sustainability

Article
Silo-Busting: Overcoming the Greatest Threat to
Organizational Performance
André de Waal 1, * , Michael Weaver 2 , Tammy Day 2 and Beatrice van der Heijden 3,4,5,6,7
1 HPO Center, 1217JC Hilversum, The Netherlands
2 DPA Consulting, Guildford GU4 8EP, UK; [email protected] (M.W.);
[email protected] (T.D.)
3 Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, 6500HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
[email protected]
4 School of Management, Open University of the Netherlands, 6419AT Heerlen, The Netherlands
5 Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
6 Business School, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, China
7 Kingston Business School, Kingston University, Kingston upon Thames, London KT2 7LB, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 5 October 2019; Accepted: 27 November 2019; Published: 2 December 2019


Abstract: Most organizations are set up to operate in some form of silos, such as vertical divisions or
horizontal functions. At best, silos offer a practical way for organizations to operate efficiently. At worst,
they create a silo mentality where departments do not want to exchange knowledge or information,
hindering internal collaboration and organizational learning, thus preventing achievement of high
performance and organizational sustainability. The silo mentality issue has been recognized for a long
time as a real tangible problem that has to be dealt with. On the basis of a questionnaire containing
statements on organizational strength, collaboration, and silo-busting techniques applied, which
was distributed to a sample of mainly large companies, we found that there are five factors that are
important for breaking down silos and increasing the quality of cooperation.

Keywords: silos; silo-busting techniques; high performance organizations; knowledge exchange;

organizational learning; organizational sustainability

1. Introduction
Many organizations strive for ‘organizational sustainability’ [1], defined as the result of the activities
of an organization, voluntary or governed by law, that demonstrate the ability of the organization
to maintain its business operations viably (including financial viability as appropriate) whilst not
negatively impacting any social or ecological systems [2] or, alternatively, as a multidimensional
phenomenon that focuses on maintaining results, generating knowledge, building capacity, establishing
experiences with partners, and producing services and products on the basis of the concepts of efficiency
and effectiveness [3]. An important activity for achieving organizational sustainability is organizational
learning [4] and knowledge exchange [5], as it helps organizational members to detect and correct
errors in the organization so that it can keep achieving sustainable high performance [6]. The more
complex, dynamic, and turbulent an organization’s environment is, the more necessary organizational
learning is considered to be [4]. A main source of organizational learning is the exchange of knowledge
between the various parts of an organization [7]. Unfortunately, many organizations experience some
form of ‘silo working’, be it across vertical divisions or departments, or teams within horizontal
functions. The term ‘silo’ relates to grain silos that segregate one type of grain from another, and is
therefore a metaphor for segregation between different parts of an organization [8]. In the management

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860; doi:10.3390/su11236860 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 2 of 21

literature, organizational silos are defined as psychological boundaries creating compartmentalization,

segregation, and differentiation [9]. Silos can offer a practical way for organizations to operate efficiently
in managing large numbers of people and allocating accountabilities and responsibilities within a
hierarchy. They can create clearly delineated ‘cultural tribes’ that people identify with, and tightly
defined teams or communities that people are motivated to work for, as well as to feel safe within [10].
However, they can also create a ‘silo mentality’ where groups, teams, or departments do not want to
share skills, knowledge, or information with other areas in the same company, or act as ‘one business’.
In this respect, the concept of a silo does not so much relate to the existence of boundaries, but to
the excessively insular mind-set or mentality through which these boundaries shape behaviors and
ways of working that inhibit cross-boundary collaboration and cooperation. This is commonly felt to
have a highly detrimental impact on customer outcomes, innovation, effectiveness, performance, and,
ultimately, the bottom line [11,12]. In fact, in a survey on collaboration, it was found that silos existed
in 83 percent of the responding companies, and that 97 percent of the respondents said that silos had a
negative effect on the performance of their organizations [13]. Collaboration in this respect is defined
as the willingness of units to work together, having mutual understanding, having a common vision,
sharing resources, and achieving collective goals [14].
Silos are a very real problem that are impacting business performance [12]. Consequently, there is
quite some attention for this issue, mainly in the professional literature, especially on how silos are
created and their impact on performance, along with what can be done to mitigate and overcome
them (the so-called ‘silo-busting’ techniques). There has been less focus on research that looks at
whether there is a relation between the strength of an organization, the silo-busting techniques it
applies, and the degree of collaboration within the particular organization. Phrasing this issue in a
different manner—do organizations that are stronger employ more effective silo-busting techniques
in comparison with organizations that have a lower organizational performance level, and do they
achieve better internal collaboration as a result? Thus, the goal of this empirical research was to identify
which silo-busting techniques are most effective in helping organizations to overcome organizational
barriers and to increase collaboration and cooperation. We aimed to achieve this goal by finding
an answer on the following research question—Is there a relationship between an organization’s
strength; its focus and effort on silo-busting techniques; and the quality of organizational learning,
knowledge exchange, and internal collaboration? The research question was addressed through a
questionnaire that combined (a) the characteristics of high performance organizations (HPO) [15] that
measure the strength of an organization, (b) silo-busting techniques derived from the academic and
professional literature, and (c) measures of internal collaboration. This questionnaire was completed
by a sample of mainly large organizations, and on the basis of the collected data, the relations between
the three constructs were identified. The theoretical contribution of this paper is that it moves the
silo-busting research forward and to a higher level by giving it a more rigorous scientific grounding
than has been the case thus far, as well as by looking at silos, silo-busting, and internal collaboration
in a novel way. The practical contributions are that the study results will give organizations and
their executive leadership teams knowledge about effective organization-wide techniques to increase
internal collaboration, and, as a consequence, the performance of their organizations.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next two sections, the theory on silos,
their benefits and disadvantages, and the ways in which they can be busted, are discussed. Then, the
HPO (high performance organizations) framework is introduced. This is followed by a description of
the research approach for the silo-busting study and the research results. Subsequently, these research
results are analyzed and their theoretical and practical implications described. The paper ends with a
conclusion, limitations of the research, and opportunities for future research.

