Change in Organizational Fields
Adaptation also occurs at the level of the organizational field through the collective actions of groups of organizations (some deliberate and some emergent and unwitting) -- Scott . 219.

Areal Fields
"A large literature has developed on community structures as interorganizational systems (see Galaskiewicz, 1985, for a review" (Scott p. 219). Different organizations in the community join forces for mutual growth. In these complex linkages between local and national organizations, "dominant and mobile actors participate less than nondominant, immobile ones" (in Scott p. 219) but still can have strong impacts. Often there are overlapping of personal and organizational ties, especially among top management.

Functional Fields
Organizations in a functional field can mobilize together in times of environmental crises. For example, the tobbacco industry formed to the Tobacco Industry Research Committee to combat the emergent link between smoking and cancer, through extensive lobbying and counter-studies (in Scott p. 220). The pharmaceutical industry is another successful example, the record industry is one where is hasn't been very successful.

There are different perspectives as to why diverse organizations join in these inter-organizational networks. Marxists emphasize that these networks help preserve class interests through personal connections with elite schools, boards, and social clubs (Domhoff, 1983). Others see these structures as ways for banks and powerful companies to maximize their control over the entire economy (Mintz and Schwartz, 1985).

Resource dependency theorists stress that organizations are "real" and have interests apart from the personal goals of those currently in power. They are coalitions of interests of many participants.

In the public service areas, one trend appears to be the "sectoralization" of certain industries (health care, energy, employment) into complex inter-organizational networks with varying degrees of goverment control (Scott p. 222). Initially these networks form for policy-making and then later become involved in collective implementation and monitoring.

One critique of these large public networks is that they tend to become controlled by the private interests of the more powerful players. The nation-state sometimes has the power and authority to coordinate the interests of both parties (such as in Japan or Sweden).