75 5.15 6.00 1.69 4.97 5.00 1.59 5.03 5.00 1.69
Owners/shareholders 5.81 6.00 1.16 5.84 6.00 1.13 5.86 6.00 1.16 5.73 6,00 1.17 5.74 6.00 1.21
Customers 5.72 6.00 1.16 5.68 6.00 1.13 5.74 6.00 1.11 5.43 5.00 1.14 5.50 6.00 1.33
Suppliers 5.40 6.00 1.24 5.42 6.00 1.35 5.47 6.00 1.22 5.18 5.00 1.25 5.21 5.00 1.27
Cooperating parties 4.42 4.00 1.59 4.38 4.00 1.52 4.42 4.00 1.54 4.35 4.00 1.45 4.47 4.00 1.54
Competitors 4.21 4.00 1.53 4.15 4.00 1.37 4.16 4.00 1.43 4.34 5.00 1.35 4.30 4.00 1.41
Social and governmental institutions 4.42 4.00 1.59 4.38 4.00 1.52 4.42 4.00 1.54 4.35 4.00 1.45 4.47 4.00 1.54
Financial institutions 4.21 4.00 1.53 4.15 4.00 1.37 4.16 4.00 1.43 4.34 5.00 1.35 4.30 4.00 1.41
R&D sector 3.70 4.00 1.40 3.69 4.00 1.39 3.76 4.00 1.44 3.74 4.00 1.42 3.71 4.00 1.50
Industry/city organizations 3.90 4.00 1.42 3.87 4.00 1.47 3.98 4.00 1.44 3.86 4.00 1.41 3.86 4.00 1.51
Local communities 4.15 4.00 1.43 4.12 4.00 1.50 4.16 4.00 1.50 4.10 4.00 1.42 4.03 4.00 1.56
Media 3.68 4.00 1.56 3.65 4.00 1.49 3.69 4.00 1.43 3.59 4.00 1.46 3.53 4.00 1.52

Maturity map of relational intelligence of surveyed smart organizations in relationships with their key stakeholders

Stakeholders MANIFESTATIONS OF RI ORGANIZATION SMART2
Homogeneity Symmetry Symbiosis Entropy Institutionalization
Employees rather high rather high high rather high rather high
Management rather high rather high rather high rather high rather high
Owners/shareholders high high high high high
Customers high high high rather high rather high
Suppliers rather high rather high rather high rather high rather high
Cooperating parties medium medium medium medium medium
Competitors medium medium medium medium medium
Social and governmental institutions medium medium medium medium medium
Financial institutions medium medium medium medium medium
R&D sector medium medium medium medium medium
Industry/city organizations medium medium medium medium medium
Local communities medium medium medium medium medium
Media medium medium medium medium medium

Size of the relational network of the surveyed companies.

Specification INDICATORS FOR ASSESSING THE SIZE OF THE RELATIONAL NETWORK OF THE SMART COMPANIES SURVEYED
Total ( N=327)
M Me STD S No network (%) has networks max
Employees 5.6 4.0 14.2 23.5 3.5 96.5 1000
Management 0.8 1.0 1.6 63.2 34.56 65.44 230
Owners/shareholders 1.2 1.0 1.1 10.6 4 96 15
Customers 115.4 60.0 204.8 20.0 7.6 92.4 10000
Suppliers 6.0 4.0 11.1 9.7 8.6 91.4 300
Cooperating parties 1.0 0.0 2.2 13.6 53.2 46.8 90
Competitors 7.0 3.0 12.9 4.9 25.4 74.6 200
Social and governmental institutions 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.4 56.6 43.4 20
Financial institutions 1.2 1.0 1.3 11.0 22.3 77.7 63
R&D sector 0.4 0.0 0.8 3.4 67.3 32.7 10
Industry/city organizations 0.6 0.0 1.1 15.0 65.1 34.9 100
Local communities 7.6 0.0 56.5 24.0 60.2 39.8 3000
Media 0.6 0.0 1.2 2.1 67.9 32.1 6

Relational intelligence (RI) versus quality of relational capital (QRC) of an organization