2. Pros and Cons of Silos

In this section, the theoretical pros and cons of silos are identified and summarized.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 3 of 21

2.1. The Pros of Silos

Organizations need some way to structure themselves in order to disperse and delineate authority
and responsibility for making things happen. These structures may be vertical divisions/departments, or
horizontal functions, or a combination of these, through applying a matrix organization design. Creating
boundaries through structure has benefits in terms of facilitating focus, identity, and accountability.
Accountability can be more easily clarified from well-defined boundaries and it can therefore be
easier to define and implement initiatives; thus, silo thinking and behavior can give rise to quicker
decision-making that enables more rapid implementation. In this sense, the insularity of silo thinking
helps to cut back on the distractions and demands from other units that limit focus and the efficiency
of the delivery of specific goals pertaining to a single organizational unit. By operating as a silo, it
makes it easier for a group of people to be protected from outside interference (e.g., head office) during
the early stages of trying to get a new project off the ground.
By implication, operating as a silo creates perceived ‘others’ that are distinct to ‘us’; thus, a
silo offers potential psychological safety within a known community. People may feel more affinity
with a clearly defined organization unit than with an organization overall, impacting their sense of
engagement and motivation within their work. Within a clearly defined organizational community,
such as a specific division or department, where people usually spend the majority of time working
with each other, it is common to develop collective norms of behavior and sub-cultures that create a
sense of security, safety, and predictability. Ultimately, thinking and behaving in siloes may also be
simply easier—collaboration can be difficult in a large complex organization, where there are inevitably
competing commitments and competition for scarce resources, which are less likely to persist in a
smaller environment of a silo sharing a management structure [13,16,17].
For the reasons that have been summed up above, having boundaries can be beneficial both for
the organization and individuals within it. Generally, however, when these boundaries are referred to
as ‘silos’ it is because the nature of these boundaries has become damaging and they are deemed to
have become a limiting factor on performance. It is in this sense that silos are seen in the literature
as detrimental to an organization’s performance. This is because the speed and intensity of change
in current markets mean that products and processes are becoming increasingly complex and are
needing to be continuously and rapidly adapted or enhanced, demanding organizational agility that
necessitates collaboration. Customers also increasingly expect an organization to present them with a
single consistent experience, and silos can prevent organizations of doing this because they inhibit
the coordination, integration, and collaboration needed for this across the organization [12,18]. As
the contemporary workplace is becoming more collaborative, through necessity, silos become an
increasing barrier to doing this effectively—the majority of employees now perform work that is
significantly more collaborative in nature than a few decades ago [18,19]. In addition, collaboration is
needed between various departments for accurate end-to-end planning and forecasting of production,
development, sales, and logistics, especially in the current unpredictable business environment;
this enables earlier awareness of the problems occurring in other parts of the organization, and
promotes trust between organizational units [19]. Other benefits reported about collaboration are
an improvement in communication, increased employee engagement and morale, quicker and more
efficient decision making, reduction in employee errors, improved goal achievement, and higher
organizational performance [12,19,20].

2.2. The Cons of Silos

Instead of the benefits mentioned above, many organizations suffer from the following problems
created by silos:

1. Putting the ‘parts’ before the ‘whole’. Silo thinking leads to managers only being focused on
the interests of their own organizational unit, inducing them to pursue seemingly worthwhile
agendas in their own areas which may be at odds with the agendas of other units and of the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 4 of 21

overall organization. For example, opportunities for cross-selling are missed, which hurts the
overall revenue of the organization [13,21–25].
2. Having personal conflicts and damaging politics. The focus on local interests means damaging
politics and the development of personal conflicts between leaders of different units, generating
turf wars and power struggles that hinder collaboration and, ultimately, performance. This also
creates a lack of trust between employees from these units and a feeling of “us against them”.
This can perpetuate the primitive reaction of fight and flight—fight whatever is outside and flee
to the inside of the silo with its presumed safety [13,25,26].
3. Creating an excessively inwards, rather than outwards, focus. People can be so focused on their
agendas and on the politics generated around this that they lose sight of customers and what
matters most to them. Customer experience can fall away and silos can inhibit the flexibility and
even energy to deal with customers adequately. Not enough time is spent on creating complex,
customized products on time and within budget for these customers. Customers receive mixed
messages because brands of different units compete with each other in the market place. In the
end, the reputation of the organization and its management is severely damaged in the outside
world [13,16,21,23,26].
4. Withholding resources and information from other units. The lack of communication and
cooperation between silos directly affects organizational performance negatively because insights
around potential opportunities are not shared or passed on and thus get lost, and threats are not
recognized in a timely manner. The lack of sharing of information also causes a lack of shared
learning and innovation, with people ignoring facts that do not support their own viewpoint,
and a ‘not-invented-here’ mentality that hurts performance improvements. When resources
are not shared, it is difficult to implement synergistic programs in the organization. Siloed
thinking can also lead to the misallocation of finite resources across units and programs and
a desire from different units to keep their best talents for themselves rather than make these
available to other teams, thus leading to inefficient matches of people and positions and a failure
to align top talents with the most strategically significant positions, from an organizational
perspective [13,21,22,24–26].
5. Inhibiting learning, innovation, and improvement. Pockets of excellence might exist in the
organization but, because of silos, they will be isolated and therefore difficult to leverage across
the organization. As a result, it will be impossible for the organization to become high performing
because not enough units profit from the ideas, experience, and skills of other units [21,22].
6. Suffering from motivational and morale problems within the workforce. Because each silo has its
own agenda, people in the organization receive mixed messages about priorities, which creates
confusion and ambiguity that can lead to organizational dysfunction. Silos can be a common
source of employee frustration. They can also cause lower overall productivity, for many of the
reasons already stated, and create delays in ‘getting things done’ and ‘seeing things through’,
which is detrimental to the motivation and engagement of employees who want to see an impact
and outcome for their efforts. In addition, silos can make it difficult for people to establish deeper
relationships with people they regularly have to work with in different units, causing feelings of
isolation. These impacts on morale and motivation can create retention issues and may lead to
the resignation of good people [11,13,16,26,27].

3. Why Do Silos Develop?

There are many potential reasons for silos to appear in organizations [13,23,26,27]. In some
organizations, the silo mentality has arisen from legacy structures, ways of working, or organizational
designs that have failed to adapt with the growth and evolution of the business and its goals.
For instance, the corporate culture does not encourage collaboration as it is competitive rather than
team-oriented; or the culture is based on an insular mind-set with indifference to other units’ needs.
It can be down to a lack of a common unifying purpose, vision and strategy, and associated planning
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 5 of 21

and prioritization processes that put functions in direct competition for resources. In that same vein,
the reward structure might be based on individual unit outcomes, which naturally results in a focus on
the achievement of personal or unit targets. It can be easier to focus on personal interest when working
within a system like this. In many cases, leaders have created ‘untouchable’ fiefdoms or territories,
which can run with efficiency and precision to deliver their agenda, but in isolation from the rest of
the organization and the wider greater good. Issues of power, control, competition, and hierarchy are
typical underlying drivers for the creation of silos and a silo mentality.
Silos may also be due to a lack of collaboration skills and a bad attitude of management. If managers
have a negative attitude toward other units and a lack of commitment to corporate goals—implying a
management style that encourages conflicts and discourages respecting and incorporating other peoples’
ideas and needs, fails to take a strong stand against people who build turfs, has inadequate interpersonal
skills resulting in a lack of understanding as how to build cooperative working relationships, or
fails to provide employees and oneself with a compelling reason and a suitable context for working
together—then collaboration will most likely be deterred. Perhaps, however, there are more practical
reasons, linked to the complexity of organizational life and the inevitable difficulties in knowing
who is doing what and who to engage with inside large, geographically dispersed organizations
witnessing increasing rates of change. Whatever the causes, when a company is siloed, it is constantly
in tension or even in conflict with itself, meaning its focus gravitates inwards, at the expense of
being externally directed towards customers, competitors, the wider environment, and ultimately
organizational performance.

