Resource dependency theory, in sociology, the study of the impact of resource acquisition on organizational behaviour.
Resource dependency theory is based on the principle that an organization, such as a business firm, must engage in transactions with other actors and organizations in its environment in order to acquire resources. Although such transactions may be advantageous, they may also create dependencies that are not. Resources that the organization needs may be scarce, not always readily obtainable, or under the control of uncooperative actors. The resulting unequal exchanges generate differences in power, authority, and access to further resources. To avoid such dependencies, organizations develop strategies (as well as internal structures) designed to enhance their bargaining position in resource-related transactions. Such strategies include taking political action, increasing the organization’s scale of production, diversifying, and developing links to other organizations. Strategies such as diversifying product lines may lessen a firm’s dependence on other businesses and improve its power and leverage.
Companies typically adjust their business strategies to adapt to changes in power relationships with other companies. One of the assumptions of resource dependency theory is that uncertainty clouds an organization’s control of resources and makes its choice of dependence-lessening strategies imperative. As uncertainty and dependencies increase, the need for links to other organizations also increases. For example, declining profits may lead to expanded business activity through diversification and strategic alliances with other companies.
Research using resource dependency theory has sought to observe organizational adaptations to dependencies. One adaptation consists of aligning internal organizational elements with environmental pressures. Organizations also adapt by attempting to alter their environments. Those strategies contrast sharply with the classic conception of organizations, which treat firms as closed systems. Closed-systems frameworks hold that rational use of resources, personal motivation, and individual capabilities determine organizational success and that other actors in the environment figure minimally. Open-systems frameworks, on the other hand, stress the impact of the environment, which consists of other organizations, institutions, the professions, and the state. According to the open-systems perspective, an organization will be effective to the extent that it recognizes changes in its environment and adjusts itself to those contingencies.