My work on positive organizational scholarship has followed two paths – relational coordination and the role of relationships in achieving organizational resilience.

Relational Coordination
   Organizational participants often believe, intuitively, that relationships play an important role in organizational performance. However, they are stymied from acting upon this belief for two key reasons. First, they may be concerned that relationships will be derided as “soft” factors that are unworthy of serious management attention and sustained organizational investment. Second, even if others do accept that relationships play an important role in driving organizational performance, there is insufficient knowledge regarding the organizational practices that support high performance relationships.

   Relational coordination is particularly important between functional groups whose tasks are highly interdependent, and in task settings that are characterized by high levels of uncertainty (Gittell, 2002). Furthermore, relational coordination between functions has a more powerful impact on organizational performance than relational coordination within functions, though relational coordination tends to be particularly weak between functions, just where it matters the most (Gittell, 2005).

   But what are the predictors of relational coordination? We have found that small spans of control, along with a coaching/feedback approach to supervision, are conducive to high levels of relational coordination (Gittell, 2001). We also know that interactive coordinating mechanisms, such as cross-functional team meetings and boundary spanners, are conducive to relational coordination but that even so-called “programmed” coordinating mechanisms, like schedules and routines, help to build relational coordination to the extent that they include the functional groups whose tasks are highly interdependent (Gittell, 2002). Finally, we found evidence that cross-functional conflict resolution, selecting employees for relational competence, and measuring performance cross-functionally rather than functionally, are conducive to high levels of relational coordination (Gittell, 2000; Gittell & Seidner, 2006).

   This work contributes to positive organizational scholarship by exploring how positive relationships enable work to be performed in a way that supports both individual and organizational well being, and how organizations facilitate the formation of those positive relationships (Dutton & Ragins, 2006).

Relationships and Resilience
   More recently, I have begun to explore the role of relationships in achieving organizational resilience – the ability to persevere, sustain, and bounce back when faced with stress. What are the attributes or practices that enable organizations and their members to endure and succeed over time, in the face of both everyday stress and occasional crisis? I have conducted four studies that explore these questions.

   I explored in a nine-hospital study of patient care the links between relational coordination, performance and pressures from managed care. I expected that the most successful hospital units would be those where relational coordination among care providers increased in response to pressures from managed care, leading to higher quality and greater efficiency of care. This hypothesis was supported by the data, suggesting that relational reserves can act as a coping mechanism, helping people who work together to respond to everyday stress in a productive way (Gittell, 2005).

   I conducted a second study of resilience with Kim Cameron and two of our students, Sandy Lim and Victor Rivas, using responses by the major U.S. airlines to the crisis of September 11th to understand how relationships interact with other factors to produce resilience in the face of crisis. We found that layoffs after the crisis, while intended to foster recovery, instead inhibited recovery throughout the four years after the crisis. But layoffs after the crisis were strongly correlated with the lack of financial reserves and the lack of viable business models prior to the crisis. Digging deeper, we found that having a viable business model itself depended on the extent to which positive employee relationships had been achieved and maintained over the long term (Gittell, Cameron, Lim & Rivas, 2006).

   I engaged in a third study of resilience with Saul Rubinstein of Rutgers University and two of his students, Carlos Martin and Niklas Erhardt, using network data we collected from the Continental Newark air tower operations. Personnel who work in this tower include representatives from all key airline functions, as well as representatives from airport security, Port Authority, and air traffic control. The purpose of the tower is to facilitate coordination among these various functions, particularly in stressful times such as bad weather days or high traffic days like holidays. We gathered network data measuring communication and relationships among personnel in the tower on two normal days, two holidays (expected stress) and two bad weather days (unexpected stress). We find evidence supporting the proposition that in organizations that have provided an appropriate context, coordination networks will become stronger under conditions of expected stress and even stronger under conditions of unexpected stress, due to the resilient nature of relationships (Gittell, Rubinstein, Martin, Erhardt & George, 2006).

   Finally, a recent study of front-line workers in nursing homes conducted with colleagues from Brandeis University, Boston College and Queens College revealed that relationships play a key role in achieving resilience in that high stress, high turnover setting. Higher levels of relational coordination between certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and their colleagues in other functions predicted lower levels of stress for CNAs and a lower intent to leave their current place of employment. Furthermore the effect of relational coordination on intent to leave was mediated through lower levels of stress (Gittell & Weinberg, 2006).

   Together this work contributes to positive organizational scholarship by helping us to better understand the role that relationships play in achieving organizational resilience and perseverance in the face of threat. In so doing, it also contributes to the study of high reliability organizations (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2004) and organizational resilience (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).

Gittell, J.H. & Pfefferle, S. (2006). “Impact of Relational Coordination on Nursing Home Quality of Care,” under preparation.

Gittell, J.H., Rubinstein, S.A., Martin-Rios, C., Erhardt, N., George, V. (2006). “Cross-Boundary Coordination in an Air Tower: Relationships as a Source of Resilience,” under preparation.

Gittell, J.H. & Seidner, R. (2006). “Toward a Relational Model of High Performance Work Systems,” under preparation.

Gittell, J.H. & Weinberg, D.B. (2006). “Relationships, Resilience and Retention: A Study of Frontline Workers in Nursing Homes,” under preparation.

Gittell, J.H. (2005). “The Role of Weak and Strong Ties in Coordinating Work,” under preparation.

Gittell, J.H. & Weiss, L. (2004). “Coordination Networks Within and Across Organizations: A Multi-Level Framework,” Journal of Management Studies, 41(1): 127-153.

Gittell, J.H. (2003). The Southwest Airlines Way: Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve High Performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gittell, J.H. (2003). “Relational Coordination: Recommendations for Measurement and Analysis,” Working Paper.

Gittell, J.H. (2003). “A Theory of Relational Coordination,” in Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, eds. Kim S. Cameron, Jane E. Dutton and Robert E. Quinn, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishing, forthcoming.

Gittell, J.H. (2003). “Achieving Focus in Hospital-Based Health Care: The Role of Relational Coordination,” in Consumer Driven Health Care, ed. Regina Herzlinger. New York: Jossey-Bass, forthcoming.

Gittell, J.H., von Nordenflycht, A. & Kochan, T.A. (2004). “Mutual Gains or Zero Sum? Labor Relations and Firm Performance in the Airline Industry,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57(2): 163-179.

Gittell, J.H. (2002). “Coordinating Mechanisms in Care Provider Groups: Relational Coordination as a Mediator and Input Uncertainty as a Moderator of Performance Effects,” Management Science, 48(11): 1408-1426.

Gittell, J.H. (2001). “Supervisory Span, Relational Coordination and Flight Departure Performance: A Reassessment of Post-Bureaucracy Theory,” Organization Science, 12(4): 467-482.

Gittell, J.H. (2000). “Organizing Work to Support Relational Coordination,” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(3): 517-539.

Gittell, J.H. (2000). “Paradox of Coordination and Control,” California Management Review, 42(3): 177-183.

Gittell, J.H., Fairfield, K., et al (2000). “Impact of Relational Coordination on Quality of Care, Post-Operative Pain and Functioning, and Length of Stay: A Nine Hospital Study of Surgical Patients,” Medical Care, 38(8): 807-819.

Sutcliffe, K.M. & Vogus, T. (2003). “Organizing for Resilience.” In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, and R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline (pp. 94-110). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. & Obstfeld, D. (1999). “Organizing for High Reliability: Processes of Collective Mindfulness.” In Sutton, R. and Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 81-124. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.