4. Silo-Busting Approaches
We undertook an extensive search of the academic and professional literature to collect in-depth
information on silo-busting techniques. We searched the EBSCO and Emerald scientific databases,
Google Scholar, and Google more generally, using the search terms ‘silo’, ‘silo-busting’ and ‘internal
collaboration’. Our main criteria to include publications in our review were that they had to contain
one or more silo-busting techniques, that is, ideas for how to break down and get rid of damaging
organizational silos and improve the collaboration inside the organization. Thus, we only included
research studies on silo-busting techniques when the authors explicitly looked for a relation between
the techniques they researched and organizational collaboration. In total, we identified 48 publications,
with the majority (33, or 77%) being professional in nature. We grouped (categorized) similar techniques
of silo-busting ideas and gave each group a title. We also collected ways to measure the success of
silo-busting initiatives (i.e. collaboration results). The results of the literature review are listed in
Table 1. The premise of our research is that the five silo-busting categories we abstracted from the
literature have a positive relation with the degree and success of collaboration (i.e., collaboration
results) inside the organization.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 6 of 21

Table 1. Theoretical predicted silo-busting factors and characteristics.

Factor Items—English
Values 1. Create and enforce a set of values that support collaboration
2. Promote a shared identity that brings organizational units together
3. Focus on creating a united collaborative mind-set
4. Create clear unifying goals for people to work on together
Collaborative operating model 5. Create clarity of roles, responsibilities, goals, tasks, and outcomes
6. Standardize processes, procedures, and roles across organizational units to foster
collaboration
7. Integrate process and systems across organizational units
8. Develop interdependent planning and review processes across organizational units
9. Develop, by multiple organizational units, products/services for customers
10. Create cross-organizational unit programs and projects for people to stimulate
collaboration
11. Allow time and space to conduct cross-organizational unit experimentation and
innovation
12. Devise and implement methods for resolving cross-organizational unit conflict
and disagreement and build trust
13. Develop new indicators to measure, discuss, and evaluate the quality and success
of collaboration
14. Install a common information technology (IT) platform and systems across all
organizational units
15. Use IT systems to enable better information sharing across organizational units
Collaborative environment 16. Ensure equality and justice in the treatment of all organizational units
17. Create open information flows to share information on goals, plans, and results
throughout the organization
18. Inform organizational units about the goals and status of other organizational
units
19. Create communities/networks to share knowledge, practice, and experience
across organizational units
20. Hold cross-organizational unit training and events to build inter-organizational
unit respect, understanding, and trust
21. Create a physical space where colleagues can collide and bond
22. Encourage colleagues to spend time with colleagues from other organizational
units
23. Create informal settings for people to get to know each other
24. Managers have responsibility for results in their own area and share
Leadership
responsibilities elsewhere
25. Ensure senior leadership demonstrates collaborative behavior
26. Develop interpersonal skillsets within managers to better enable them to
collaborate and network
People reward and development 27. Recruit people with a collaborative mind-set and good networking skills
28. Provide employees with training to further develop their collaborative and
networking skills
29. Give people the authority and accountability to act in a collaborative manner
30. Adapt evaluation, reward, and incentive systems to specifically reward
cross-organizational unit collaborative efforts and results
31. Visibly recognize and reward people who collaborate across organizational units
Collaboration results A. The department works better with other departments
B. The department has increased efficiency
C. The department has a more satisfied customer
D. The department has increased flexibility
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 7 of 21

We named silo-busting factor 1 ‘values’, as this factor contained four characteristics that promote
collaboration as a common value in the organization, something that brings people and units in an
organization together [28]. Silo-busting factor 2 was called ‘collaborative operating model’, as this factor
contained characteristics that relate to how the organization’s social, knowledge, and management
infrastructure itself is organized and aligned in such a way that collaboration across units is facilitated
and thus made easier. The level of capability an organization has to readily adapt itself to what is
needed to survive and thrive in the environment is an indication of organizational enhancement and,
finally, organizational success [29,30]. Such characteristics include creating clarity in the organization
(characteristics 5, 13), embedding supporting processes for aligning, coordinating and facilitating
collaboration between units (6, 7, 8, 9), instigating cross-functional events and initiatives where people
can interact (10, 11), making sure conflicts between units can be resolved quickly (12), and putting
information systems in place to enable and facilitate information sharing and communication across
the organization (14, 15). Silo-busting factor 3 is described as ‘collaborative environment’, as this factor
contains characteristics that relate to fostering a collaborative mind-set, focus, behavior, and culture in
the organization. This includes making sure all units are treated equally so there is no distrust between
them, preventing collaboration (16); keeping units informed about other areas (17, 18); cultivating and
facilitating active cross-functional networks, communities, and events (19, 20); and having physical
spaces where people can actually meet and interact (21, 22, 23). Silo-busting factor 4 was given the label
‘leadership’, as its three characteristics described managers taking the lead in showing and promoting
collaborative behavior. Lastly, silo-busting factor 5 was named ‘people reward and development’
because the characteristics in this factor focused on rewarding people for collaborative behavior (30, 31)
and making sure they were capable of actually cooperating across unit boundaries (27, 28, 29).

5. The HPO Framework

The strength of an organization was measured by using the high performance organization
(HPO) literature. There have been many studies of HPOs, but none of these actually resulted in
a universal theory, model, or framework that could be applied in different organizational settings.
Then, a decade ago, the HPO framework (The description of the HPO framework has been taken
from [15])—incorporating the research results of multiple disciplines—was developed on the basis of
an extensive review of 290 academic and professional publications on high performance [15]. In that
study, an HPO was defined as “an organization that achieves financial and non-financial results that are
exceedingly better than those of its peer group over a period of time of five years or more, by focusing in
a disciplined way on that what really matters to the organization” [15] (p. 5). For each of the 290 studies,
elements that the authors indicated as being important for becoming an HPO were identified and placed
in categories labelled ‘potential HPO characteristics’. For each of the potential HPO characteristics the
‘weighted importance’ was calculated as the number of times it occurred in the examined studies. Finally,
the characteristics with the highest weighted importance were considered to be key potential HPO
characteristics. These key potential characteristics were subsequently included in an HPO survey that
was administered worldwide and encompassed over 3200 respondents. In this survey, the respondents
were asked to indicate how well they thought their organizations were performing against the key
potential characteristics (on a scale of 1 to 10) and also how the results of the organization they worked at
compared to those of companies within their ‘peer group’. The competitive performance was calculated
in two ways: (1) relative performance (RP)—performance of the organization versus performance of
its peer group, and (2) historic performance (HP)—performance of the organization in the past three to
five years versus the performance of its peers during the same time period. These subjective measures
of organizational performance are established indicators of real performance [31–34]. Using factor
analysis, 35 of the key potential characteristics loaded high enough (loadings above 0.4) on one of
five factors. The factor scales showed acceptable reliability [35] with Cronbach’s alpha close to or
above 0.70. In order to verify whether these so-called HPO factors were correlated with competitive
performance, a correlation matrix was constructed. All five HPO factors correlated with relative
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 8 of 21

performance (RP) and historic performance (HP) [15]. To test whether the HPO factors were correlated
with each other, another matrix was constructed. All factors appeared to indeed be correlated with
each other, meaning that when an organization works on improving one of the factors, the other factors
will also be impacted. Thus, the HPO framework, consisting of 5 HPO factors and 35 corresponding
HPO characteristics, may be characterized as a complementary system [36].
The five HPO factors were (see Table A1 in Appendix A for the detailed 35 HPO characteristics):