Areas of IR construction The way RI affects the quality of relationships and RC Manifestations of RI in individual RC areas Criteria for assessing RI maturity in the RC construction process Factors/ measures Quality rating (QRC)
Cooperation Nature: Direct/indirect; informal/formal; Persistence and frequency of relationship: Short/long-term; ongoing/cyclical/ one-off; Degree of transparency of terms and conditions of cooperation, legibility/ethics/ respect vs. formalization, bureaucratization, lack of transparency of activities Mode of interaction: voluntary/imposed; planned/accidental; High architectural breadth (number of partners), well matched to the scale and pace of the company’s development, long-term cooperative relationships supplemented by relationships with further new partners as required, close, direct relationships of a voluntary nature preferred, most often initiated by partners, not third parties, high contact intensity, high relationship satisfaction. Degree of homogeneity Indicates the number of the organization’s partners and its ability to arrive at common solutions with them and to undertake different types of activities together (how similar the partners are in their ways of thinking and acting, how well the organization has selected its partners in terms of how they work together) Long-term nature of cooperation
Values Openness to cooperation Matching partners Understanding interests Understanding emotions High willingness to cooperate and share knowledge with various types of partners, both domestic and foreign, also from different industries, symmetry of benefits, conscious selection of partners in terms of organizational culture, resources, market behavior, organizational processes, personality of managers, tradition of cooperation, convergence of goals, proactive customer orientation. Capacity for symmetry - presents how equally the organization and partners are able to share both costs, benefits as well as responsibilities and power (how well the organization has chosen its partners based on its values) Confidence in the group
Requirements Critical reflection on requirements Understanding the requirements Flexibility of action Commitment High openness to bilateral exchange of information, sharing of benefits and losses, changing forms of action according to needs, joint use of available resources, continuous improvement of competences; openness to challenges and market opportunities, implementation of modern technologies, technical culture of employees Capacity for symbiosis - presents how much the organization and its partners are able to become dependent on each other to achieve a common goal (how well the organization has chosen its partners for their ability to commit and achieve their goals) Benefits of cooperation
Communication Nature of communication: high quality, multilateral Communication channels: Modern, supported by IR 4.0 technologies, loT-based, loS-based Frequency of communication: high Transparency of communication: clear communication, transparent, understandable to the partners High openness to informal, close personal relationships, open communication channels, rapid information flow, modern information flow systems Entropy capability - presents how effectively the organization and its partners are able to communicate with each other; (how aptly it has selected them in terms of communication methods) Obtaining important information from stakeholders
Relationship management Relations (value of the relationship, sustainability, relationship satisfaction) Human resources (quantity, quality) Assets (availability, profitability, modernity) Processes (flexibility, competitiveness) Good ability to select the right partners (individuals and organizations). establish and maintain relationships with them in order to organize organizational processes efficiently (good relationship management and accompanying resources). Capacity for institutionalization -demonstrates the extent to which the organization and its partners are able to jointly develop a satisfactory and mutually respected coherent system of rules for the management of the implemented relationships, e.g., planning, remuneration or production (how well they have selected them with a view to efficient coordination/ management of these relationships). Significant impact on the quality of processes

Forms of relationship with different internal stakeholders of the organization.

Stakeholders CHARACTERISTICS OF SMART ORGANIZATIONS’ RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
N=327
Formal (%) Informal (%) Long-term (%) Medium-term (%) Short-term (%) Incidental (%)
Employees 64.5 35.8 44.6 39.8 10.7 4.9
Management 52 48 30.9 47.7 13.8 7.6
Owners/shareholders 80.5 19.5 73.4 24.5 2.1 0

Importance of different stakeholder groups to the company.

Specification Statistics Percentage of high responses (5-7)
total including
M Me STD 6 7
internal Employees 5.34 5.00 1.40 85.0 30.3 19.4
Management 5.19 6.00 1.62 74.4 29.0 21.2
Owners/shareholders 5.76 6.00 1.28 88.0 34.3 31.8
external Customers 5.92 6.00 1.09 90.4 33.2 36.2
Suppliers 5.35 5.00 1.24 81.2 32.1 16.7
Cooperating parties 4.37 4.00 1.39 45.7 20.1 2.4
Competitors 4.71 5.00 1.23 67.3 23.7 2.4
Social and governmental institutions 4.10 4.00 1.61 37.6 13.1 5.8
Labor market institutions 3.99 4.00 1.53 38.1 10.8 3.5
Financial institutions 4.26 5.00 1.59 51.7 19.3 3.7
R&D sector 3.76 4.00 1.51 30.5 9.1 1.7
Industry/city organizations 3.71 4.00 1.61 31.4 9.8 2.3
Local communities 3.92 4.00 1.64 35.2 12.5 4.6
Media 3.69 4.00 1.62 31.1 9.2 2.2

Form of relationship with the organization’s various external stakeholders.

Stakeholders CHARACTERISTICS OF SMART ORGANIZATIONS’ RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR STAKEHOLDERS
N=327
Formal (%) Informal (%) Long-term (%) Medium-term (%) Short-term (%) Incidental (%)
Customers 49 51 48 26 10.7 15.3
Suppliers 70 30 51 26.2 12.8 10
Cooperating parties 49 51 52 22.3 8 17.7
Competitors 36.7 63.3 17.4 45.3 15.3 22
Social and governmental institutions 42.8 57.2 25.1 29.1 24 21.8
Labor market institutions 65.1 34.9 18 26.9 30 25.1
Financial institutions 76.4 23.6 59 25.3 9.7 6
R&D sector 28.1 71.9 7.6 22.9 47.1 22.4
Industry / city organizations 38.5 61.5 63 13.8 7.3 15.9
Local communities 41 59 41.9 33.9 4.6 19.6
Media 22.6 77.4 15 17.1 25.1 42.8

Basic statistics of RC quality indicators for each stakeholder group

RC QUALITY INDICATORS OF THE SURVEYED SMART ORGANIZATIONS WITH THEIR STAKEHOLDERS
Specification M Me STD S
QRC RC Quality 358.84 366.00 63.95 -0.20
QRC1 Employees 32.16 33.00 6.49 -1.30
QRC2 Management 30.44 33.00 9.59 -1.28
QRC3 Owners/shareholders 34.77 36.00 6.20 -0.70
TOTAL RC OF SUB-PARTNERS 97.37
QRC4 Customers 33.84 34.00 5.94 -0.67
QRC5 Suppliers 32.00 33.00 6.61 -0.95
QRC6 Cooperating parties 26.44 26.00 8.59 -0.62
QRC7 Competitors 25.52 25.00 7.37 -0.38
TOTAL RC OF CONTRACT PARTNERS 117.8
QRC8 Social and governmental institutions 24.13 24.00 8.23 -0.45
QRC9 Financial institutions 27.59 30.00 9.49 -0.83
QRC10 R&D sector 22.32 24.00 8.28 -0.49
QRC11 Industry/city organizations 23.30 24.00 8.29 -0.60
QRC12 Local communities 24.66 24.00 8.39 -0.25
QRC13 Media 21.67 24.00 8.45 -0.41
TOTAL RC OF INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS 143.67