• Management quality. Belief and trust in others and fair treatment are encouraged. Managers
are trustworthy, committed, enthusiastic and respectful; have a decisive, action-focused
decision-making style; hold employees accountable for performance results; and communicate
values and strategy throughout the organization so that everyone knows and embraces these.
• Openness and action-orientation. An HPO has an open culture, which means that management
values the opinions of employees and involves them in important organizational processes.
Mistakes are allowed and regarded as an opportunity to learn. Employees engage in dialogue,
exchange knowledge, and develop new ideas aimed at improving performance. Managers are
personally involved in experimenting, thereby fostering an environment of change.
• Long-term orientation. An HPO grows through partnerships with suppliers and customers;
long-term commitment is extended to all stakeholders. Vacancies are filled by high-potential
internal candidates, if possible, and people are encouraged to become leaders. An HPO creates a
safe and secure workplace (both physically and mentally), and dismisses employees only as a
last resort.
• Continuous improvement and renewal. An HPO continuously improves, simplifies and aligns its
processes and innovates around products and services, creating new sources of competitive
advantage to respond to market developments. An HPO manages its core competences efficiently,
and outsources non-core competences.
• Employee quality. An HPO assembles and recruits a diverse and complementary management
team and workforce with maximum work flexibility. The workforce is trained to be resilient and
flexible; encouraged to develop skills to achieve extraordinary results; and held responsible for
their performance, leading to increased creativity and better results.

HPO research shows that there is a direct and positive relationship between the five HPO factors
and competitive performance—the higher the scores on the HPO factors (HPO scores), the better the
results of the organization, and the lower the HPO scores, the lower the competitive performance.
Research also shows that all HPO factors need to have high scores in order for an organization to
achieve excellent results. An organization can evaluate its HPO status by performing an HPO diagnosis
in which management and employees complete the HPO questionnaire, containing questions on the
35 HPO characteristics with possible answers on an absolute scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to
10 (excellent). Average scores indicate points where the organization has to take action in order to
become an HPO. Since the development of the HPO framework, multiple longitudinal studies have
been performed that show the positive correlation between the HPO scores of an organization and its
performance [37–41]. In these studies, organizations that worked with discipline and dedication and
thus increased their HPO scores all experienced increased organizational performance.

6. Research Approach
The silo-busting techniques were reworded into statements that could be easily interpreted
by individuals in consideration of their own organization and included in a survey. For example,
‘Create career development paths that require cross-organizational unit experience’ was turned into
the statement ‘To advance in our organization, we need cross-organizational unit experience’. These
statements were then included in the survey as a silo-busting factors question set, alongside the HPO
question set. In addition, a third set of questions was incorporated into the survey as well—these
related to organizational collaboration and asked respondents to offer a perception on the quality of
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 9 of 21

collaboration and coordination in the organization. These were used to identify the success of the
silo-busting techniques applied by the organization.
The resulting questionnaire was reviewed and completed by several colleagues of the authors,
all experts in business administration, and subsequently refined. Then the questionnaire was sent to
11 organizations that agreed to participate in the silo-busting research. These organizations basically
formed a convenience sample as they are all clients of DPA Consulting (where two of the authors
work), based in the United Kingdom, and who identified themselves as being willing to participate.
They were selected on the basis of size (i.e., there should be at least several departments within the
organization with a sizable population present so that silos could be an issue) and on willingness to
participate. Table 2 provides information on the participating organizations.

Table 2. The participating organizations.

Size of Company Profit/Non-Profit/ Part of a Quoted on

Company Number of
Industry (Full-Time Government Bigger Entity (e.g., the Stock
Name Respondents
Equivalents) Organization A Multi-National) Exchange
A Insurance 500 Profit No No 98
B Insurance 4600 Profit Yes Yes 12
C Broadcaster 20,951 Profit No No 10
D Technology 71,883 Profit Yes Yes 48
E Law 2500 Profit No No 92
Advertising/Public
F 17,500 Profit Yes Yes 163
Relations
G Healthcare 7400 Profit Yes No 58
H Insurance 3000 Non-profit No No 259
I Entertainment 7900 Profit Yes Yes 56
J Government 7000 Government No Yes 58
K Insurance 700 Profit No No 15
Total 869

An information package was compiled explaining the purpose and set-up of the research. This
package was sent to the main contact person at the participating organizations, together with a link to
the internet-based questionnaire. The organizations themselves selected potential respondents on the
basis of the guidance that we were looking for responses from a cross-functional sample of people
from across different areas of the business, as well as different grades, and including as many people
as was possible and realistic. Confidentiality of the data was guaranteed as the data entered by the
respondents themselves were directly collected in the database of the HPO center. The respondents
were asked to rate the statements on a scale ranging from 1 to 10 to reflect the extent to which they
thought the statement applied to the organization and the department they worked, with 1 being
‘strongly disagree’ and 10 being ‘strongly agree’. The authors had regular contact with the contact
persons to inform them on the response and to discuss reminders for the participants. In total, 869
completed questionnaires were received.

7. Research Results
The HPO questionnaire has been shown to have high internal consistency and has been validated
repeatedly to consist of five subscales. Given this previous knowledge we chose to average the relevant
items into these five subscales. In keeping with previous findings, the internal consistency of the
HPO subscales was high (Table 3). The silo-busting questionnaire was a priori subdivided into five
underlying constructs (Table 1). Internal consistency per factor was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha.
In cases of high Cronbach’s alpha, the items were averaged to form each factor. The fit of the overall
silo-busting model was assessed by means of a confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency of
the silo-busting factors was high (Table 3), and we applied data reduction by averaging the items
per factor. The collaboration results questionnaire consisted of four items and was a priori assumed
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 10 of 21

to consist of one underlying factor. Just like for the silo-busting questionnaire, internal consistency
of the single underlying factor was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Confirmatory factor analysis
was performed on a model consisting of one latent factor, to which the four items were loaded upon.
Internal consistency again was high (Table 3). For all subscales, average variance extracted was
computed as a measure of convergent validity. Overall, the scores appeared to be high (Table 3) with
two factors scoring slightly below the 0.5 cut-off. We also performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
for the silo-busting (SB) and quality of cooperation (QC) measures. Model fit was good: the Tucker
Lewis Index (TLI) SB = 0.89; TLI QC = 0.996.

Table 3. Cronbach’s alphas for the high performance organizations (HPO), silo-busting, and
collaboration factors.

Factor Name Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha Average Variance Extracted

HPO continuous improvement 8 0.924 0.659
HPO openness and action
6 0.892 0.651
orientation
HPO management quality 12 0.962 0.707
HPO employee quality 4 0.852 0.693
HPO long-term orientation 5 0.785 0.553
Silo-busting values 4 0.907 0.784
Silo-busting collaborative operating
11 0.935 0.498
model
Silo-busting collaborative
8 0.896 0.443
environment
Silo-busting leadership 3 0.853 0.773
Silo-busting people reward and
5 0.893 0.701
development
Collaboration results 4 0.939 0.846

To get better insight into the relationship between the HPO factors and collaboration results,
the averaged HPO factors were entered into a structural equation model (SEM) in which the five
factors loaded onto the collaboration results factor. Similarly, the relationship between the silo-busting
factors and the collaboration results factors was assessed using SEM. Items per factor were averaged.
Analyses were done in SPSS (version 24), and SEM analyses were performed using maximum likelihood
estimation, as implemented in AMOS software (version 23.0.0). The SEM analysis showed that three
out of five HPO factors loaded significantly on collaboration results (Figure 1), with all loadings being
positive. The analysis also showed that all silo-busting factors loaded significantly on collaboration
results. It should be noted though that the standardized regression weights of some factors were rather
small. People reward and development and values had the highest regression weights. All loadings
were positive. In Appendix B (Tables A2–A5), the detailed outcomes of the SEM analysis are given.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 11 of 21

Figure 1. Structural equation model (SEM) of the HPO and silo-busting factors on collaboration results.
Displayed are the standardized regression weights for significant influence (at the p < 0.05 level).

As theoretically predicted, all five silo-busting factors showed positive correlations with collaborate
results. Figure 1 shows that silo-busting factors values and people reward and development have the
strongest relations; as a consequence, organizations should pay particular attention to implementing
the characteristics underlying these two factors. The combination of these two particular silo-busting
factors indicate the strength of the saying “putting your money where your mouth is”—promoting
internal collaboration by making it a key value of the organization, but being sure then to reward
people who actually show collaborative behavior [42,43].
Figure 1 also shows that three of the five HPO factors have a direct positive influence on the
collaboration results factor. Continuous improvement and renewal can basically only be effective when
people collaborate on process improvement and innovating new products and services. Thus, being
successful in continuous improvement and renewal has to mean that there is successful collaboration
in the organization, which has to show in the collaboration results [44,45]. Regarding employee quality,
a continuous improvement mind-set in people is needed to adapt an organization for collaboration
and to actually show collaborate behavior [46,47]. Employees need certain qualities in order to
behave in a collaborative manner and to be successful in adapting the organization and its IT systems,
such as in wanting to accomplish extraordinary results, being resilient and flexible, and wanting to
work in collaborative partnerships. Finally, a long-term orientation in the organization entails that
this organization maintains good and long-term relationships with all stakeholders and is aimed at
servicing the customers as best as possible. These two characteristics convey an attitude of openness
and service-orientation to other parties, in this case, other organizational units, which helps to increase
the inclination to collaborate with those other units [44,48]. HPO factors management quality and
openness and action orientation did not show significant relations with collaboration results. This might
have been because these HPO factors contained characteristics that mainly relate to the (individual)
relationships between managers and employees in an organizational unit.

8. Silo-Busting Scores of the Participating Organizations

With the factors of the silo-busting framework identified, it was possible to calculate the silo-busting
scores and compare these with the HPO scores and collaboration results scores. Figure 2 shows the
Sustainability 2019,
Sustainability 11,11,
2019, 6860
x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 1219
12 of
of of 21
Sustainability 2019, 11, x 12 19

With the factors

With the factors of
of the
the silo-busting
silo-busting framework
framework identified,
identified, it
it was
was possible
possible to
to calculate
calculate the
the silo-
silo-
average silo-busting
busting scores
scores and scores
and compare of all participating
these with
compare these with the organizations,
the HPO
HPO scores
scores and plotted alongside
and collaboration
collaboration resultsthe HPO
results scores.‘target’
Figurescore
scores. Figure
busting 22
of shows
8.5. Previous
shows the research
the average has
average silo-busting demonstrated
silo-busting scores
scores of
of all that 8.5 is considered
all participating to
participating organizations, be an appropriate
organizations, plotted
plotted alongside threshold
alongside the HPOfor
the HPO
organizations
‘target’ scoretoof
‘target’ score ofreach
8.5. in orderresearch
8.5. Previous
Previous to be deemed
research an HPO [15].
has demonstrated
has demonstrated Due
that
that 8.5 to
8.5 their strongto
is considered
is considered tocorrelation,
be an
be we have
an appropriate
appropriate
also
threshold for organizations to reach in order to be deemed an HPO [15]. Due to score
applied
threshold this
for threshold of
organizations 8.5tofrom the
reach HPO
in factors
order to to
be the silo-busting
deemed an scores,
HPO meaning
[15]. Due a
to their of
their
8.5strong
or above would be considered to indicate a highly collaborative organization.
strong

Figure2.2.
Figure
Figure 2.Total
Totalsilo-busting
Total silo-busting scores
silo-busting scores for
scores for the
the 11
the 11 participating
11 participating organizations.
participatingorganizations.
organizations.

Figure 3 gives the HPO, silo-busting, and collaboration outcome scores per individual organization.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Average silo-busting
silo-busting factor,
factor, HPO,
HPO, and
and collaboration
collaboration results
results scores for
for the individual
individual
Figure 3. Average
Average silo-busting factor, HPO, and collaborationscores
results the
scores for the
organizations.
organizations.
individual organizations.

Figures
Figures
Figures 22 and
2 andand3 33show
showthat
show thatthe
that theparticipating
the participating organizations,
participating organizations,
organizations,inin general,
ingeneral, achieved
general,achieved
achievedmid-range
mid-range
mid-rangescores
scores
scores
on
onon the
thethe silo-busting
silo-busting
silo-busting and and
and HPO factors
HPOfactors
HPO and
factorsand did
anddid not
didnot yet
notyet meet
yetmeet the
meet the threshold
the threshold of 8.5. Looking
threshold of 8.5. Looking at Figure
LookingatatFigure 3,3, on
Figure3,
face value, there seems to be a relationship between the HPO, silo-busting factor, and collaboration
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 13 of 21

results scores. To investigate this further, we first categorized the organizations into three groups
according to their HPO scores: higher (HPO score >7—organizations J and K), mid (HPO score between
6 and 7—organizations C, F, G, H, and I), and lower (HPO score <6—organizations A, B, D, and E)
performers. Then, we calculated the HPO, silo-busting factor, and collaboration results scores (see
Figure 4).
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

Figure4.
Figure 4. Scores
Scores per
per HPO
HPOcategory.
category.

In In
thethe silo-bustingframework,
silo-busting framework,therethere are
are three ‘systems’
‘systems’(HPO,
(HPO,silo-busting,
silo-busting, collaboration
collaborationresults)
results)
and Figure 4 shows that these systems more or less move in the same
and Figure 4 shows that these systems more or less move in the same direction—when the HPOdirection—when the HPO score
is high,
score the silo-busting
is high, scorescore
the silo-busting is alsoishigh,
also as is the
high, as collaboration results score.
is the collaboration resultsThis means
score. Thisthat higher
means that
HPOHPO
higher scoring organizations
scoring are also
organizations arebetter in applying
also better silo-busting
in applying techniques
silo-busting and thus
techniques they
and have
thus they
more
have moresuccess
successin in
collaborating
collaboratingin in
their organization.
their organization. To To
testtest
whether
whether thethe
noticed
noticeddifferences
differencesareare
significant, we compared companies scoring low on silo-busting ('silo companies')
significant, we compared companies scoring low on silo-busting (‘silo companies‘) with companies with companies
scoring high on silo-busting ('non-silo companies') with regard to their HPO and SB measures. For
scoring high on silo-busting (‘non-silo companies’) with regard to their HPO and SB measures. For
grouping, we used a median split, which meant that five companies were included in the silo group,
grouping, we used a median split, which meant that five companies were included in the silo group,
and that six companies were included in the non-silo group (on the basis of their silo-busting score,
and that six companies were included in the non-silo group (on the basis of their silo-busting score, a
a high silo-busting score meant that the organization was included in the non-silo group). Because
high silo-busting score meant that the organization was included in the non-silo group). Because the
the sample sizes varied strongly, we computed Mann–Whitney tests to test for differences. There
sample
were sizes
clear varied strongly,
differences we between
noticed computed theMann–Whitney
two groups, with—as tests to expected—the
test for differences. There
non-silo were
group
clear differences noticed between the two groups, with—as
scoring higher than the silo group (see Table A6 and Table A7 in Appendix 3). expected—the non-silo group scoring
higher than the silo group (see Tables A6 and A7 in Appendix C).
9. Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research
9. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research
The main research question dealt with in this paper was—Is there a relationship between an
The main research
organization’s strength;question dealt
its focus andwith in this
effort on paper was—Istechniques;
silo-busting there a relationship between
and the quality ofan
organization’s
organizationalstrength;
learning,itsknowledge
focus and effort on silo-busting
exchange, techniques;
and internal and the
collaboration? Thequality
research ofquestion
organizational
was
learning, knowledge exchange, and internal collaboration? The research question
addressed by combining theory on high performance organizations with silo-busting techniques was addressed thatby
combining theory
can be found in on
thehigh performance
literature, organizations
as well as with silo-busting
employee perceptions techniques
of internal that can
collaboration, all be
in found
one
in questionnaire.
the literature, This
as well
wasasthenemployee
applied perceptions
to a sample of ofmainly
internal collaboration,
large organizations.all The
in one questionnaire.
research results
This was then
showed that applied
there was to aa clear
sample of mainly
positive large organizations.
relationship The research
between the application resultssilo-busting
of certain showed that
techniques
there by an
was a clear organization,
positive the extent
relationship betweenof organizational
the applicationlearning and
of certain knowledgetechniques
silo-busting exchange, the by an
quality andthe
organization, outcomes
extent ofoforganizational
collaboration, learning
and thusand the knowledge
overall internal strength
exchange, the of the organization.
quality and outcomes
of Therefore, this and
collaboration, research
thushas thecontributed to thestrength
overall internal existing of
body
theof theory in thisTherefore,
organization. area by developing a
this research
silo-busting framework on the basis of both theoretical and practical data, which
has contributed to the existing body of theory in this area by developing a silo-busting framework fills a gap in the
current literature. At the same time, this contribution forms the starting point of more in-depth
academic research into the topic of silo-busting and collaboration, which is highly needed (see Section
4). The research also offers a practical contribution to management and organizational development
thinking and action-taking. Organizations and their leaders can benefit from these practical, yet
academically-robust, insights into how to lay the organizational foundations for effective silo-busting
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 14 of 21

on the basis of both theoretical and practical data, which fills a gap in the current literature. At the
same time, this contribution forms the starting point of more in-depth academic research into the topic
of silo-busting and collaboration, which is highly needed (see Section 4). The research also offers a
practical contribution to management and organizational development thinking and action-taking.
Organizations and their leaders can benefit from these practical, yet academically-robust, insights
into how to lay the organizational foundations for effective silo-busting and thus better internal
collaboration. In turn, as shown in our earlier research [37–41], this improved collaboration will
increase the chances for organizations to become high-performing ones.
The present study has some limitations. Firstly, all data were collected using questionnaires,
opening up the possibility of response set consistencies. Secondly, all data were collected at one point
in time, that is, the study was cross-sectional. This implies that further research is needed in order to
address the issue of causality. Research using multi-wave designs can provide more specific information
about the stability and change of the variables, and about cross-lagged relationships, compared with
our cross-sectional approach. Thirdly, we did not include control variables, such as organizational
tenure or hierarchical position, in our research model and subsequent analysis. These might have
influenced our results and could therefore be incorporated in further studies. Fourthly, further research
is needed to investigate the extent to which our findings generalize to other occupational settings
and/or to other countries. Nevertheless, we think that our results are noteworthy and provide good
challenges for future research and cross-validation in different settings and countries. Specifically,
future research should replicate this study in different types of organizations in different countries. It
should also include longitudinal studies into how the silo-busting factors and characteristics can be
shaped into tangible actions and whether these indeed increase in a lasting way the level and quality
of collaboration and thus organizational performance over time.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.d.W., M.W., T.D., and B.v.d.H.; data curation, A.d.W.; formal analysis,
A.d.W.; investigation, A.d.W. and B.v.d.H.; methodology, A.d.W. and B.v.d.H.; project administration, M.W. and
T.D.; writing—original draft, A.d.W.; Writing—review and editing, A.d.W., M.W., T.D., and B.v.d.H.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. The HPO Factors

This appendix lists the 35 characteristics of the five HPO factors.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 15 of 21

Table A1. The five HPO factors and their 35 characteristics.

HPO Factor
Continuous Improvement and Renewal
1. The organization has adopted a strategy that sets it clearly apart from other organizations.
2. In the organization processes are continuously improved.
3. In the organization processes are continuously simplified.
4. In the organization processes are continuously aligned.
5. In the organization everything that matters to performance is explicitly reported.
6. In the organization, both financial and non-financial information is reported to employees.
7. The organization continuously innovates its core competencies.
8. The organization continuously innovates its products, processes, and services.
Openness and Action Orientation
9. Management frequently engages in a dialogue with employees.
10. Employees spend much time on communication, knowledge exchange, and learning.
11. Employees are always involved in important processes.
12. Management allows making mistakes.
13. Management welcomes change.
14. The organization is performance-driven.
Management Quality
15. Management is trusted by employees.
16. Management has integrity.
17. Management is a role model for employees.
18. Management applies fast decision-making.
19. Management applies fast action-taking.
20. Management coaches employees to achieve better results.
21. Management focuses on achieving results.
22. Management is very effective.
23. Management applies strong leadership.
24. Management is confident.
25. Management is decisive with regard to non-performers.
Employee Quality
26. Employees want to be held responsible for their results.
27. Employees want to be inspired to accomplish extraordinary results.
28. Employees are trained to be resilient and flexible.
29. The organization has a diverse and complementary workforce.
Long-Term Orientation
30. The organization maintains good and long-term relationships with all stakeholders.
31. The organization is aimed at servicing the customers as best as possible.
32. The organization grows through partnerships with suppliers and/or customers.
33. Management has been with the company for a long time.
34. The organization is a secure workplace for employees.
35. New management is promoted from within the organization.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 16 of 21

Appendix B. The SEM Results

This appendix provides detail on the results of the SEM analysis. The TLI indices of both SEM
models (SB→QC; and HPO→QC) were good (>0.98).

Table A2. Structural Equation Model Silo Busting→Collaboration Results (Coll Results).

Estimate S.E. C.R. p

Coll Results ← SB_Leadership 0.117 0.028 4.182 ***
Coll Results ← SB_MutualUnderstanding 0.120 0.052 2.308 0.021
Coll Results ← SB_CollOperatingModel 0.167 0.041 4.023 ***
Coll Results ← SB_PeopleRewardDevelop 0.295 0.039 7.618 ***
Coll Results ← SB_Values 0.217 0.035 6.177 ***
*** = significant at the <0.05 level.

Table A3. Standardized regression weights for SEM model Silo Busting→Collaboration Results.

Standardized Regression Weights Estimate

Coll Results ← SB_Leadership 0.142
Coll Results ← SB_MutualUnderstanding 0.113
Coll Results ← SB_CollOperatingModel 0.180
Coll Results ← SB_PeopleRewardDevelop 0.338
Coll Results ← SB_Values 0.273

Table A4. Structural Equation Model HPO→Collaboration Results.

Estimate S.E. C.R. p Label

Coll Results ← HPO_CI 0.296 0.052 5.693 ***
Coll Results ← HPO_OAO 0.010 0.065 0.155 0.877
Coll Results ← HPO_MQ 0.029 0.058 0.500 0.617
Coll Results ← HPO_EQ 0.393 0.059 6.690 ***
Coll Results ← HPO_LTO 0.182 0.048 3.825 ***
*** significant at the <0.05 level.

Table A5. Standardized regression weights for SEM model HPO-> Collaboration results

Standardized Regression Weights Estimate

Coll Results ← HPO_CI 0.257
Coll Results ← HPO_OAO 0.009
Coll Results ← HPO_MQ 0.027
Coll Results ← HPO_EQ 0.358
Coll Results ← HPO_LTO 0.148
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 17 of 21

Appendix C. Silo versus Non-Silo Group

Table A6. Details on the comparison between the silo group and non-silo group.

Group Statistics
Standard Standard Error
Silo N Mean
Deviation Mean
Continuous Silo company 248 5.9481 2.09332 0.13293
improvement Non-silo company 585 5.8380 1.71669 0.07098
Openness and action Silo company 248 6.5323 2.10366 0.13358
orientation Non-silo company 585 6.4276 1.76108 0.07281
Silo company 248 6.5329 2.13623 0.13565
Management quality
Non-silo company 585 6.6060 1.86974 0.07730
Silo company 248 6.3236 2.12796 0.13513
Employee quality
Non-silo company 585 6.3013 1.83208 0.07575
Silo company 248 6.8411 1.94051 0.12322
Long-term orientation
Non-silo company 585 6.8246 1.61175 0.06664
Silo company 248 6.0296 2.22650 0.14138
SB leadership
Non-silo company 585 5.9182 2.01484 0.08330
SB mutual Silo company 248 5.6424 2.05523 0.13051
understanding Non-silo company 585 5.2463 1.85594 0.07673
SB collobarative Silo company 234 5.2424 2.01732 0.13188
operating model Non-silo company 563 4.9322 1.83524 0.07735
SB people reward Silo company 248 5.5177 2.22123 0.14105
development Non-silo company 585 5.4226 1.90623 0.07881
Silo company 227 6.0870 2.32505 0.15432
SB values
Non-silo company 534 5.9986 2.07004 0.08958
Silo company 224 6.0625 2.29155 0.15311
QC
Non-silo company 530 6.0830 2.03455 0.08838
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 18 of 21

Table A7. Results of the Mann–Whitney tests on the difference between the silo and non-silo organizations.
Test Statistics a
Openness and
Continuous Management Employee Long-Term SB Mutual SB Collaborative SB People Reward
Action SB Leadership SB Values QC
Improvement Quality Quality Orientation Understanding Operating Model Development
Orientation
Mann–Whitney U 68,677,500 68,462,500 72,244,000 70,731,000 70,308,500 70,049,000 63,666,000 59,705,500 70,370,500 57,829,500 58,922,500
Wilcoxon W 240,082,500 239,867,500 103,120,000 242,136,000 241,713,500 241,454,000 235,071,000 218,471,500 241,775,500 200,674,500 199,637,500
Z −1.217 −1.285 −0.093 −0.570 −0.703 −0.785 −2.795 −2.083 −0.684 −1.002 −0.160
Asymptotic Significance (2-tailed) 0.224 0.199 0.926 0.569 0.482 0.432 0.005 0.037 0.494 0.316 0.873
a Grouping variable: Silo.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 19 of 21

References
1. Merriman, K.K.; Sen, S.; Felo, A.J.; Litzky, B.E. Employees and sustainability: The role of incentives. J. Manag.
Psychol. 2016, 31, 820–836. [CrossRef]
2. Smith, P.A.C.; Sharicz, C. The shift needed for sustainability. Learn. Organ. 2011, 18, 73–86. [CrossRef]
3. Rodríguez-Olalla, A.; Avilés-Palacios, C. Integrating Sustainability in Organisations: An Activity-Based
Sustainability Model. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1072. [CrossRef]
4. Smith, P.A.C. The importance of organizational learning for organizational sustainability. Learn. Organ. 2012,
19, 4–10. [CrossRef]
5. Cugueró-Escofet, N.; Ficapal-Cusí, P.; Torrent-Sellens, J. Sustainable Human Resource Management: How to
Create a Knowledge Sharing Behavior through Organizational Justice, Organizational Support, Satisfaction
and Commitment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5419. [CrossRef]
6. Van Grinsven, M.; Visser, M. Empowerment, knowledge conversion and dimensions of organizational
learning. Learn. Organ. 2011, 18, 378–391. [CrossRef]
7. Pourdehnad, J.; Smith, P.A.C. Sustainability, organizational learning, and lessons learned from aviation.
Learn. Organ. 2012, 19, 77–86. [CrossRef]
8. Rosen, E. Smashing Silos, Business Week. 5 February 2010. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2010-02-05/smashing-silos (accessed on 11 June 2017).
9. Diamond, M.A.; Allcorn, S. Private Selves in Public Organizations-The Psychodynamics of Organizational Diagnosis
and Change; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
10. Diamond, M.A.; Stein, H.F.; Allcorn, S. Organizational silos: Horizontal organizational fragmentation. J.
Psychoanal. Cult. Soc. 2002, 7, 280–296.
11. Cilliers, F.; Greyvenstein, H. The impact of silo mentality on team identity: An organisational case study. SA
J. Ind. Psychol. 2012, 38, 1–9. [CrossRef]
12. Gardner, H.K. Smart Collaboration, How Professionals and Their Firms Succeed by Breaking Silos; Harvard Business
Review Publishing: Boston, MA, USA, 2016.
13. Stone, F. Deconstructing silos and supporting collaboration. Employ. Relat. Today 2004, 31, 11–18. [CrossRef]
14. Kahn, K.B.; Mentzer, J.T. Logistics and interdepartmental integration. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
1996, 26, 6–14. [CrossRef]
15. De Waal, A.A. What Makes a High Performance Organization: Five Validated Factors Of Competitive Advantage
that Apply Worldwide; Global Professional Publishing: Enfield, CT, USA, 2012.
16. Fox, A. Don’t let silos stand in the way. HR Mag. 2010, 55, 50–51.
17. Pittinsky, T.L. Softening silos: The nuts and bolts of leading among difference. Lead. Lead. 2010, 57, 18–23.
[CrossRef]
18. Barber, F.; Goold, M. Collaboration Strategy, How to Get What You Want from Employees, Suppliers and Business
Partners; Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd.: London, UK, 2014.
19. Wallace, N.; Mello, J. Cultural Activation: The new workplace reality. Foresight Int. J. Appl. Forecast. 2015, 39,
31–35.
20. Haozhe, C.; Mattioda, D.D.; Daugherty, P.J. Firm-wide integration and firm performance. Int. J. Logist.
Manag. 2007, 18, 5–21.
21. Aaker, D.A. Marketing in a silo world: The new CMO challenge. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2008, 51, 144–156.
[CrossRef]
22. Hansen, M.T. Collaboration How Leaders Avoid the Traps, Create Unity, and Reap Big Results; Harvard Business
Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2009.
23. Keller Johnson, L. Silo busting from the top. Harv. Manag. Update 2006, 11, 3–5.
24. Scott, J.M.; Hawkins, P. Organisational silos: Affecting the discharge of elderly patients. J. Health Organ.
Manag. 2008, 22, 309–318. [CrossRef]
25. Sy, T.; D’Annunzio, L.S. Challenges and strategies of matrix organizations: Top-level and mid-level managers’
perspectives. Hum. Resour. Plan. 2005, 28, 39–47.
26. Willcock, D. Collaborating for Results, Silo Working and Relationships That Work; Gower Publishing: Farnham,
UK, 2014.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 20 of 21

27. Schütz, P.; Bloch, B. The “silo-virus”: Diagnosing and curing departmental groupthink. Team Perform. Manag.
Int. J. 2006, 12, 31–43. [CrossRef]
28. Van-Eerven Ludolf, N.; Do Carmo Silva, M.; Simões Gomes, C.F.; Oliveira, V.M. The organizational culture
and values alignment management importance for successful business. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017, 14,
272–280.
29. Anwar, M.; McCusker, A.; Perez, P. Understanding the Effect of Social Networks on Organisational
Success. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management &
Organizational Learning, Sydney, Australia, 6–7 November 2014; pp. 20–29.
30. Dervitsiotis, K.N. Guiding human organisations to climb the spiral stages of performance improvements.
Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2008, 19, 709–718. [CrossRef]
31. Dess, G.G.; Robinson, R.B., Jr. Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measures:
The Case of the Privately-held Firm and Conglomerate Business Unit. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 265–273.
[CrossRef]
32. Bommer, W.H.; Johnson, J.L.; Rich, G.A.; Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B. On the interchangeability of
objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 1995, 48,
587–606. [CrossRef]
33. Wall, T.D.; Michie, J.; Patterson, M.; Wood, S.J.; Sheehan, M.; Clegg, C.W.; West, M. On the validity of
subjective measures of company performance. Pers. Psychol. 2004, 57, 95–118. [CrossRef]
34. Vij, S.; Bedi, H.S. Are subjective business performance measures justified? Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag.
2016, 65, 603–621. [CrossRef]
35. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, 1998.
36. Milgrom, P.; Roberts, J. Complementaries and fit: Strategy, structure, and organizational change in
manufacturing. J. Account. Econ. 1995, 19, 179–208. [CrossRef]
37. De Waal, A.; Chachage, B. Applicability of the high-performance organization framework at an East African
university: The case of Iringa University College. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2011, 6, 148–167. [CrossRef]
38. De Waal, A.A.; Frijns, M. Longitudinal research into factors of high performance: The follow-up case of
Nabil Bank. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2011, 15, 4–19. [CrossRef]
39. De Waal, A.A.; Goedegebuure, R.V. Investigating the causal link between a management improvement
technique and organizational performance: The case of the HPO framework. Manag. Res. Rev. 2017, 40,
429–450. [CrossRef]
40. De Waal, A.; de Haas, J.I. Working on high performance in the Philippines: The case of NEH. Glob. Bus.
Organ. Excell. 2013, 32, 6–21. [CrossRef]
41. De Waal, A.; de Mooijman, E.; Ferment, M. From crisis to all-time high performance: Using the HPO
framework to improve customer relations at Ziggo. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2015, 34, 6–18. [CrossRef]
42. Schrage, M. Reward Your Best Teams, Not Just Star Players, Harvard Business Review Digital Articles. 30
June 2015, pp. 2–4. Available online: https://hbr.org/2015/06/reward-your-best-teams-not-just-star-players
(accessed on 11 June 2017).
43. Sik, A. Creativity in cross-domain collaborations: Searching factors to increase efficiency. Manag. Res. Rev.
2016, 39, 144–166. [CrossRef]
44. Lam, M.; O’Donnell, M.; Robertson, D. Achieving employee commitment for continuous improvement
initiatives. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2015, 35, 201–215. [CrossRef]
45. Muras, A.; Hovell, J. Continuous Improvement through Collaboration, Social Learning, and Knowledge
Management. J. Corp. Account. Financ. 2014, 25, 51–59. [CrossRef]
46. Labs, W. Tech tools to engage employees: New tools are available for processors wanting to connect their
workers, but to succeed, companies must have a business plan, transparent communications and a mindset
for continuous improvement. Food Eng. 2018, 90, 34–44.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6860 21 of 21

47. Unwin, S. Business, science, art and the mindset for excellence. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2005, 16,
1031–1040. [CrossRef]
48. Meiling, J.; Backlund, F.; Johnsson, H. Managing for continuous improvement in off-site
constructionEvaluation of lean management principles. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2012, 19, 141–158.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).